Skip to content

Intellectual Property Rights - Law and Practice · Layout-Designs of Integrated Circuits

Prohibition of Registration of Certain Layout-Designs under Section 7

Updated 11 October 2026 · Fact-checked

Section 7 of the Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Layout-Design Act, 2000 bars registration of a layout-design that is not original, has been commercially exploited, is not inherently distinctive, or is not inherently capable of being distinguishable from another registered layout-design. A two-year grace period applies to prior exploitation. Apply the four grounds one by one to the facts.

Understand Prohibition of Registration of Certain Layout-Designs

A layout-design is the three-dimensional arrangement of circuit elements and interconnections in a semiconductor chip. The Act protects it by registration. But not every layout-design qualifies. Section 7 lists what the Registrar must refuse.

There are four grounds under Section 7(1). The layout-design is not registrable if it is (a) not original, (b) commercially exploited anywhere in India or in a convention country, (c) not inherently distinctive, or (d) not inherently capable of being distinguishable from any other registered layout-design. Any one ground is enough to refuse.

Originality is defined in Section 7(2). A layout-design is original if it is the result of its creator's own intellectual efforts and is not commonly known to creators of layout-designs and manufacturers of semiconductor integrated circuits at the time of its creation. There is a softening proviso. A design made of elements and interconnections that are each commonly known can still be original, if the combination taken as a whole is the result of the creator's own intellectual efforts. So the test looks at the whole, not at each part.

The commercial exploitation bar has a grace period. If the layout-design was commercially exploited for not more than two years before the date the application was filed, in India or in a convention country, it is treated as not exploited. Beyond two years, the bar applies. Section 50 adds a procedural point: if a question arises before the Registrar whether the design was exploited for more than two years in a convention country, the Registrar must refer it to the Appellate Board, whose decision is final.

Section 7(3) deals with ownership. Where an original layout-design is created under a commission or a contract of employment, the right of registration belongs, unless the contract says otherwise, to the person who commissioned it or to the employer. Also remember Section 19(2): once registered, a design cannot be held invalid on the ground that it was not registrable under Section 7, except upon evidence of originality that was not submitted to the Registrar before registration.

Key rules to remember

Four grounds of refusal (Section 7(1))
Refuse if: not original OR commercially exploited OR not inherently distinctive OR not inherently capable of being distinguishable from any other registered layout-design
Any one ground is enough. The grounds are alternatives, not cumulative.
Test of originality (Section 7(2))
Original = creator's own intellectual efforts AND not commonly known to creators and manufacturers at the time of creation
Both limbs must be met.
Combination proviso (Section 7(2) proviso)
Commonly known elements + interconnections = original if the combination as a whole is the creator's own intellectual effort
Judge the combination as a whole.
Grace period for exploitation (Section 7(1) proviso)
Exploitation ≤ 2 years before the application filing date (India or convention country) = treated as not exploited
Exploitation for more than two years bars registration.
Commissioned or employee work (Section 7(3))
Right of registration → commissioner or employer, unless the contract provides otherwise
Applies to an original layout-design created under a commission or employment contract.

How to solve Prohibition of Registration of Certain Layout-Designs questions

Use this method for any case-based question on whether a layout-design can be registered.

  1. 1Identify the layout-design and the date of the application. Note any date of first commercial sale or use.
  2. 2Test originality under Section 7(2): was it the creator's own intellectual effort, and was it not commonly known at the time of creation?
  3. 3If the elements are commonplace, apply the proviso: is the combination as a whole the creator's own effort?
  4. 4Test commercial exploitation: where and when did it happen? Compare the period with the two-year grace period before the filing date.
  5. 5Check distinctiveness and the ability to be distinguished from other registered layout-designs.
  6. 6If ownership is disputed, apply Section 7(3) to commission or employment, subject to the contract.
  7. 7State the conclusion clearly: registrable, or refused on which ground, citing the section.

Quickest way: Four-ground checklist

When to use it: Use when a short fact pattern asks whether a layout-design is registrable and time is limited.

  1. Write the four grounds in one line: original, not exploited, distinctive, distinguishable.
  2. Tick or cross each ground against the facts.
  3. For exploitation, count the time to the filing date and compare with two years.
  4. Conclude in one sentence with Section 7(1) and the failing ground.

Common mistakes in Prohibition of Registration of Certain Layout-Designs

  • Treating a design as unoriginal just because its components are well known.

    Students forget the proviso to Section 7(2).

    Fix: Ask whether the combination as a whole is the result of the creator's own intellectual efforts. If yes, it is original.

  • Saying any commercial exploitation bars registration.

    Students miss the grace period.

    Fix: Exploitation for not more than two years before the filing date is ignored. Only longer exploitation bars registration.

  • Counting the two years from the date of creation or first sale to today.

    The reference point is read loosely.

    Fix: The period is measured against the date on which the application was filed.

  • Limiting the exploitation bar to India.

    Students read only the word India.

    Fix: Section 7(1)(b) covers exploitation anywhere in India or in a convention country.

  • Giving the right of registration to the individual designer in an employment case.

    Students assume the creator always owns the right.

    Fix: Under Section 7(3), in the absence of a contrary contractual provision, the right belongs to the employer or the person who commissioned the work.

  • Believing a registered design can be challenged freely on Section 7 grounds.

    Section 19(2) is overlooked.

    Fix: Registration is prima facie evidence of validity, and invalidity on Section 7 grounds needs evidence of originality that was not given to the Registrar before registration.

Worked examples

Example 1

Nexora Chips Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru, designed a layout-design using standard, commonly known interconnection patterns. Its engineers arranged them in a new way through their own intellectual efforts. The Registrar proposes to refuse registration saying every element is commonly known. Advise.

Show the solution
  1. Provision: Section 7(1)(a) bars a layout-design that is not original. Section 7(2) defines originality.
  2. Analysis: Each element is commonly known. But the proviso to Section 7(2) says such a design is original if the combination taken as a whole is the result of the creator's own intellectual efforts.
  3. The facts say the arrangement came from the engineers' own efforts. The Registrar cannot refuse merely because the components are common.
  4. Conclusion: Originality is met, so Section 7(1)(a) does not bar registration. The other grounds must still be checked.

Answer: The refusal is not justified on that reasoning. Under the proviso to Section 7(2), a combination of commonly known elements is original if the combination as a whole is the creator's own intellectual effort. Nexora's design can be registered if the other Section 7 grounds are satisfied.

Example 2

Veda Semiconductors Ltd began selling chips with a layout-design in India on 1 March 2024 and filed an application for its registration on 1 January 2026. Can the layout-design be registered on the ground of commercial exploitation? What if the filing had been on 1 June 2026?

Show the solution
  1. Provision: Section 7(1)(b) bars a layout-design commercially exploited in India or a convention country. The proviso treats exploitation for not more than two years before the application date as not exploited.
  2. Case 1: From 1 March 2024 to 1 January 2026 is 22 months, which is less than two years. The proviso applies.
  3. Case 2: From 1 March 2024 to 1 June 2026 is 27 months, which is more than two years. The proviso does not apply.
  4. Conclusion: Case 1 is not barred on this ground. Case 2 is barred.

Answer: With filing on 1 January 2026, exploitation was about 22 months, within the two-year grace period, so Section 7(1)(b) does not bar registration. With filing on 1 June 2026, exploitation was about 27 months, so the design is barred under Section 7(1)(b).

Exam tips

  • Lead with the section number and the four grounds, then apply them to the facts.
  • Always check the dates: the two-year grace period runs back from the filing date.
  • Quote the proviso on combinations when the facts say the elements are common.
  • Mention Section 7(3) whenever the facts involve an employee or a commissioned designer.
  • Add Section 50 and Section 19(2) as short related points when the question touches disputes or validity.

Practice questions from Layout-Designs of Integrated Circuits

Prohibition of Registration of Certain Layout-Designs in other exams

The same ground in other exams, if you are preparing for more than one or want another angle on it.

Prohibition of Registration of Certain Layout-Designs: frequently asked questions

Which layout-designs cannot be registered in India?

Under Section 7(1), a layout-design that is not original, has been commercially exploited, is not inherently distinctive, or is not inherently capable of being distinguishable from any other registered layout-design cannot be registered.

What makes a layout-design original?

It must be the result of the creator's own intellectual efforts and not commonly known to creators and manufacturers at the time of creation. A combination of commonly known elements is original if the combination as a whole is the creator's own intellectual effort.

Does prior commercial use always block registration?

No. Commercial exploitation for not more than two years before the application is filed, in India or a convention country, is treated as not exploited. Longer exploitation blocks registration.

Who can register a layout-design made by an employee?

Unless the contract provides otherwise, Section 7(3) gives the right of registration to the employer, or to the person who commissioned the work.