Government has grand designs as it launches new consultation – designers have your say!

This is the first major designs consultation in the UK since 2011, although there was a Call for Views in July 2022 and a designs survey in February 2025 which have helped to inform this consultation.

Overview

The current UK design regime is difficult to navigate – it includes UK registered designs (UKRD), international registered designs, UK unregistered designs (UKUDR), supplementary unregistered designs (SUD) and copyright – a 'patchwork of overlapping rights'. The different types of protection protect different aspects of a product, and the term of protection also differs depending on the right.

Below is a helpful table taken from the consultation document highlighting the labyrinthine rights:

As set out by the government, the consultation attempts to address the issues in relation to the complexity of the UK designs system, which is and has been causing problems for users, especially small businesses, which make up a significant proportion of the UK design sector.

There is evidence that these businesses are aware of IP, but many do not have the knowledge to protect their IP and unlock the value. Some applicants seem to be abusing the system and trying to register designs for well-known products, or products which don’t belong to them. There are also a number of aspects of design law which would benefit from simplification, consolidation and streamlining to make it easier for designers to protect their work.

The consultation asks interested parties for their views on a variety of matters with the overarching aim of improving and modernising the UK designs system. In summary, the key objectives as set out by the government are: 

• Proposals to improve the registered designs system – improving the validity of registered designs through targeted measures such as novelty checks and bad faith provisions 
• Proposals to simplify the unregistered designs system, providing greater legal certainty for businesses, making it more accessible and easier to understand
• Ensuring the UK framework adequately protects emerging forms of design, including virtual and animated designs
• Exploring how the UK system should respond to computer-generated designs in an era of Artificial Intelligence (AI)
• Potential improvements to our enforcement framework, including a call for evidence in relation to extending criminal sanctions to unregistered design infringement

Contents of consultation

The consultation is split into 9 key areas. The UKIPO has created approximately 2-minute videos on each section (and broken down section A into 3 sub-sections) to help people understand the issues. The sections (with video links) are: 

Further break down of key proposals

Section A

Search and examination - A design only provides protection to new designs with individual character. However, the current law does not allow the UKIPO to check whether design applications are new before they register them (this was stopped in the UK in 2006 to align with the EU). As a result, some applicants try to register well-known designs which do not belong to them. The government therefore sets out a proposal for search and examination powers to identify and reject designs that lack novelty or individual character, particularly targeting anti-competitive filings.

Bad faith - An application is made in bad faith when an applicant applies to register a design with a dishonest intent. However, UK design law does not include a specific bad faith provision, like trade mark law. The government therefore proposes bad faith provisions to try to prevent dishonest applications for well-known products or designs not owned by the applicant.  

Observation and Opposition

Unlike trade marks and patents, it is not possible for third parties to oppose a design registration, or to provide the UKIPO with observations on a design application. Nor does the UKIPO notify existing rightsholders of similar designs as part of the examination process. Designs are registered and published if they fulfil the relevant requirements and a third-party objection is dealt with by way of invalidation either at the UKIPO or through the courts. The government therefore queries whether a pre-registration opposition or observation period would be beneficial.

Section B – Deferment

Deferment allows applicants to delay the registration and publication of a design after filing. This is particularly useful for businesses that want to keep designs confidential until product launch, while still securing protection. In the UK, an applicant can currently choose to delay registration and publication of their design for up to 12 months. However, there is no specific deferment provision under UK law. The government is considering introducing formal deferment provisions allowing applicants to keep designs confidential for up to 18 months, or even up to 30 months to align with the deferment period of the EUIPO. This, it is hoped, would particularly benefit sectors with long production cycles who wish to gain protection but maintain confidentiality pre-launch. 

The government also asks for views on what information should be published about a deferred application – only basic details or something more?

Section C – Graphical User Interfaces and Animated Designs

A key initiative of the government is to modernise the design system for the digital age and to ensure it reflects the advances in digital technology and provides clarity for applicants filing e.g. graphical User Interfaces (GUIs) and animated designs.

Proposals include allowing applicants to submit new file formats such as video clips and 3D computer aided design (CAD) files when applying for design protection. Video file formats would make presenting animations easier than using still/snapshot representations (as is currently the case), with the whole design shown as it would be in use. CAD file formats will hopefully make it easier to show a non-animated design in its entirety, rather than being limited to a certain number of views in 2D representations.

The government is also consulting on updating legal definitions to ensure future industries and technologies can benefit from design protection.

Section D – Computer-generated designs

Registered design and UK unregistered design law contain provisions for the protection of computer-generated designs (CGDs) without a human author. The SUD does not. In principle, the protection would appear to apply to AI-generated designs. The CGD design law provisions are also mirrored in copyright law. Under the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988, the author/designer of a computer-generated work with no human author is 'the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken'. This provision is rarely used and is legally untested. The courts are also yet to provide guidance on the types of designs that would be classified as a CGD without a human author.

The government is therefore considering future options for the protection of CGDs and whether they should also be protected as an SUD. Some are concerned that because AI tools can create a large number of designs very quickly, these designs could be monopolised by bad actors, thereby inhibiting innovation. Others express concern about the lack of clarity on how the CGD provision under UKUDR law interacts with the wider legal requirement for UKUDRs to be original, as the two seem incompatible.

The test for originality for a UKUDR will either be the traditional British concept requiring sufficient time, labour and skill or the more recent test from the CJEU requiring the author's own intellectual creation, which is the expression of their creative choices and reflects their 'personal touch'. To date, the UK courts have followed both approaches for UKUDRs but have followed the CJEU approach in relation to copyright. (NB. These issues are not relevant for UKRDs or SUDs which do not have the same originality requirement but must be new and have individual character).

Section E – Miscellaneous changes

The consultation also addresses a number of so-called 'smaller miscellaneous issues'. These aim to allow the UKIPO to provide greater consistency across registered IP rights, improve clarity in designs legislation and streamline the UKIPO's practice. The proposals include: changes to provisions regarding emblems; harmonising time periods for response periods to an official action; removing the ability to file specimens (very few filed in recent years), powers to make a late objection (as in trade mark law), warrant of validity and liability provisions (to align with trade marks and patents), power for the registrar to rectify the register (as opposed to the court) and various other miscellaneous provisions.

Section F – Simplification of unregistered designs and overlap with copyright

There are many overlapping rights for design protection and the law is unwieldy in this area, which makes it confusing for designers (and lawyers!) There has always been a tension between the different requirements for design and copyright law protection. 

Many will therefore be pleased to see that the consultation addresses the longstanding issue of the overlap between copyright and design rights and sets out proposals on how to simplify and clarify the law in this area, particularly in relation to works of artistic craftsmanship – a concept under UK law which is continually criticised as being vague and subjective and not aligned with the EU (and see our blog here on the issues: The rowing pains continue – no copyright in rowing machine). The government considers the possibility of reform or guidance.

The consultation looks more generally at how best to simplify the complex designs regime and whether to introduce a single consolidated unregistered design 'harnessing the best aspects of the current system'.

Section G – Post-Brexit issues relating to unregistered designs

The government aims to provide certainty for UK businesses who operate internationally. Before Brexit, a product could be disclosed anywhere in the EU and would be protected as an unregistered Community design (UCD) in every Member State. After Brexit, the government created SUDs in the UK, equivalent to the UCD. This therefore added an additional layer of complexity to the UK’s design protection system because there is no mutual recognition of disclosure in the EU and UK. The result being that a design which is first disclosed in the UK will be protected as an SUD, and a design which is first disclosed in the EU will be protected as UCD, but a single disclosure does not give rise to protection in both territories.  This presents problems for designers wishing to operate in both UK and EU markets who usually plan their product launches around industry trade fairs, rather than first considering their unregistered design protection. Some designers have been relying on simultaneous disclosure to obtain protection in both territories, but this is untested by the courts and is a risky strategy.

The government is therefore exploring practical solutions to address the situation where designs can no longer gain automatic protection across UK and EU markets through a single disclosure.  

Section H – Call for evidence on criminal sanctions for design infringement

Criminal sanctions currently only apply to the unauthorised copying of registered designs, introduced through the Intellectual Property Act 2014, but they do not apply to the unauthorised copying of unregistered designs, as it was thought it would require too high a level of evidence to prove any criminal activity.

The 2022 Call for Views asked stakeholders to share their experiences of criminal sanctions in relation to registered designs and whether they thought it would be beneficial to extend criminal sanctions to unregistered designs. The responses were mixed so the government now requests further evidence from stakeholders before deciding next steps.

Section I – Call for evidence on inclusion of claims made under the RDA 1949 within the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court's small claims track

Currently the small claims court only hears the most straightforward IP claims, with values of £10,000 or less, relating to copyright, registered UK trade marks, passing off and UK unregistered designs. Previously when the small claims track (SCT) was introduced into the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) in 2012, registered designs were not included as they were considered too complex and unsuitable for the SCT's simplified procedures, with their high levels of evidence and reliance on expert witnesses.

The government therefore proposes to strengthen enforcement and access to justice by exploring creating a SCT within the IPEC specifically for registered design disputes, making enforcement more accessible and affordable for small businesses.

Next steps

Once the consultation closes on 27 November 2025, the government has promised to assess the responses and use the information collated to help it "design and deliver the best possible policy and legislative outcomes to achieve the aims and objectives set out in this consultation". The government has said it will publish its response and suggestions for next steps in due course, but there is no confirmation of exactly when this will be. There have been indications that a bill could be presented to Parliament in late 2026 or early 2027. Watch this space!    

Comment

There is no doubt that the UK needs this comprehensive design consultation, and it could lead to significant changes in this area of law, the first of its kind for many years.  It was clear from the responses from stakeholders in the recent survey that the UK design regime is too complex as it is and causes problems for users. However, the government must ensure it does indeed simplify the design system and not complicate it further. Some experts have questioned how beneficial a search and examination procedure will be in reality and have expressed concerns that it may make the process more expensive and protracted.  The introduction of a bad faith provision to tackle dishonest applications, whilst appealing at a high level, may end up causing more problems than it solves. This is especially so when considering the complexities surrounding bad faith in relation to trade marks, given the leading case of Sky v SkyKick on bad faith went all the way to the UK Supreme Court. It will be interesting to see how many stakeholders respond to the consultation as the more respondents there are, the more informed the government will be to 'create a designs system fit for the future'.

Have your say!

The consultation is an opportunity for anyone with an interest in these issues to share their views on these proposals – from individual designers and small businesses to large enterprises and legal experts. It is not necessary to respond to every question, only those that are relevant to you or your business. Click here if you wish to participate in the consultation.

If you have any questions, please feel free to get in touch by reaching out to your regular contact at Fieldfisher or by emailing our central mailbox at IP@fieldfisher.com.