Consultation on changes to the UK designs framework

On 27 November 2025, CIPA submitted its response to the IPO’s consultation on the changes to the UK designs framework. The detailed response runs to over 20,000 words and is available below as a PDF. Set out below are the key elements of CIPA’s response to the consultation.

CIPA is grateful for the substantial work undertaken by the Designs & Copyright Committee under the guidance of its chair Matt Ridley in coordinating CIPA’s engagement with the IPO on this major policy review.

Key elements of CIPA’s response to the consultation

SECTION A – Search and examination, Bad faith, observation and opposition, information on the existence of a right in a registered design (DF21 search): Our preferences for managing the anticompetitive filings include the introduction of discretionary pre-filing search for novelty and individual character by the UKIPO (including on Hague design applications). Parties should also be able to seek an opinion on infringement alongside an application for invalidation of a UK registered design, and the invalidation process should be accelerated considerably.

SECTION B – Deferment: We consider that deferment provisions should be implemented with a maximum deferment period of 30 months from the priority date, in line with EU registered designs.

SECTION C – Graphical user interfaces and animated designs: We consider that UK registered design legislation should be updated to clarify that GUIs and animated designs can be protected, either by amending the legislation in a similar manner to recent EU law changes, or by further expanding the definition of a product and design in the legislation.

SECTION D – Computer-generated designs: We consider that the existing computer-generated designs provisions should be retained, since they provide clarity as they are. We consider that definitions of computer-generated or computer-assisted designs in legislation are likely to just lead to substantial lack of clarity and litigation on the topic. Alternative solutions should be sought to allay concerns over the possibility of mass AI generated design filings.

SECTION E – Miscellaneous changes: We broadly agree with the UKIPO’s proposals, and have additional proposals we consider would make the designs system more effective in the UK. Joining the DAS system should be a priority.

SECTION F – Simplification of unregistered designs and overlap with copyright: We see benefit in maintaining forms of protection roughly equivalent in their subject-matter to the current Supplementary Unregistered Design and UK Unregistered Design protection. However, we consider that various elements of unregistered designs could be harmonised to bring clarity (such as to property in and ownership of designs; the acts of infringement; the defences; the acts initiating unregistered design protection; and the term of protection).

SECTION G – Post-Brexit issues relating to unregistered designs: We favour the creation of SUD following first disclosure anywhere in the world, since it will (a) allow UK designers to freely choose where to launch their designs without losing protection in their home market, and (b) meet the UK’s TRIPs obligations.

SECTION H – Call for evidence on criminal sanctions for design infringement: We are strongly in favour of there being no criminal sanctions for design infringement and consider that the existing criminal offence for registered design infringement should be repealed. Unregistered design rights are uniquely unsuited to criminal sanctions, such consideration is at an inopportune time given the proposals of Section F, criminalisation could affect SMEs the most and there is no evidence to suggest that criminal sanctions provide improved protection or speed of justice. There are clear actions that can be taken under civil law to improve the difficulties and expenses of enforcement invoked by SMEs in favour of criminal sanctions.

SECTION I – Call for evidence on inclusion of claims made under the Registered Designs Act 1949 within the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court’s small claims track: We think that registered designs should be part of the SCT, particularly to aid smaller businesses and litigants in person. We consider that this would significantly reduce costs for such parties.

We would also highlight that whilst the current low application fees are very useful for all applicants (including UK and foreign entities), they could potentially be the cause of a number of issues raised in this consultation. We recommend that consideration be given to increasing the filing fees, particularly for the second and onwards design in each application.