The Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) released a Concept Note in January 2026 proposing significant amendments to the Designs Act, 2000, with the objective of modernizing India’s design protection regime. The proposals aim to address technological developments such as virtual and digital designs, improve procedural flexibility, and harmonize Indian law with international frameworks including the Riyadh Design Law Treaty (DLT) and the Hague Agreement.
Broadly, the reforms seek to expand the scope of protectable subject matter, simplify filing and enforcement mechanisms, and align Indian practice with global standards to support innovation and international trade.
The following table provides a comparative overview of key proposed amendments vis-à-vis the existing provisions under the Designs Act, 2000 and related laws.
| Proposal | Existing Provision | Proposed Change |
|---|---|---|
| Virtual Designs Protection | Section 2(a) defines “article” as “any article of manufacture and any substance, artificial, or partly artificial and partly natural; and includes any part of an article capable of being made and sold separately.” Section 2(d) defines “design” as “only the features of shape, configuration, pattern, ornament or composition of lines or colours applied to any article… but does not include… any artistic work as defined in clause (c) of section 2 of the Copyright Act, 1957.” These definitions are tied to physical embodiments, creating uncertainty for non-physical designs like GUIs or icons. | The Concept Note proposes expanding the definitions of “article” and “design” to expressly include virtual and digital designs, including GUIs, icons, animations, transitions, and immersive digital elements. The reform aims to decouple design protection from purely physical products and extend enforcement provisions accordingly. |
| Design-Copyright Interface | The Designs Act excludes artistic works under the Copyright Act (Section 2(d)). However, Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957, states that copyright in registrable designs ceases if applied industrially more than 50 times without registration under the Designs Act. This creates a gap for unregistered but registrable designs. | The proposal contemplates balancing the interface between the two laws by providing a limited copyright protection period (e.g., 15 years) for registrable but unregistered designs, thereby reducing piracy risks while preventing perpetual copyright monopolies. |
| Full Grace Period | Section 4(b) bars registration where a design has been disclosed prior to filing, subject only to limited exceptions such as disclosures at government-notified exhibitions with prior intimation to the Controller. | A full 12-month grace period is proposed, allowing disclosure prior to filing without loss of novelty. This aligns with DLT standards and supports modern commercial practices such as digital marketing, and pre-launch promotion etc. |
| Deferment of Publication | Section 7 requires publication soon after registration, making designs immediately available for public inspection. | Applicants may be permitted to defer publication for up to 30 months from the filing or priority date, enabling confidential commercialization strategies and aligning with international systems such as the Hague framework. |
| Statutory Damages | Section 22 outlines remedies for infringement (piracy), including penalties up to ₹25,000 per contravention (max ₹50,000 per design) or damages/injunction via civil suit. No statutory damages; proving actual damages is challenging, and no criminal remedies. | The proposal contemplates introducing statutory damages, particularly for willful infringement, to strengthen deterrence and simplify enforcement where actual damages are difficult to quantify. |
| Term of Protection | Section 11 grants copyright for 10 years from registration, extendable by 5 years (total 15 years) upon application and fee payment. | A revised “5 + 5 + 5” structure is proposed to allow staged renewals, providing flexibility to design owners and aligning with Hague Agreement practices. |
| Multiple Designs in Single Application | Separate applications are typically required for design variants, even within the same class. | Filing multiple designs in a single application (within the same class) is proposed to reduce administrative burden and filing costs, consistent with international filing systems. |
| Division of Applications | There is no provision in the Design Act for filing divisional application | Introduce general divisional applications to split pending ones (e.g., for distinct designs or to address objections), per Article 9 of the DLT, avoiding delays from invalid portions. |
| Chapter on International Registrations under Hague Agreement | While Section 44 allows reciprocity with convention countries, there is no comprehensive framework for Hague-based international registration. | A dedicated chapter is proposed to facilitate international design filings through the Hague system, enabling multi-jurisdictional protection through a single WIPO filing. |
| Accession to Riyadh Design Law Treaty (DLT) | No relief for missed deadlines or priority restoration. | Proposed amendments include provisions for time-limit relief, reinstatement of lost rights, and correction or restoration of priority claims, consistent with DLT requirements. |
These proposals are part of a broader effort to boost India’s design ecosystem, with stakeholder comments invited until February 22, 2026. The full Concept Note provides additional context on rationale and international benchmarks. If enacted, these changes could significantly enhance protection for digital innovations while reducing administrative burdens.
