Journal

IPO launches major consultation on UK design law reform

The UK Intellectual Property Office (‘IPO’) has launched its long-awaited consultation on reforming UK design law. The proposals are wide-ranging and, if implemented, could significantly reshape the UK’s design protection framework. Steps are being proposed to deal with abuses taking place in the low-cost registered design system, as well as to significantly change unregistered design law from its current complex structure.

Whilst this is very much a consultation on a variety of options, the IPO has made some initial proposals that look promising in achieving its goals of the design reform. The key issues and proposals are set out below.

A single unregistered design right

UK law currently provides unregistered protection for designs in a number of ways, including UK unregistered design right, supplementary unregistered design right and copyright. These rights offer different types of protection, provide different terms of protection and require different qualifications to arise. The unregistered design system has therefore been criticised for being too complex. On the other hand, as these different design rights protect different designs in different ways, they have been of immense use to original creators in preventing the copying of their designs, thereby providing significant benefit to design creators in the UK.

In what appears to be their main proposal, the IPO suggests consolidating these into a single unregistered design right, predominantly based around the current supplementary unregistered design right (which is similar to EU unregistered design right). The IPO prefers a five-year term starting from first disclosure, and prefers the novelty and individual character requirements for validity rather than the commonplace test from UK unregistered design right.

Simultaneous disclosure – how unregistered design right arises

Following Brexit, the UK and EU now operate separate unregistered design regimes. Each right is triggered by first disclosure in its respective territory, with no mutual recognition, meaning designers must choose where to first disclose their work to secure protection. This has led to attempts at simultaneous disclosure — publishing a design in both the UK and EU at the same time — to try to secure protection in both jurisdictions.

The IPO has put forward a number of options for consultation to deal with this issue, but explicitly states that it currently has no preference. The options include unilaterally recognising simultaneous disclosure such that disclosures in the EU, or even anywhere the world, would result in UK unregistered design right arising. On the one hand, this would be very useful for UK businesses, who could first disclose in the EU or another country in the world to secure local protection, whilst knowing that they will still have protection at home. On the other hand, it will mean that disclosures in the EU or even non-EU countries would automatically have unregistered design rights in the UK, potentially stifling the design industry in the UK.

Search and examination of registered designs

Since the start of this decade, the IPO and CIPA members have become aware of a noticeable increase in clearly invalid UK registered designs being filed and used in takedown notices on online marketplaces. This is very easy to do, since the official fee for a registered design is just £50 and the applications are not substantively examined, meaning that they will most likely be granted, even if the design shown has been public for many years.

Often, companies who have had their product listings taken down are unable to reinstate their listings due to a combination of online marketplaces’ policies of only reinstating listings after a complainant withdraws their complaint, and the complainants simply not responding to any communications highlighting that their registration is invalid and asking them to withdraw it.

In addition, recent IPO design invalidity decisions show that many invalidity applications are being filed against blatantly invalid registrations. A recent decision even involved the rights holder effectively admitting that their registration was invalid; but it still took six months for the registration to be invalidated (O/0644/25, also see O/0646/25). The IPO’s research suggests that about 9% of registered designs are pre-existing and thus invalid.

The IPO has proposed various options in the consultation to enable such abuses to be dealt with. Firstly, it is considering introducing powers to allow the IPO to search design applications when it suspects they are already known. Secondly, it is considering implementing a system similar to that in Australia, in which a rightsholder has to request search and examination before they can enforce it, and third parties can apply for registration to be searched and examined. Thirdly, the IPO has proposed introducing a bad faith provision, which would provide some flexibility in dealing with such abuses in future. Fourthly, it has proposed introducing mechanisms for opposition and/or observation by third parties.

Changes to deferment periods for registered designs

Currently, there is no statutory provision for deferment in UK design law, but the IPO allows deferment of publication for up to 12 months from the UK filing date. The IPO proposes to formalise and extend this to 18 months from the earliest of the filing or priority dates. This would increase the deferment period available for UK design applications without a priority claim. However, it would not increase the deferment period for UK designs claiming priority from foreign applications. The EU offers a more preferable 30-month deferment period, from the priority date, which can be very useful for companies who wish to file their designs well in advance of launching them.

Animated designs and GUIs

The IPO has historically objected to design applications that depict animated graphical user interfaces (‘GUIs’), such as transitions, loading animations, or dynamic icons. This has caused frustration amongst patent and trade mark attorneys in the UK, particularly as the EUIPO routinely accepts such designs under similar legislative definitions.

The consultation raises various options in relation to this, including updating the legal framework to explicitly allow protection for animated designs and to allow the use of new file formats such as video clips and CAD files, to better represent movement and interactivity.

Criminal sanctions for unregistered design infringement

A call for evidence has been issued on whether criminal penalties should be introduced for infringement of unregistered design rights. This would mark a significant shift in enforcement strategy and could have far-reaching implications for rights holders and alleged infringers.

Criminal sanctions were introduced for registered design infringement in 2014, but there is limited data indicating how much these sanctions have been used. There was a recent case before the Court of Appeal (Iqbal v City of Wolverhampton Council [2025] EWCA Crim 498), although the judgment does not specify the registered design numbers in question and does not explain if any of the defences to the criminal sanctions were used.

Inclusion of registered design cases in the IPEC small claims track

A call for evidence has been issued regarding including registered design cases in the small claims track. At present, only cases relating to copyright, registered UK trade marks, passing off and UK unregistered designs can be heard on the small claims track. In response to the IPO’s call for views on the IP enforcement framework in 2020, it received positive responses due to the benefit to SMEs and microbusinesses, as well as responses raising concerns that registered design cases could get too complex for the small claims track, particularly if validity is questioned. Therefore, to assess whether to include registered design cases in the small claims track, the IPO has requested views and evidence from those with experience in design disputes since 2020.

Next steps – Please help if you can!

Responses to the consultation are due by 27 November 2025. The IPO would be very appreciative if the details of the consultation could be shared with as many clients and contacts with an interest in the designs system as possible. They would be particularly interested to hear from any clients who have dealt with abuses of the designs system or the criminal sanctions issues, as they are looking for case studies around these issues in particular.

Please also contact Matthew Ridley, Chair of the CIPA Designs & Copyright Committee, at [email protected] if you would like to provide input on CIPA’s response. He would be particularly keen to hear from CIPA members with knowledge of or involvement in any cases related to criminal sanctions for registered design infringement. See the full consultation here.

Matthew Ridley is Chair of the CIPA Designs & Copyright Committee, as well as a Chartered Patent Attorney and Partner at Boult.