By Devanssh Mehta

New Focus and a New Begining!

Design — the outward appearance of a product — is a critical vector of value in a modern, consumption-led economy. Where invention (patents) protects functional contributions, design protection secures the visual and aesthetic differentiators that drive brand identity, user-experience, and market share. For an economy reorienting itself toward manufacturing, exports, and design-led services, the legal architecture that governs industrial designs will determine whether Indian industry can convert creativity into sustained commercial advantage. This essay examines the present legal framework for design protection in India, identifies structural and market-level drivers shaping demand for design rights, critiques existing frictions and enforcement gaps, and proposes a plausible road-map for reform spanning statutory, procedural, and ecosystem interventions. The analysis blends statutory reading with policy foresight and strategic recommendations.

Background — The Indian legal framework and recent changes

The protection of visual design in India is governed principally by the Designs Act, 2000 and the accompanying Designs Rules. The Act consolidated and modernized earlier statute law and set out the contours of registrable designs, the term of protection, grounds for invalidation, and procedural requirements. Under current practice in India, registration grants an initial term of protection of ten years from the date of registration, with a one-time extension of five years available on timely renewal — yielding a maximum protection horizon of fifteen years.

In the past half-decade the regulatory architecture for designs in India has seen targeted modernization. The Design (Amendment) Rules, 2021 implemented important procedural and classificatory updates — most notably India’s formal adoption of the Locarno Classification for industrial designs, aligning India with international classification norms and facilitating better searchability and comparability with global design filings.

At the same time the Indian Designs Office and the wider patent & designs administration have reported rapid growth in design filings and registrations, reflecting an escalating corporate and entrepreneurial interest in securing aesthetic rights. Official and independent summaries for recent fiscal periods record strong year-on-year increases in filings and registrations — a trend that both underscores the growing commercial salience of design and puts capacity pressures on administration and examination processes.

Why design matters now — economic and strategic drivers

1. Product differentiation in a crowded market. As Indian firms scale domestically and target export markets, visual distinctiveness becomes a primary tool of value capture. Design rights prevent cosmetic copying and protect the incremental margins that design confers.
2. Design as a component of ‘Make in India 2.0’. National initiatives seeking to deepen domestic value chains can only succeed if IP frameworks incentivize holistic product development — of which design is an indispensable element. Protecting appearance fosters investment in industrial design studios, design education, and employment in creative manufacturing.
3. Service and user-experience economies. Devices and products increasingly compete on the basis of experience, not merely utility. Industrial design rights therefore protect investments in user-centric aesthetics that influence adoption, ergonomics, and perceived quality.
4. Global supply chains and brand protection. For export-oriented SMEs, design registration in India often becomes the first step toward global design families and enforcement against imitation in foreign markets. A credible domestic system with coherent processes and enforceable remedies reduces transaction costs for Indian exporters.
5. Intersection with sustainability and circularity. Design choices hold environmental consequences (material use, reparability, recyclability). A forward-looking design regime can nudge sustainable aesthetics through policy incentives and expedited protection for eco-innovations that combine form and sustainable function.

Taken together, these drivers imply that design protection will not remain a niche area: it will be central to India’s industrial strategy. This growth in importance, however, exposes several legal and institutional frictions that must be addressed for design protection to realize its strategic potential.

Frictions and limitations in the current regime

1. Narrow scope and formalism. The Designs Act principally protects the “visual features” of shape, configuration, pattern, or ornamentation applied to an article. Courts have at times taken narrow approaches to “article” definition and the boundary between ornamentation and functional features. This can leave hybrid innovations—where form and function intertwine—poorly served. While the Act excludes “mere mechanical or functional features,” in practice the line is grey and contentious.
2. Publication and confidentiality mismatch. Under present rules designs are published on registration, which creates a tension for applicants who may wish to maintain confidentiality while pursuing commercialization strategies (e.g., in luxury goods or prototypes). Proposals to allow deferred publication or longer grace periods for certain disclosures have been floated internationally and have surfaced in Indian policy discussions. Recent commentary indicates an appetite to permit deferred publication windows and to standardize grace periods.
3. Limited enforcement tools and remedies. Design owners often confront resource constraints when enforcing rights, particularly against mass-market counterfeit goods. The absence of statutory remedies like robust statutory damages or streamlined ex-parte orders can make enforcement expensive and slow.
4. Administrative capacity and backlogs. Rapid increases in filings strain examination capacity and case-management systems. Timely examination, coherent office actions, and predictable pendency are prerequisites for commercial relevance; delays reduce the practical value of registration, especially for fast-moving consumer goods.
5. Awareness and draftsmanship. Many applicants file weak or non-strategic design applications (poor drawings, insufficient claim framing), undermining enforceability. This is an ecosystem problem — a gap in accessible, high-quality design counsel and design literacy among SMEs.
6. Fragmented incentives across IP regimes. Design protection is often decoupled from trademarks, copyright, and patents in enforcement strategy. Firms need integrated IP portfolios; siloed administration impedes such integrated strategies.

Recent policy signals and the short-term horizon

Policy consultations and practice notes from law firms and IP commentators in early 2026 indicate that lawmakers and practitioners are considering several reforms: introduction of a blanket 12-month grace period for disclosure, the possibility of deferred publication (e.g., deferral up to 30 months), and statutory enhancements to enforcement remedies such as clearer rules on statutory damages and expedited interim relief. These are not yet statutory changes across the board but are representative of the direction of debate — seeking to bring India’s design regime closer to international best practice while protecting domestic interests.

Operational signals — including the 2024–25 annual reporting from the Designs Office — reveal the scale of administrative activity and the need for digital process improvements and capacity expansion. The data shows record filings and a registry that must modernize to keep pace.

A strategic blueprint for the future (legal + institutional reforms)

To harness the strategic value of design, India must pursue a calibrated reform package covering statutory text, procedural systems, enforcement architecture, and ecosystem building. Below I outline pragmatic reforms, sequenced by priority and impact.

1. Statutory clarifications to broaden, not blur, the remit

• Refine the function-aesthetic boundary. Amend the Designs Act (or provide authoritative explanatory rules) to clarify how features that are both functional and aesthetic are assessed. A triage test — assessing whether an element’s aesthetic contribution is separable and whether alternative functional solutions exist — can reduce unnecessary invalidation litigation.
• Introduce a standard grace period. Move from ad-hoc exhibition exceptions to a clear, one-year grace period for all disclosures to protect designers who commercially debut work before filing. This enhances predictability for SMEs and design studios while remaining industry-friendly. (Policy commentary and proposals in 2026 show interest in universalizing grace periods.)
• Allow deferred publication on request. Permit applicants to defer publication for up to a prescribed period (e.g., 30 months), aligning with global patent deferment norms and protecting early-stage commercialization strategies — while guarding against abuse by coupling deferment with a show-cause standard and fee differentials.

2. Procedural modernization — speed, quality, and digitalization

• Fast-track lanes for design-driven sectors. Create an expedited examination track for sectors where design life is short (consumer electronics, fashion, FMCG). This should combine prioritized office resources with accelerated examinations and lower fees tied to speedy disposition.
• Digital drawings and machine-readable classification. Mandate higher-resolution, layered graphical submissions (vector formats) and improve backend indexing using Locarno codes (already adopted) to facilitate prior-art searches and automated classification. The 2021 rules adopting Locarno were a step forward; the next step is deeper digital integration.
• Quality-assured office actions. Standardize the form of objections and create examiner training modules on aesthetic assessment, comparative prior art reading, and cross-references to copyright and trademark records.

3. Enforcement and remedies — lowering the cost of rights protection

• Statutory interim relief and damages framework. Introduce clear statutory language allowing for expedited border measures, interlocutory relief where prima facie infringement is shown, and calibrated statutory damages that reflect commercial scale without encouraging serial litigation. Policymakers are already discussing statutory damages in the context of design reform.
• Specialized IP benches and ADR for design disputes. Encourage commercial courts and tribunals to develop specialized benches for design matters and incentivize mediation/arbitration to resolve cross-border counterfeit disputes quickly.

4. Ecosystem investments — design capability and access to counsel

• Design clinics and legal aid for SMEs. Establish public–private design clinics (in partnership with design schools) that provide pro-bono drafting, specimen preparation, and portfolio advice for micro, small, and medium enterprises.
• Capacity building for practitioners. Launch CPD modules for patent agents and trademark attorneys focusing on design drafting, image prosecution, and cross-IP strategy.
• Incentives for design R&D. Link certain design registration incentives (fee rebates or expedited processing) to sustainability criteria or to export-oriented MSMEs to nudge higher-value design investments.

5. International alignment and cross-border protection

• Design families and cooperation. Strengthen guidance for filing abroad (Hague system, where relevant) and negotiate bilateral recognition mechanisms that expedite enforcement for Indian design proprietors in priority export markets.
• Data disclosures for policy monitoring. The Designs Office should publish richer dashboards (by sector, region, applicant origin) to inform industrial policy and design education investments. Recent annual reporting already points to the need for better data analytics to guide policy.

Technological challenges and opportunities

1. AI and generative design. AI-assisted design tools are producing novel aesthetics at scale. The law must answer whether an AI-generated visual work has a human author for design registration purposes and how inventorship/ownership is determined if the design is generated collaboratively between human and machine. India should adopt policy that recognizes human direction as the basis for authorship while creating disclosure requirements for significant AI assistance.
2. 3D printing and mass customization. Additive manufacturing enables bespoke, small-batch production. Design registration practice should adapt to protect modular design families and permit deposit of parametric models that capture configurable aesthetics.
3. Digital marketplaces and evidence collection. Enforcement relies on evidence of copying and distribution. Invest in digital forensic capabilities and partnerships with e-commerce platforms to rapidly identify infringing listings and enable takedown and evidence preservation.

Institutional capacity — scaling the Designs Office

Modernizing the Designs Office requires investments in human capital, IT, and process design. Practical steps:

• Recruit and train design examiners with cross-disciplinary backgrounds (industrial design + IP law).
• Automate prior-art checks using image-similarity search tools (computer vision) to flag potential collisions and reduce manual search time.
• Introduce KPIs focused on pendency, first-action speed, and appeal disposition to ensure accountability.

These measures will reduce pendency, increase reliability of registrations, and thereby increase the commercial utility of design protection.

Socio-economic and ethical considerations

Design law reform should be normatively anchored. Three ethical guardrails:

1. Access for small creators. Reforms must not privilege deep-pocketed corporations at the expense of individual designers. Fee structures, legal-aid mechanisms, and simplified forms can democratize access.
2. Sustainability alignment. Use incentives and fast-track benefits for designs that demonstrably reduce environmental harm or increase reparability.
3. Cultural heritage protection. Ensure the regime prevents misappropriation of traditional and community designs. Special protections for geographical or cultural artefacts can prevent commercial exploitation of traditional motifs without community consent.

Implementation roadmap — sequenced, practical steps

Short term (0–12 months)

• Issue a policy consultation paper on grace periods and deferred publication.
• Upgrade online filing to support vector art and better Locarno tagging (leveraging the 2021 Rule changes).

Medium term (12–36 months)

• Draft and introduce targeted amendments to the Designs Act clarifying functional-aesthetic thresholds and enabling deferred publication.
• Pilot an expedited fast-track lane and a design-specific mediation cell within the IP office.

Long term (3–5 years)

• Roll out AI-assisted prior art tools and image-similarity search.
• Amend enforcement statutes to provide calibrated statutory remedies and international enforcement cooperation frameworks.

Case studies — lessons from practice

While India forges its path, comparative lessons are important:

• EU/UK approaches emphasize a balance between limited protection (shorter terms where appropriate) and strong enforcement via customs measures.
• Japan and Korea combine rapid examination for designs with generous industry-level support for design education — an industrial policy complement that India would do well to emulate in creating design clusters.

Bringing these lessons into the Indian context requires tailoring: protecting nascent MSMEs, embedding sustainability criteria, and building judicial competence for aesthetic disputes.

Conclusion — design as a strategic lever for India

Design protection is no longer a marginal legal tool. It is central to brand-led manufacturing, export competitiveness, and the creation of good jobs in creative and manufacturing ecosystems. India has made important progress — procedural modernization (Locarno adoption), rising registration volumes, and a more active Designs Office are positive indicators. Yet the true potential will be realized only when statutory clarity, digital modernization, enforcement efficacy, and ecosystem support cohere into a predictable, accessible, and pro-innovation regime.

A pragmatic reform package — clarifying the function-form boundary, introducing a uniform grace period, enabling deferred publication, strengthening remedies, digitizing examination, and funding design capability building — would transform design law from a defensive instrument into a proactive industrial policy lever. By designing law that empowers designers, protects SMEs, and supports sustainable aesthetics, India can convert its creative energies into durable economic advantage. The future of design patents in India is therefore not merely a technical legal question; it is an industrial strategy choice — one that demands urgency, clarity, and an inclusive policy architecture.

---

Selected sources and further reading

(Authoritative items consulted for the factual claims above.)

• Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks — FAQ and Designs guidance.
• World Intellectual Property Organization — India: Designs (Amendment) Rules, 2021.
• Annual reporting and analysis of design filings (2024–25): Office of the Controller General and independent summaries.
• Policy commentary on proposed reforms and modernisation of design law.