Protecting UI and UX is far from straightforward. Excel V. Dyquiangco unpacks how different IP regimes safeguard digital interfaces in different ways, with distinct strengths and limits.

The seamless swipe of a mobile app, the intuitive layout of a dashboard, or the satisfying animation of a completed action are all part of a carefully crafted user interface (UI) and user experience (UX). These elements are not merely aesthetic; they are strategic assets. As a result, businesses are increasingly asking: Can UI and UX be legally protected?

The answer is yes – but with important caveats. Legal protection for UI/UX sits at the intersection of multiple intellectual property regimes, primarily trade dress, copyright and design protection. Each offers a different lens through which these digital elements can be safeguarded, and each comes with its own scope and limitations.

According to Sheng Rong Tng, deputy head of intellectual property at Rajah & Tann in Singapore, in practical terms, registered design protection often represents the most effective primary tool because it directly targets the ornamental appearance of interfaces, offers defensive rights against independent creation, and does not require demonstration of acquired distinctiveness. Copyright and trade dress then serve complementary roles – copyright protects against direct copying of specific expressive elements, and trade dress can safeguard interfaces that have developed strong marketplace recognition as source identifiers.

“The Registered Designs Act 2000 protects features of shape, configuration, colours, pattern or ornament applied to articles and, since the 2017 amendments, also to ‘non-physical products’ such as screen displays,” he said. “The Intellectual Property Office of Singapore has issued practice directions confirming that graphical user interfaces (GUIs), including animated and dynamic GUIs, can be registered as designs. This provides a 15-year monopoly right enforceable against independently created but substantially similar designs, without requiring proof of copying.”

He added: “Copyright arises automatically in original artistic works and computer programs without the need for registration. However, copyright only protects the expression, not the underlying ideas or functional concepts. Trade dress, meanwhile, is appropriately protected through the tort of passing off or registration as a trademark. This can protect the overall ‘look and feel’ of a UI where that appearance has become distinctive of the proprietor’s goods or services. However, the threshold for establishing trade dress protection is notably high. Singapore courts have held that a plaintiff asserting goodwill in get-up must demonstrate that the relevant segment of the public recognizes the visual features as an indicator of trade origin rather than merely appreciating them aesthetically. Further, Section 7(3) of the Trademarks Act excludes from registration shapes that result from the nature of the goods themselves, are necessary to achieve a technical result, or give substantial value to the goods. These exceptions could apply to functional interface elements.”

In India, the protection of UI/UX – particularly GUIs – has seen significant evolution through judicial and policy developments. There have been two major developments as far as the protection of the GUI is concerned.

“Traditionally, copyright law has been the effective regime as it protects original visual elements of a GUI (such as icons, layouts and graphics) as ‘artistic works,’” said Omesh Puri, a partner at Anand and Anand in Noida. “However, a major shift has occurred with the recent decision of the Calcutta High Court in NEC Corporation v. Controller of Patents and Designs (March 9, 2026). The court clarified that GUIs are not per se excluded under the Designs Act, 2000 and may qualify as registrable designs if they satisfy the requirement of visual appeal and are capable of being applied to an article (such as a display screen or device). The court also recognized that lack of permanence and the presence of functional elements do not automatically bar protection so long as the aesthetic features are identifiable.”

Further, the Government of India’s recent Concept Note proposing amendments to the Designs Act signals a forward-looking approach. “It proposes extending protection to virtual and non-physical designs, including animations, transitions and digital interfaces, even when not tied to a physical article. Considering these developments, design law is emerging as a strong statutory legislation to protect GUI, with trade dress playing a limited role where distinctiveness is established,” he said.

In Singapore and India

In copyright disputes, Singapore courts apply the idea-expression dichotomy – protection extends only to the form of expression and not to underlying ideas, concepts, methods or principles of operation. The Court of Appeal in Asia Pacific Publishing v. Pioneers & Leaders (Publishers), for instance, opined that the relevant question is whether the defendant has copied the “form of expression” rather than merely utilized the same idea expressed in a different form.

“Where the expression of an idea is so closely intertwined with the functional requirements that there is effectively only one or very few ways of expressing it, this may preclude protection altogether,” said Tng.

For passing off claims, Singapore courts have clearly articulated that the tort protects goodwill generated through indicia of trade origin, not product design for its aesthetic or functional value. For example, in Singsung v. LG 26 Electronics, the High Court stated that “the aesthetic or functional value of a product design is not the concern of passing off” and that “regardless of the effort and skill put into coming up with the design feature, the said feature does not automatically become an indicator of trade origin.”

“The design feature must interact with the customer in such a way that it provides an indicator of origin – a higher threshold than mere aesthetic appeal,” said Tng.

The courts have also expressed concern about encroachment into areas properly within the purview of other intellectual property regimes. As noted in Singsung, the tort of passing off is “exclusively concerned with protecting goodwill generated through the use of indicia of trade origin” and is “not concerned with protecting product design for its aesthetic or functional value. If this were not so, the tort of passing off would be encroaching into areas that are within the purview of industrial design law,” said Tng.

In the trademarks context, Section 7(3) of the Trademarks Act provides absolute bars against registration of signs consisting exclusively of shapes resulting from the nature of the goods themselves, necessary to obtain a technical result, or giving substantial value to the goods. “The Court of Appeal in Société des Produits Nestlé v. Petra Foods applied the European Court of Justice’s guidance from Lego Juris, confirming that: (a) the technical result exception applies even where alternative shapes could achieve the same result; (b) the essential characteristics of the shape must be identified on a case-by-case basis; and (c) all essential characteristics must be assessed to determine whether they serve a technical function,” added Tng.

On the other hand, while acknowledging that both functional utility and aesthetic appeal may coexist within a single interface, Indian courts address this balance by establishing a distinct doctrinal boundary between the two.

Mudit Kaushik, managing associate at Anand and Anand in Noida, gave an example: the NEC Corporation v. Controller of Patents and Designs. “The Calcutta High Court made it clear that a GUI’s functionality does not automatically preclude it from protection. Whether the visual elements, such as composition, iconography or layout, contain aesthetic components that are not only determined by function and may be assessed based on their aesthetic appeal is the crucial question,” he said.

He continued: “Additionally, the court made it clear that a GUI’s functional role must be separated from its aesthetic appeal, and protection is only denied in situations where function completely dictates the design and leaves no opportunity for aesthetic diversity. This stance aligns with the Supreme Court’s methodology in Cryogas Equipment v. Inox India, where the court emphasized a methodical investigation to ascertain whether a work is protected as a design. To determine whether the work’s primary purpose is functional or aesthetic, the analysis entails evaluating the work’s nature and using the functional utility test.”

“In total, Indian courts implement a case-specific inquiry that enables the safeguarding of visual expression that is integrated into functional systems, while simultaneously guaranteeing that the protection does not encompass standard, essential or solely utilitarian interface features,” he said.

Distinctiveness and non-functionality

Despite the availability of legal tools, protecting UI and UX in practice is far from straightforward. One of the primary challenges lies in establishing distinctiveness, which requires that the relevant public perceives the design features as indicators of trade origin rather than as merely aesthetic or functional attributes, said Tng.

“Consumers should look at a particular interface arrangement and associate it specifically with a brand or provider, rather than simply looking at it as an attractive or efficient design which is generally associated with the type of function involved,” he said.

He noted that the public does not typically make assumptions or associations about the origin of products based on their visual appearance alone, absent any graphic or word element. “This is particularly so for UI/UX elements, which users encounter primarily in a functional context (navigating an app to accomplish a task),” he said.

To establish this, there would need to be persuasive evidence of:

• Consumer surveys demonstrating source association
• Evidence of extensive, exclusive use over a substantial period
• Advertising expenditure specifically promoting the get-up as a source identifier
• Evidence that competitors have deliberately adopted the distinctive elements to trade on the plaintiff’s reputation

Tng said that this is similarly applicable when it comes to proving non-functionality. “Under the Registered Designs Act, features of shape or configuration that are ‘dictated solely by the function which the article has to perform’ are excluded from protection. Similarly, the Trademarks Act bars registration of shapes necessary to obtain a technical result,” he said.

“For UI/UX elements, many design choices serve functional purposes, such as facilitating navigation, displaying information efficiently, reducing cognitive load, or conforming to platform guidelines,” he explained. “The test is whether the essential characteristics of the design are dictated by technical requirements. A shape may be considered necessary to achieve a technical result even where alternative shapes could theoretically achieve the same result, particularly where the challenged solution represents the ‘technically preferable’ approach.”

“The practical difficulty is that skilled UI/UX design often involves the integration of both form and function,” he noted. “Fundamentally, it may be challenging to show that a particular visual treatment was chosen for purely ornamental reasons, divorced from any usability considerations, as this may conflict with the fundamental principles of good interface design.”

In India, the primary challenge in protecting UI/UX lies in separating aesthetic expression from functionality. “Most user interfaces are designed with usability, efficiency and user expectations in mind, making it difficult to argue that specific elements are purely ornamental rather than functional,” said Puri.

“From a design law perspective, applicants must demonstrate that the feature is ‘judged solely by the eye,’” he explained. “However, elements such as navigation bars, buttons, or layouts are often considered industry standard or dictated by function, leading to objections on the grounds of functionality. Even in the NEC decision, while the court adopted a liberal interpretation, it maintained that only the aesthetic aspects of a GUI are protectable.”

“For distinctiveness (trade dress or passing off), the challenge is even greater,” he added. 

“UI/UX designs evolve rapidly, and companies frequently update interfaces, making it difficult to establish a consistent and long-standing consumer association. Additionally, users typically do not perceive interface design alone as a source identifier unless it is highly distinctive and widely recognised. Evidentiary burdens such as proving originality, prior use, and reputation further complicate enforcement. Overall, the key difficulty lies in demonstrating that a design choice was creative and not merely functional or inevitable.” 

Adopting solutions or resolutions in interface

With these challenges, Tng said that designs and tech companies should adopt a multi-layered intellectual property strategy. Rather than relying on a single regime, companies should pursue complementary protections:

• Register designs for distinctive visual interface elements early, before public disclosure. Consider filing applications covering multiple views and variations of animated or dynamic interfaces.
• Register trademarks for distinctive icons, logos, or animated elements that function as source identifiers, building a portfolio of registered rights that can be enforced without proving reputation.
• Ensure that copyright ownership is properly assigned from any third-party designers, developers, or contractors through written assignments, as copyright may not automatically transfer upon commission of work.
• Implement contractual protections in employment and consultancy agreements to ensure the company owns all relevant intellectual property created during engagement.

For Kaushik, designers and technology businesses in India should take a disciplined, evidence-based approach to protecting UI/UX designs.

“Instead of focusing on abstract interface principles, protection tactics should emphasize easily recognizable visual elements like composition, iconography and layout,” he said. “The relevant product, such as a display screen, should be precisely identified in design submissions, and protectable portions should be isolated, including through partial claims as necessary.”

“To convey the overall visual impression of the interface, businesses should submit design applications before publication and include several screen states or variations. To prove independent creation and respond to functional objections, it’s critical to keep accurate records of design development. Businesses should concentrate on unique visual combinations, backed by a coordinated approach across design law, copyright law, and passing off, rather than claiming rights over common UI principles,” he suggested.