The 48th session of the WIPO Standing Committee on the Law of Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications (SCT) is considering two submissions from various delegations on Graphical User Interfaces (GUIs). A recent Knowledge Ecology International post authored by Thiru highlighted the key details from WIPO discussions on GUIs, and can be read at this link, or below:
SCT 48 – Highlights from WIPO discussions on graphical user interfaces
Posted on March 26, 2025 by Thiru
As mentioned in a previous blog, Under the topic of industrial designs, the 48th session of the WIPO Standing Committee on the Law of Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications (SCT) is considering two submissions. The first submission is an updated proposal (SCT/44/6 Rev.4) on a Joint Recommendation for Industrial Design Protection for Designs for Graphical User Interfaces, submitted by Canada, Israel, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the United Kingdom, the United States of America and the European Union and its member states. The second paper (SCT/46/5) is a proposal by the African Group for a Study on the Impact of Design Protection for Graphical User Interface (GUI) Designs on Innovation.
In advance of the Committee’s consideration of these two papers, the WIPO secretariat convened an information session on 21 February 2025 on Graphical User Interface (GUI) Design Protection.
On Monday, 24 March 2025, a number of delegations weighed in on design protection for graphical user interfaces; several delegations referenced the February 2025 information session. The following extracts are taken from WIPO’s speech to text live transcript. This item will be revisited on Wednesday, 26 March 2025.
In its opening remarks, Colombia on behalf of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean region (GRULAC) said:
“We are also following with interest the ongoing discussions on the protection of graphical user interfaces, GUIs, recognizing their increasing relevance in the digital economy.”
Pakistan, on behalf of the Asia Pacific Group, expressed interest in the African Group proposal on a study on the impact of design protection for GUI designs on innovation (SCT/46/5).
As regards industrial design protection for GUIs, most APG Member States are of the view that innovation by local firms through utilization and adoption of existing technologies can significantly improve local technological capabilities and enable a form of learning by doing.
Such avenues can play an important role in the catch-up process of nascent industries in developing countries with industrial development in other countries. The group, therefore, remains interested in following up with further deliberation on the revised proposal for a study on the impact of design protection for GUI designs on innovation contained in document SCT/46/5. The APG also views the continuation of discussions on the revised proposals regarding the utilization of country names or geographical names of significance as a priority. The group aims to engage in a spirit of collaboration to refine existing proposals towards an appropriate outcome based on inputs from concerned Member States.
On this matter, the Chair noted:
Item 4 involves two proposals. First, updated proposal by the of Canada, Israel, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the UK and the U.S.A. and the EU and its Member States for a joint recommendation concerning industrial design protection for designs for GUI which is contained in document SCT/44/6 Rev.4. And Another proposal which is made by the African Group for a study on the impact of design protection for GUI designs on innovation which is contained in SCT/46/5. I would like to remind you the fact that in the previous SCT meeting, SCT agreed to invite the Secretariat organize a virtual information session on GIU design protection prior to the next session of the SCT. Actually that information session took place online on the 21st of February. Now I request the Secretariat to report on the information session on GUI design protection. Now give the floor to the Secretariat.
The WIPO Secretariat reported:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I will briefly report on the online information session on GUI design protection that was requested by SCT 47 in its March 2024 session. The information session took place online, exclusively online on February 21st this from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. The session was structured in three parts. First, a discussion on the development of GUI designs in various sectors. This discussion was moderated by Mr. David Stone, a solicitor at A&O Sherman in London and featured also speakers from Saudi Arabia, the Republic of Korea and Brazil and Nigeria. Secondly, there was a presentation by the Secretariat on the findings from the two SCT questionnaires on GUI design protection. And finally, there was a presentation by WIPO’s department for economics and data Analytics on the economic research on GUI designs that has been carried out by the department. The information session around 200 Delegates registered for this information session. which was followed by 145 Delegates.
The European Union provided the following perspectives:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The European Union and its Member States would like to congratulate you and your Vice Chairs on your election and we are looking forward to working during this session under your able guidance. Regarding the topic of GUI designs, the EU and its Member States would like to firstly thank the Secretariat for organizing the virtual information session on the 21st of February.
We have listened with great interest to the reports of experts, the findings of the two questionnaires and the update about the forthcoming report by the chief economist of WIPO. The information session provided valuable insights into the current landscape of design protection across various jurisdictions. The presentations revealed significant commonalities in how different countries approach GUI protection and this suggests a strong foundation for potential international harmonization of design law. However, areas of divergence were also highlighted which present opportunities for working towards developing more unified and comprehensive approaches to GUI design protection on a global scale. On this basis, Mr. Chairman, we continue to be convinced that adopting the joint recommendation in document SCT/44/6 Rev 4 is a practical way forward.
While being non-obligatory for Member States it would provide for at least a common baseline for GUI protection and would further contribute to the modernization of practices on designs.
Mr. Chairman, we look forward to continuing working with all other Delegations towards finalizing the recommendations for achieving a more harmonized approach.
Japan, on behalf of Group B stated:
Group B reiterates its appreciation to the Secretariat for organizing the information session on graphical user interface design protection on February 21st. The information session gave us the opportunity to expand our understanding of the development and implementation of the GUI designs in various countries and sectors as well as review findings from past questionnaires and economic research on GUI designs. Speakers from Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Nigeria and South Korea all stated the importance of GUI development and protection in various sectors. In addition, the economic research revealed that legal certainty and uniformity are crucial for appropriating the returns from GUI design protection. In other words, the ability to predict the return on investment from the use of the UI design protection.
The information session highlighted the benefits of reaching an agreement on the recommendation concerning industrial design protection for designs for the geographical user interfaces.
Most jurisdictions grant protection to GUIs through industrial design legislations or patents. However, there remains inconsistency with respect to formalities and the scope of protection. Consistent with the insights of the information session experts, the proposed joint recommendation helps mitigate the challenge of inconsistency faced by applicants.
We reiterate our belief that nonbinding recommendations such as those put forward in the proposals found in document, CT/44/6/4… would provide a useful reference framework for the a number of jurisdictions that already provide protection for UIs and those seeking to update their roles.
The Republic of Korea provided the following perspectives:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. As this is the first time Republic of Korea is taking the floor we would like to congratulate you and your Vice Chairs on your election. And we appreciate the Secretariat for preparing everything so we could continue this discussion. This Delegation would like to express our deep gratitude to the co-sponsors for the updated proposal contained in document SCT /44 /6 /LAB4. GY design is a visual creation aimed at delivering new services and differentiated user experiences.
For that reason, it is a subject that is difficult to standardize protection method within traditional frameworks.
The the The mediums in which GUIs are used have evolved continuously from PC to smart phone more recently to virtual reality and artificial intelligence.
Since witnessing the Apple Samsung law suit in 2011/1 we have spent considerable effort reflecting on how to optimize our design protection act and examination guidelines to align with the advancement in GY design. From our perspective and experience, we believe that this joint recommendation contains the minimum and sufficient content for GIs. We also believe that it appropriately reflects the needs of stakeholders and the relevant policy considerations. Meanwhile, the applicant group’s proposal SCT/46 /5 is also very interesting to us. In particular, GYI designers and IP practitioners are very curious about the boundaries between copyright regime and the design rights on GUIs. In addition, companies want to know the economic value of acquiring design rights for GUIs in the context of ROI, so-called return on investment. Nevertheless, it is difficult to agree that the results of this study should be prerequisite for the adoption of the Joint Recommendation. Even if study findings emerging on the proposed questions we expect that revisions to the wording of the joint recommendation will be quite limited. However, if the questions in the revised proposal are focused on more feasible issues, we expect the study to be very meaningful. This Delegation hopes that the proposed study will be carried out as a supplementary measure to the Joint Recommendation in order to address the concerns of many countries and to confirm the need to secure GRI design rights. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Delegation of the Republic of Korea.
The United States of America referenced the February 2025 information session in its statement:
Thank you, Chair. First we would like to congratulate you and the Vice Chairs on your elections. We would also like to thank the Secretariat for preparing the documents for this meeting. We look forward to a productive discussion on matters listed in the agenda.
This Delegation supports and aligns itself with the statement made by Group B.
Regarding the Joint Recommendation proposal in SCT/44/6 Rev 4, we would like to again thank the Delegations of Canada, Israel, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the United Kingdom and the European Union and its Member States for cosponsoring the proposal. The proposal remains unchanged since the last session of the SCT. As already stated by other Delegations, SCT /44/6 Rev 4 sets forth a nonbinding, nonobligatory joint recommendation on industrial design protection for the designs for graphical user interfaces. Regarding the information session, our Delegation was encouraged to hear that the conclusions of the experts from Brazil, Nigeria, Republic of Korea and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia aligned with the rationale for advancing the current joint recommendation that enjoys wide support from many Member States. It was reiterated numerous times by the expert panel that graphical user interfaces play an integral part in design innovation and continue to be among the most common type of designs for which protection is sought. Further, alignment and consistency of IP office practices across borders in regard to applications for protections of GUI designs continues to be a priority for inventors, SMEs and startups alike. Recounting a few of the notable points from the information session experts, Mr. Oscar Michael highlighted the spectrum of the African market and its 54 countries with different languages, cultures and literacy levels.
He also indicated that the African market is a mobile device and app market and that GUIs are designed with the focus on resonating with specific users through intentional design elements.
He stressed that GUI developers in Africa are better able to serve the diverse populations and protect their GUI innovation on the continent if design protections are aligned across borders. Mr. Flavio Alcantara from INPI was very clear in sharing examples of why clear, timely and sufficient legal protections for GUI designs are important.
He displayed a graphic demonstrating a spike in GUI design filings following the Apple Samsung dispute in and explain that unfortunately they did not have the right procedures in place at the time to protect those designs.
As a result, some applicants were unable to protect their designs and they did not come back to seek protection in the future. This example again highlights the importance of and purpose behind the joint recommendation.
Since then Brazil has comprehensively updated their laws and seen a notable increase in the number of applications from domestic companies and individuals.
By doing so Brazil has added itself to the list of jurisdictions recognizing the importance of protecting the most innovative designs in the digital age, protecting three dimensional designs, projections and holograms. Finally, we also thank the WIPO economist for their economic research showing that GUI designs are adaptable, scalable and modifiable and that they serve an important role particularly for SMEs in that they can be used across a set of products at a very low cost and that the incremental cost of reaching more users is negligent. Thank you, Chair.
Namibia, on behalf of the African Group underscored that it was not in a position to endorse the joint recommendation on design protection for graphical user interfaces.
Thank you, Chair, for the floor. I congratulate the Chair and the Vice Chair on your election and also I think the Secretariat for organizing this meeting. Given the African Group is still awaiting written inputs from the Member States who had issues with our proposal in document SCT/46/5 to inform our revision of the proposal. However, we endeavor to present the revised document for decisions at the next SCT session. The study is important to the African Group because it will help determine how design protection mechanism influence innovation, especially within the context of developing economies or regions such as Africa. It is crucial for the African Group to get a deeper understanding of the possible effect of the joint recommendations. Therefore, the African Group is not in a position to endorse the joint recommendation at this session.
