LEGAL PROTECTION OF USER INTERFACE AND USER EXPERIENCE DESIGN: COMPARING TRADE DRESS, COPYRIGHT, AND DESIGN PROTECTION

Soumya Juneja
21 hours ago
7 min read

INTRODUCTION

Every company needs an online presence and a platform to advertise their achievements and what they can offer to their target audience. This is done through a personalised website that has the UI/UX design that represents the ethics and work culture of the Company. The software’s UI/UX is its soul, it’s what makes the product intuitive, memorable, and successful. “UX Design” known as “User Experience Design” studies how the users interact with a specific service or product and thus, it helps in building a UX experience that interacts well with the users. “UI” stands for “User Interface” and it deals mainly with the visual and/or display related elements of a website i.e., icons, buttons, screens and so on.^[1]

When after spending days understanding users, refining pixels, choosing fonts, crafting animations, and building an appropriate platform, a UX/UI designer comes across a similar website or application, what statutory rights does that person have and how can they protect their original work? In the fast-moving world of software development, imitation is rampant. But when does "inspiration" cross the line into infringement? And more importantly, what can a person do to protect their most valuable digital asset i.e., the software’s unique look and feel? This article will navigate one’s rights over UI/UX design through Intellectual Property like, Trademark, Copyright and Design.

THE "LOOK AND FEEL" PROBLEM: WHAT CAN BE ACTUALLY PROTECTED?

1. Trade Dress and Brand Identity

For UI/UX, the most relevant concept is trade dress, which is a type of trademark that protects the total image and overall appearance of a product. Think of the iconic shape of a Coca-Cola bottle or the "UPS brown" colour. That's a trade dress. However, it is pertinent to note that the Trade Marks Act, 1999, does not explicitly define the term ‘trade dress’ like it is defined in the Lanham Act. Although, under Trade Marks Act, 1999, it is interpreted through Sections 2(zb) Trade Marks Act, 1999 (defines a trade mark), 2(m) (defines a mark) and 2(q) (defines package). These Sections together somewhat explain the meaning of a trade dress.^[2] Further, the definition of ‘trade dress’ can also be interpreted through various judicial precedents such as Colgate Palmolive Co. v. Anchor Health and Beauty Care. The Court in this case held that “trade dress is the soul for identification of the goods as to its source and origin and as such is liable to cause confusion in the minds of unwary customers, particularly those who have been using the product over a long period. In other words, if the first glance of the article without going into the minute details of the colour combination, getup or lay out appearing on the container and packaging gives the impression as to deceptive or near similarities in respect of these ingredients, it is a case of confusion and amounts to passing off one’s own goods as those of the other with a view to encash upon the goodwill and reputation of the latter”.^[3]

Trade dress protection safeguards both the manufacturers and the market’s interests by helping consumers easily recognize a product through its distinctive look. To prove that a trade dress exists, one must prove all the elements that constitute a trade dress, and these elements must be i) unique, ii) non-functional and iii) distinctive. In the same way, the UX/UI design of a webpage can be protected through the trade dress. In software, trade dress could theoretically protect the holistic "look and feel" of the UI, i.e., the unique combination of colours, shapes, layouts, and icon styles that users instantly associate with the brand.

2. Copyright: Protecting ‘Art’ and the ‘Code’

Copyright Act, 1957 defines artistic work and literary work under Sections 2(c) and 2(o) respectively, wherein the former includes visual expressions, and the latter includes computer programs. In context to the article, the software code is the literary work and the UI/UX is the artistic work. This means that a software’s code and specific elements of its user interface are automatically protected under the Act, much like the exact words of a novel or the visual design of a painting, while the underlying ideas or general concepts are not covered. For the software’s design to qualify for Copyright protection, it must prove ‘originality’ i.e., some level of creativity, visual expressions and uniqueness must be showcased. However, it is imperative to understand that Copyright protection for UI/UX design is less favourable as it only protects a specific design or a distinctive arrangement. For instance, Copyright could protect the idiosyncrasies of a design of a video game’s main menu, including the precise and discreet graphics and button styles, but it would not protect the general idea of having a menu that lets players select “Start,” “Options,” or “Exit.”

Copyright law in this aspect has notable limitations, as it only applies to an alleged infringer if they have copied a sizable and fundamental portion of the UI/UX design. Thus, its scope is narrow as it cannot protect the functional aspects of a software. This brings the idea-expression dichotomy into play. In software, the term idea can cover many elements such as algorithms, data structures, or fundamental features. For instance, the algorithm that sorts a list of numbers is an idea. The actual code that implements this method is the expression of the idea. Since there are many possible ways to write code that performs the same function, it is those specific implementations that copyright protects. This means others are free to create their own versions of the algorithm without violating copyright, encouraging innovation and healthy competition.^[4]

A noteworthy case from the United States i.e., Lotus Development Corp. v. Borland International^[5]explained such copyright protection. The issue at hand in this case was whether the computer program’s menu hierarchy is a copyrightable piece of work or not. The program in question: Lotus 1-2-3.Â , incorporated 469 menu commands, and the Court observed that these commands provide a means by which the users operate the functional capabilities of the software. It was held that menu hierarchy cannot be copyrighted, as the commands were a standard operational/functional element, and not unique to Lotus 1-2-3.Â. The Court further compared the menu to operating a VCR without buttons, demonstrating that Copyright protection does not apply to such functional command hierarchies.

3. Design Protection

In India, designs are protected under the Designs Act, 2000. Design law protects the ‘look and feel’ of a product/service. Section 2(d) of the Act defines design as “the features of shape, configuration, pattern, ornament or composition of lines or colours applied to any article whether in two dimensional or three dimensional or in both forms, by any industrial process or means, whether manual, mechanical or chemical, separate or combined, which in the finished article appeal to and are judged solely by the eye; but does not include any mode or principle of construction or anything which is in substance a mere mechanical device, and does not include any trade mark”. It protects the way a thing looks, for instance, the pattern, shape, form, etc. However, it only protects the visual aesthetics and not the functionality aspect of the product i.e. a software code. For a design to be protected under the said Act, it must be original and novel and should have a visual appeal instead of a functional one that must be visible in the finished product.^[6]

The primary and most relevant case that discusses design in India is the UST Global (Singapore) Pte Ltd v The Controller of Patents and Designs and Anr^[7]. In this case, UTS Global filed for registration of a design titled “Touch Screen” for a novel surface ornamentation which is a Graphical User Interface (GUI). GUI is a type of UI that focuses on graphical elements. The Controller rejected this application because it did not qualify as an ‘article of manufacture’ under Section 2(a) of the Act which defines an “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’. It was further held that GUI lacked ‘consistent eye appeal’ and could not be regarded as a manufactured article because it is visible when the device is activated or switched on. Resultantly, the Controller rejected the Application and declared that GUIs cannot be registered. UST later appealed this order in the High Court wherein the Court held that “icons, consisting of a design to be applied on a display panel for an electronic timepiece, were registrable”. This is the only Indian judgment that acknowledges the right of registrability of such designs and has set a precedent for future cases as well.

CONCLUSION

In India, the law is not robust when it comes to protection of a UI/UX design under the applicable Intellectual Property Laws. The protection of software and UI/UX design within the intellectual-property framework cannot be reduced to selecting a single doctrinal vehicle. As outlined in this article, different IP regimes address distinct dimensions of innovation, and a layered strategy is typically required to achieve comprehensive protection.

Copyright affords immediate, automatic protection to the literal expression of software, its source code, and to the specific expressive elements of UI/UX design. However, Copyright’s scope is inherently limited: it does not extend to ideas, functional concepts, or UX flows, nor does it prevent competitors from developing functionally equivalent software or interfaces using different expressive forms.

Designs fill part of this gap by protecting the ornamental, non-functional visual aspects of a user interface or digital product. The Design law can cover the distinctive appearance of icons, screen layouts, animations, or the overall aesthetic configuration as long as the design is novel, nonobvious, and primarily ornamental. Compared to Copyright, Designs confer stronger exclusionary rights, including protection against independently created but substantially similar designs.

Trade dress, by contrast, protects the total image and overall commercial impression of a product or interface when that appearance has acquired distinctiveness and serves as a source identifier. In the context of software and digital products, trade dress may encompass the arrangement of visual elements, and the coherent “look and feel” that users associate with a particular developer or platform.

The most effective protection strategy thus involves a multilayered IP approach. Collectively, these mechanisms enable brands to preserve product differentiation, deter free riding, and more fully appropriate the value of their creative and technological contributions in an increasingly competitive digital marketplace.