REGISTER now: Visser ai webinar - BEYOND THE HYPE: AI IN PATENT PROSECUTION
​

Updated Guidance for UK Registered Design Applications

No items found.
​
June 16, 2016
Additional information
Chevron icon
Info
Tags
Building a Resilient Quantum Patent Portfolio: Winning the Race to File First
Table of contents
Chevron icon
Table of contents
  • Toc Heading
  • Toc Heading

The UK Intellectual Property Office (UK IPO) recently issued a Designs Practice Notice (DPN) 1/16 to provide users with updated guidance on registered design practice in the UK. The DPN, which is available here, primarily relates to the different ways in which a design can be represented in a registered design application

This DPN, the first the UK IPO has issued since 2009, comes after the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of PMS v Magmatic relating to the Trunki ride-on suitcase. EIP’s report of the Supreme Court’s decision is available here.

The scope of protection provided by a registered design is determined almost exclusively by the “representation” of the design that is shown in the registered design. The DPN makes several important points in relation to this:

  • Applicants are in general free to choose whatever form of representation of their design they like.
  • Registered designs representing a design using line drawings will typically provide the broadest scope of protection. On the other hand, those using CAD drawings or photographs will typically provide a narrower scope of protection. It needs to be borne in mind that although broader registered designs are more likely to cover competing products, they are also more likely to encompass similar earlier designs too. The latter affects the validity of the registration. In for example a crowded field of similar designs, it may be necessary to show details in order for the registered design to be valid.
  • Lack of ornamentation can be a design feature in itself, e.g. for minimalist designs. Steps can be taken when the application is filed to clarify whether registered design protection is sought only for the shape of the product, i.e. irrespective of any ornamentation, or specifically for a “minimalist” design, if this might otherwise be ambiguous.
  • Several registered design applications with different versions of the design could be filed to obtain registered designs of different scope. For example, one application could represent the design using line drawings and another could represent the design using a photograph. Some intellectual property offices, including the UK IPO and the EU IPO, offer cost savings where several registered designs are filed at the same time in a so-called ‘multiple design’ application.

In summary, a design needs to be represented appropriately in a registered design application to obtain the best or optimum scope of protection. Your usual EIP contact will be able to advise on how best to represent your product for a registered design application.

The above comments relate specifically to UK registered designs. Different considerations may apply in other territories.

By Adam Flint and Iain Russell

Recent Case Reports

See all Case Reports

Invalidity of juicer patent upheld on appeal
03 November 2026
The Court of Appeal upheld the invalidity of Hurom’s juicer patent for lack of inventive step, while clarifying the admissibility requirements for patent amendments and the use of the unamended description when construing amended claims. It also confirmed the UPC’s jurisdiction over infringement in Poland despite Poland not being a UPCA Contracting Member State, but found that Hurom had failed to establish infringement under Polish law.
​
Evidence preservation doesn’t stretch to interrogation
03 November 2026
The Court of Appeal confirmed that evidence-preservation orders may be granted ex parte where there is a demonstrable risk that evidence could be destroyed or become unavailable, and that such orders may extend to relevant commercial and promotional documents. However, Art. 60 UPCA does not permit a bailiff or expert to question the defendant’s personnel on substantive technical matters, which must instead be handled under the Court’s control.
​
UPC Court of Appeal clarifies claim construction, the role of party experts, and provisional measures in direct-competition cases
03 November 2026
The CoA’s decision of 30 April 2025 in Insulet v EOFlow provides important guidance on claim construction, the role of party-appointed experts and the requirements for provisional injunctions.
​