Section 7 explained: this guide covers what it means, who it applies to, the step-by-step process, documents required, fees, due dates and penalties in India — so you can stay compliant with confidence and avoid costly mistakes.
Section 7 is the gate to registration. A layout-design that is not original, has been commercially exploited in India or a convention country, is not inherently distinctive, or cannot be told apart from another registered layout-design "shall not be registered". The section also defines originality and says who holds the right to register a design made on commission or by an employee. Anyone about to exhibit or sell a chip before filing should take a legal consultation first, because the two-year allowance is narrow.
This article reflects the Act as amended up to 3 October 2026 (the Act has not been amended since it was enacted in 2000). Check sicldr.gov.in for later notifications. Section 7 has been in force since 1 May 2011.
A layout-design is not registrable if it is not original, has been commercially exploited in India or a convention country, is not inherently distinctive, or is not inherently capable of being distinguished from another registered layout-design. Commercial exploitation for not more than two years before the filing date is ignored. A design is original if it is the result of the creator's own intellectual efforts and not commonly known in the field. Unless a contract says otherwise, the right to register a commissioned or employee-made design belongs to the person who commissioned it or the employer.
Section 7(1): the four bars
| Clause | A layout-design which is... | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 7(1)(a) | not original | Not registered |
| 7(1)(b) | commercially exploited anywhere in India or in a convention country | Not registered |
| 7(1)(c) | not inherently distinctive | Not registered |
| 7(1)(d) | not inherently capable of being distinguishable from any other registered layout-design | Not registered |
Clause (b) refers to exploitation "anywhere in India or in a convention country". It does not mention exploitation elsewhere. A "convention country" is a country notified under section 93; see our article on sections 93 to 96. The term "commercial exploitation" is defined in section 2(e) as to sell, lease, offer or exhibit for sale or otherwise distribute the circuit for any commercial purpose.
The two-year proviso
The proviso softens clause (b). A layout-design commercially exploited "for not more than two years from the date on which an application for its registration has been filed either in India or in a convention country" is treated as not having been commercially exploited for the purposes of sub-section (1). So a first sale up to two years before the filing date does not defeat registration under clause (b). The proviso speaks of the two years running from the date on which the application is filed. The text does not say how a period is counted; do not compute dates from this article, and check the exact dates against the Act and any later notification before relying on them.
A related question about exploitation of more than two years in a convention country is, under section 50, sent by the Registrar to the Appellate Board whose decision is final. No notification bringing sections 32 to 53 (and 55) into force was found in the India Code record or on the Registry's notifications page (checked 3 October 2026); check the current position before relying on them. The Act gives no other forum for that question.
Section 7(2): what "original" means
A layout-design is original "if it is the result of its creator's own intellectual efforts and is not commonly known to the creators of layout-designs and manufacturers of semiconductor integrated circuits at the time of its creation". There are two tests, and both must be met: the effort is the creator's own, and the result is not commonly known in the trade when it was made.
The combination proviso
A design made of elements and interconnections that are commonly known among creators and manufacturers "shall be considered as original if such combination taken as a whole is the result of its creator's own intellectual efforts". Known building blocks therefore do not defeat originality when the whole is the creator's own work. A design that is only a copy of a known arrangement does not pass. The Act sets no numerical test of how different the design must be.
This definition also shapes infringement. Under section 18(1)(a), copying of a part that is not original within section 7(2) is not infringement.
Section 7(3): commissioned and employee designs
Where an original layout-design "has been created in execution of a commission or a contract of employment", the right of registration "shall belong, in the absence of any contractual provision to the contrary, to the person who commissioned the work or to the employer".
| Situation | Who holds the right of registration |
|---|---|
| Design made under a commission | The person who commissioned it, unless the contract says otherwise |
| Design made under a contract of employment | The employer, unless the contract says otherwise |
| Design made independently, no commission or employment | The creator (see section 8(1), which lets the creator apply) |
The words "in the absence of any contractual provision to the contrary" make the written contract the first place to look. A design house that wants to keep the layout it creates for a client should say so in the agreement. Our contract review and vetting team does this kind of reading, but the point here is the plain rule: silence in the contract means the commissioner or employer holds the right.
An "is it registrable" table
| Question | If the answer is... | Consequence |
|---|---|---|
| Is it the creator's own effort and not commonly known (or a combination that is original as a whole)? | No | Not original: barred by 7(1)(a) |
| Has it been sold, leased, offered or exhibited for sale before filing? | Yes, and by more than two years | Barred by 7(1)(b) |
| Has it been so exploited, but for two years or less before filing? | Yes | Proviso: treated as not exploited |
| Is it inherently distinctive and distinguishable from registered designs? | No | Barred by 7(1)(c) or (d) |
| Was it created under a commission or employment? | Yes | Right of registration with the commissioner or employer unless the contract says otherwise |
Preliminary advice
The Act lets the Registrar give preliminary advice on whether a layout-design is original. That is explained in sections 78 to 82, and may help a start-up that is unsure before filing.
A worked example
A fabless start-up in Hyderabad finishes a layout for a power-management chip in January. In March it shows sample chips at an exhibition with a price list. In June it applies to register. The March display is an exhibit for sale, so clause (b) is engaged, but the proviso treats exploitation of not more than two years before the filing date as not having happened. The start-up would still have to show originality under sub-section (2). If its engineer used only well-known blocks, the combination proviso allows the design if the whole is the engineer's own work.
Need help with originality and registrability?
If you are unsure whether a chip layout meets section 7 before you file or exhibit it, a legal consultation can walk through your facts against the four bars and the contract position.
Key takeaways
- Four bars to registration: not original, commercially exploited, not inherently distinctive, not distinguishable.
- Exploitation for not more than two years before the filing date is ignored.
- Original means the creator's own intellectual efforts and not commonly known in the field; known elements can combine into an original whole.
- A commissioner or employer holds the right of registration unless the contract provides otherwise.
- Section 50 refers one two-year question to the Board; no commencement notification was found for it.
Read next
- Sections 8 and 9: application and withdrawal of acceptance
- Sections 50 to 53: Board references and Government use
- Sections 78 to 82: preliminary advice
Disclaimer: Based on the Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Layout-Design Act, 2000 (never amended; commencement as notified in 2004, 2011 and 2014) and the Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Layout-Design Rules, 2001 as amended by G.S.R. 689(E) of 14 September 2012, as consulted on 3 October 2026. Check sicldr.gov.in for later notifications and current forms and fees. This article is general information, not legal advice; check the official text before acting.