As per case facts, multiple appellants filed statutory appeals after their applications for design registration of Graphical User Interfaces (GUIs) were rejected by the Office of Designs. The rejections were ... based on a narrow interpretation of "article" and "design" under the Designs Act, 2000, arguing that GUIs are not registrable due to lack of separate sale/manufacture, visibility only when a device is on, and insufficient permanence. Appellants also challenged previous orders, including UST Global (Singapore), for misinterpreting the Act and, in some instances, for lacking reasoned explanations. The question arose whether Graphic User Interface (GUI) satisfies the criteria of a design making it eligible for registration under the Designs Act, 2000. Finally, the court ruled that the appeals succeed, setting aside the impugned orders. The court clarified that GUIs, with their inherent iconography, layout, colour schemes, and ornamentation, meet the visual and aesthetic requirements for design protection under the Act. It emphasized a broad interpretation of "article" and "industrial process," rejecting the notion that designs must be permanently visible or tangible, and stated that a GUI's visual aspects for industrial purposes constitute a design, distinct from computer programs or artistic works. The court concluded that GUIs can be registrable on a case-to-case basis, provided they satisfy the Act's requirements and their design elements are not purely function-driven, remanding all matters for fresh hearing.