How to Test Whether an AI-Assisted Design Can Be Registered in India

A client arrives with an image a model produced and asks whether it can be registered. Whether an AI-assisted design is registrable under the Designs Act, 2000 is not answered by anything the Act says about AI, because it says nothing. It is answered by working through definitions written in 2000 and seeing which of them the output can satisfy.

Step 1: Find the Article Before Looking at the Image

Clause (a) of section 2 defines an article as any article of manufacture and any substance, artificial or partly artificial and partly natural, including any part of an article capable of being made and sold separately. A design is protected as something applied to such an article.

So the first question is not about the image at all. An output sitting in a file is not yet a design; it becomes one when it is applied to an article by an industrial process or means. Where a client has generated a pattern with no article in contemplation, there is nothing to register yet, and saying so early saves a filing fee.

Step 2: Check It Is a Design and Not Something Excluded

Clause (d) of section 2 confines a design to the features of shape, configuration, pattern, ornament or composition of lines or colours applied to an article, in two or three dimensions or both, which in the finished article appeal to and are judged solely by the eye. It then excludes any mode or principle of construction, anything which is in substance a mere mechanical device, a trade mark, a property mark, and an artistic work within the meaning of the Copyright Act, 1957.

Two of those exclusions do real work on model output. The mere mechanical device exclusion catches output that is in substance a functional solution dressed as an appearance. The artistic work exclusion matters because an image generated as an image, rather than as the appearance of an article, may be an artistic work, and the exclusion means design registration is not the route for it.

Step 3: Identify the Author, Because the Act Turns on One

Clause (g) of section 2 defines original, in relation to a design, as originating from the author of such design, and includes designs old in themselves but new in their application. Everything in the registrability analysis runs through that word.

Section 2 defines article, Controller, copyright, design, High Court, legal representative, original, Patent Office, prescribed and proprietor of a new or original design. It does not define author. The word appears only inside the definitions of original and of proprietor. So the Act requires a design to originate from an author it never describes, and that gap is exactly where an AI-assisted design has to be tested. The point appears to be undecided in India, and an opinion that treats it as settled either way is overstating the position.

Step 4: Work Out Who the Proprietor Would Be

Clause (j) of section 2 gives three limbs. Where the author executes the design for another person for good consideration, the proprietor is the person for whom it was executed. Where a person acquires the design, or the right to apply it, the proprietor is that person to the extent of what was acquired. In any other case the proprietor is the author.

For output produced through a vendor's system, the acquisition limb is usually the more comfortable route, because it turns on an acquisition that can be evidenced by contract rather than on identifying a human author of the output. That makes the vendor's terms a registrability document and not merely a commercial one, and they should be read before the application is drafted.

Step 5: Record the Human Contribution While It Still Exists

Whatever view is ultimately taken of authorship, the facts that would support a human author are contemporaneous and perishable: what was specified, what was selected from what was offered, what was altered and what was rejected, by whom and when.

None of that survives in a file of final outputs. A short record kept as the work proceeds costs very little and is the only material that would be available if the question is ever examined.

Step 6: Test Novelty and Prior Disclosure Under Section 4

Section 4 prohibits registration of a design which is not new or original; which has been disclosed to the public anywhere in India or in any other country by publication in tangible form, by use, or in any other way, prior to the filing date or the priority date; which is not significantly distinguishable from known designs or combinations of known designs; or which comprises or contains scandalous or obscene matter.

The disclosure limb deserves particular attention in an AI workflow. Outputs are routinely generated inside a platform, shared in a team channel, posted while a decision is being made about them, or published by the platform itself. Whether any of that amounts to disclosure to the public in any other way is a question of fact, and it is a question better asked before the filing than after a cancellation petition.

Step 7: Decide Between the Two Regimes Before Filing

If the output is in substance an artistic work, clause (d) of section 2 puts it outside the design regime, and the client's protection lies elsewhere. If it is the appearance of an article, the design route is available subject to the rest of the analysis.

Making that choice explicitly, and recording the reason, is the difference between an advised filing and a hopeful one. Both regimes have their own authorship questions where AI is involved, so the choice should not be made on the assumption that one of them avoids the problem.

Common Pitfalls to Avoid

• Treating the image as the design: A design is features applied to an article, so an output with no article in contemplation is not yet registrable subject matter.

• Missing the mere mechanical device exclusion: Output that is in substance a functional solution is excluded however it looks.

• Assuming the authorship question is settled: Section 2 does not define author, and the point appears to be undecided in India.

• Leaving the vendor's terms unread: The acquisition limb of the proprietor definition depends on them, which makes them part of the registrability analysis.

• Keeping only the final outputs: What was specified, selected, altered and rejected is the material that would support a human author, and it is lost by default.

• Overlooking platform disclosure: Prior disclosure under section 4 extends to publication in tangible form, use or any other way, anywhere.

Key Statutory Provisions

• Section 2 of the Designs Act, 2000: Definitions. Clause (a) defines article as any article of manufacture and any substance, artificial or partly artificial and partly natural, including any part of an article capable of being made and sold separately. Clause (d) confines design to the features of shape, configuration, pattern, ornament or composition of lines or colours applied to an article, judged solely by the eye, and excludes any mode or principle of construction, anything in substance a mere mechanical device, a trade mark, a property mark and an artistic work under the Copyright Act, 1957. Clause (g) defines original as originating from the author of such design, including designs old in themselves but new in their application. Clause (j) defines the proprietor of a new or original design through three limbs: the person for whom the design is executed for good consideration, the person who acquires the design or the right to apply it to the extent acquired, and otherwise the author. The section does not define author.

• Section 4 of the Designs Act, 2000: Prohibition of registration of certain designs. Registration is prohibited for a design which is not new or original, which has been disclosed to the public anywhere in India or in any other country by publication in tangible form or by use or in any other way prior to the filing date or the priority date, which is not significantly distinguishable from known designs or combinations of known designs, or which comprises or contains scandalous or obscene matter.

Sources and References

• Sections 2 to 4 of the Designs Act, 2000, at the issuing authority

• The Act as published by the same office, with the text of section 4

• Designs Act, 2000, sections 2 and 4

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult a qualified legal professional for advice specific to their circumstances.