Download now: life sciences - whitepaper: building an investable ip portfolio
​

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

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.
​