The Designs Act 2000 serves as a specialized legal framework designed to protect the visual character of industrial products, encouraging innovation in “eye-catching” configurations. However, this creates a legal tension in distinguishing between the functional aspects and the visual appearance of the product. This study provides a critical analysis of this tension, specifically, talks about section 2(d) of the act, which specifies that design protection can’t be given on the mere basis of the mechanical or technical aspects of an article. The core of this research explores the “dictation by function” doctrine, a legal principle that ensures that the mere functionality of an article remains ineligible for design protection under the act to maintain the patent and design regime. The research evaluates the subjective “appeal to the eye” requirement, that examines how the judiciary makes the basis or the tests to distinguish the aesthetic aspects and the functional features of the product. With the analysis of landmark judicial judgements, like Bharat Glass Tube Limited v. Gopal Glass Works Ltd. and Whirlpool of India Ltd. v. Videocon Industries Ltd., the study illustrates the court’s approach in maintaining the boundary line between the design and patent regimes. Furthermore, the study sheds the limelight on challenges of modern industrial design, where the “form follows function” philosophy often leads to an inseparable overlap between the visual appearance and functionality of an article. This paper concludes that while the Act effectively guards against the monopolization of functional innovations, there is a need to establish clear tests that help to interpret the aesthetic appeal and the functionality of an article.