Three new UK IPO decisions demonstrate the wide commercial applicability of registered designs

No items found.
​
August 24, 2012

In the UK, applications to declare a UK registered design invalid can be filed at the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO), whereupon the case is decided by a Hearing Officer of the UKIPO acting on behalf of the Registrar of Designs.

Such cases are not particularly common, but decisions in three have just been made available at the same time on the law reporting website BAILII.

In all three cases, the circumstances are rather more complicated than the usual commercial dispute between parties.

Diane Gillespie v Neil Corbett (Design) [2012] UKIntelP o26212 (05 July 2012)

In this first case, both parties held registered designs in relation to whelping boxes (boxes designed to keep puppies safe after birth). It has been alleged that some customers had believed that the defendant and the claimant were the same company. In respect of one of the designs, both parties had a registration, each being very similar to the other. Both of those designs were held invalid due to prior sales by the claimant. The other designs were held to be valid over the prior art cited.

James Kieran Padden v The Secretary of State for Defence (Design) [2012] UKIntelP o28912 (27 July 2012)

In the second case, the defendant had been involved in the design of a new badge for the Special Boat Service. He registered the design, but in the meantime the MoD had already registered a very similar badge. Mr Padden claimed that this prior art and other prior art that was published less than 12 months before his filing date was covered by the grace period provisions, as he was the designer. Therefore, in this decision, only prior art more than 12 months prior to the filing date was considered. The design was held to lack individual character over the disclosure of a similar design in a talk to the Flag Institute.

Registered Designs Limited v David Saville (Design) [2012] UKIntelP o28812 (27 July 2012)

In the third case, two designs were at issue, both being wallets for driving licences. One design was alleged to lack novelty over a wallet produced and distributed by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA). This allegation did not succeed as it was not substantiated by the evidence, so this registration was upheld. The other design was alleged to lack novelty over a product sold as “Protect-a-Badge”. The Hearing Officer considered that the prior sales were substantiated, and the differences between the two designs were immaterial, and so that design was declared invalid.

These cases illustrate the wide variety of commercial situations that registered designs can be used to protect.

By Darren Smyth

Recent Case Reports

Court of Appeal focuses on the technical effect to determine added matter
30 September 2026
The Court of Appeal provided guidance on their approach to assessing added subject matter, highlighting that the technical effect underlying the invention and how the claimed and unclaimed features contribute thereto is central to the analysis.
Court of Appeal affirms interpretation of product-by-process features in claims, and clarifies applicable law pre-June 2023
29 September 2026
The Court of Appeal confirmed that product-by-process features in a product claim limit the claim only where the specified process imparts characteristics that can be achieved solely by that process. It also clarified the law applicable to acts occurring before 1 June 2023, holding that UPC law may apply to ongoing infringement for injunctive relief, whereas damages for acts completed before that date are governed by national law, and that claims for provisional protection remain governed by national law.
Appeal reveals tricky deadlines for orders contained in decisions
29 September 2026
The Court of Appeal held that where a “privileged order” under Rule 220(1)(c), such as an order relating to the production of evidence under Article 59 UPCA and Rule 190 RoP, is contained within a decision on the merits, a 15 day appeal deadline for that order applies, separate from the substantive appeal deadline. Appeals challenging such orders after that deadline are inadmissible, and parties cannot circumvent the appeal rules by re-filing substantially the same request in the appeal proceedings.