UK launches major design law and practice consultation

In brief:

The UK Intellectual Property Office has launched a major consultation to simplify and modernise the UK's design law framework for the digital age. The consultation closes on 27 November 2025.
Key proposals include introducing targeted measures to improve registration quality, including through optional search and examination powers, bad faith provisions, and new opposition/observation procedures.
The consultation addresses digital-age challenges including protection for graphical user interfaces, animated designs, and computer-generated designs, with the Government stating its preference to remove design protection for AI-generated designs without human authors.
Significant simplification of the complex unregistered design framework is proposed, alongside addressing post-Brexit disclosure issues that have created protection gaps for designers.

The UK Intellectual Property Office has launched a major consultation to simplify and modernise the UK's design law framework for the digital age. The current regime is not fit for purpose for an industry contributing significant sums to the economy (£97.4 billion in 2019), and comprising over 80,000 design businesses, mostly microbusinesses. Further, Brexit has complicated the position for designers looking to protect their designs in both the UK and EU, but it also now presents opportunities to take a different path on some key issues, with the EU having implemented its own reform package earlier this year (see our article on the EU reforms for more information).

The consultation raises a number of important and complex questions, and it will take some time for designers and their representatives to digest fully. In this article, we provide an initial overview of some of the key issues considered in the document.

The deadline for a response is 27 November 2025.

Search, examination, bad faith and opposition/observation

Several of the consultation proposals focus on introducing targeted measures to improve the quality of registered designs. In particular, the UKIPO is concerned about anti-competitive registrations, with some applicants registering designs for well-known products, or products that don't belong to them, in order to rely upon these registrations to, for example, obtain takedowns on online platforms. This issue can (in part) be attributed to the fact that it is currently very easy to register a design, with the UKIPO for example unable to object to a design that is not new.

Search and examination

Whilst the consultation does not suggest re-introducing full search and examination of designs for novelty and individual character (steps that it stopped carrying out in 2006), and also does not propose maintaining the status quo, it puts forward the following options for stakeholders' comments:

Introduce powers in law for the UKIPO to investigate and object to designs that are suspected to lack novelty and individual character. This would not involve a mandatory search on all applications and so, whilst it would mean continuing to ensure a low-cost, quick-to-register system and it would also help address anti-competitive filings, it would lead to an inconsistent approach.
Introduce a two-stage system. Under an approach similar to one adopted in Australia, designs would be partially registered without the UKIPO doing any search. However, if and when that design came to be enforced, search and examination would then be required before enforcement action could take place. Again, this would deliver quick, low cost (partial) registration and also help address anti-competitive registrations. However, it could also introduce confusion and an administrative burden for applicants. It could also mean there are delays in enforcement which could disincentivise designers enforcing their rights.

Bad faith

UK design law does not currently include a specific bad faith provision. The consultation therefore seeks views on whether the UKIPO should be able to object to applications filed in bad faith, again with the aim of preventing bad-faith registrations being used when filing takedown notices. The suggestion is for a targeted approach to bad faith applications, requiring some indication that an applicant is not acting in good faith before the UKIPO could act.

Observation and opposition

Again, UK design law does not currently allow third parties to oppose a design application or to provide any observations on it (instead an application for invalidity must be made after the design is registered). The consultation seeks views on possible options to introduce some mechanism of this kind:

Introduce a post-registration opposition period for designs (registered at risk). Third parties would be given a two-month period in which to file an opposition. Of course, it is currently possible to apply to invalidate a design after registration, so this may not add much to that existing route.
Introduce a pre-registration opposition period for designs. Again, the proposal is for a two-month period for filing an opposition, this time before the design is registered. The consultation notes the potential impact on filings in other countries in terms of destroying novelty.
Introduce a pre-registration observation period. Again, under this option, a two-month observation period is proposed.

Deferment

Currently, an applicant can choose to defer registration and publication of a UK design for up to 12 months, albeit this is not specifically provided for in legislation (the deferment period in the EU is 30 months). The consultation proposes introducing a specific deferment provision in the Registered Designs Act 1949 with the following features:

18 months duration.
Deferment period starts from the earliest of priority or filing date of the application.
Both registration and full publication would be deferred.
Basic information would be published e.g. applicant name, date of application and design classification.

Graphical user interfaces (GUIs) and animated designs

One of the central debates in the consultation is whether the UK design framework is fit for purpose in the digital arena. In this context, this arises in a focus on the treatment of applications to register GUIs and animated designs.

The options for consultation are to:

Provide further guidance on what can be protected as a design.
Amend legislation - whilst the UKIPO believes animated designs and GUIs are protectable under existing laws, this would of course provide clarity. A similar approach has been taken in the EU in its design reform package.
Allow moving/animated designs to be filed via different file format. The consultation notes that this may cause issues if other jurisdictions do not accept such formats.
Allow an additional description to be added alongside stills/video clips.

Computer-generated designs

Current laws relating to registered designs and unregistered design right (but not to supplementary unregistered design, the new right introduced on Brexit in place of the EU unregistered design) provide design protection for computer-generated designs without an author. Copyright protection is also available under copyright legislation for computer-generated works without an author. However, these provisions are untested legally and are out of step with other jurisdictions.

In line with its proposals in its consultation on Copyright and AI, the Government's preferred approach is to remove design protection for computer-generated designs without an author. However, it seeks views on the following options:

Maintain the existing protection for computer-generated designs without an author.
Reform protection for such designs. This could include removing or redefining the originality requirement in UK unregistered design law.
Remove protection for such designs. Given the lack of evidence as to the value of these provisions, the Government states that this is its preferred option.
As a supplementary option, collect data on whether AI has been used in the creation of a design.

Miscellaneous changes to design registration system

A number of miscellaneous changes are also proposed to improve the UK design registration system:

Providing a legal basis for the Registrar to object to the use of a symbol prohibited elsewhere in legislation.
Harmonising time periods for response to official actions, to two months.
Removing the ability to file specimens.
Allowing the UKIPO to share applications before publication with relevant authorities.
Introducing powers to make a late objection.
Provision that the Registrar does not warrant the validity of registered designs.
Allowing requests for rectification to be made to the Registrar or court.
Updating provisions relating to inspection of designs.
Powers for the UKIPO to direct the use of forms.
Changes to priority claims – no longer requesting a declaration of identicalness or a priority document, but merely asking for details of a priority claim.

Simplification of unregistered designs and overlap with copyright

The complexity arising from the patchwork of protection available for designs has long been criticised, and was made significantly worse following Brexit. The Government has heeded calls from many to simplify the framework and is seeking views on two options to achieve this (alongside the status quo of making no change):

Retain supplementary unregistered design and abolish design right. This is described as the 'maximum simplification' option, and the one that would provide a higher degree of harmonisation with the EU. Features of the revised form of protection would include:
- Appearance of whole or part of a product would be protected for three years from first disclosure in the UK.
- 2D (including surface decoration) and 3D articles would be protected.
- However, purely functional aspects of shape and configuration would not be protected. Other aspects of designs that are currently protected by design right would also not be protected. These changes would have significant implications for designers, particularly in certain sectors.
Consolidate the unregistered designs framework. The alternative option is described as providing 'maximum protection'. It would provide protection for both aesthetic aspects such as appearance and more functional elements of shape and configuration. Options could involve:
- Harmonising certain provisions (but keeping two separate rights).
- Creating a single consolidated right which is harmonised in some respects. As a minimum, the Government considers that harmonisation of the term of protection and qualification requirements would be desirable (other aspects of the supplementary unregistered design framework would apply to the consolidated regime):
  - As to qualification, the Government proposes that an unregistered design should be created when it is first disclosed to the public (see below as to whether this would have to be in the UK).
  - For term of protection, its preference is for a five-year term (compared to the current three years for the supplementary unregistered design, and up to 15 years for unregistered design right).
- Creating a fully consolidated right.

Overlap with copyright

The consultation also highlights the complex interplay between design protection and copyright. Given recent case law (such as the decision of the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court relating to works of artistic craftsmanship in WaterRower, which we discussed in our article here), the Government's preference is, in fact, to make no changes to current copyright law provisions. In particular, it notes that the approach in WaterRower means copyright will only be available to protect those design products with a certain artistic character, thereby ensuring copyright is not overly protective.

However, the consultation sets out certain other options for consideration including:

Amending copyright legislation to provide greater clarity. This could include options such as removing works of artistic craftsmanship from copyright protection; providing a definition of such works; or providing a new definition of originality in relation to design articles.
Updating the copyright exceptions framework. Possible options here include reintroducing an exception for industrially manufactured items; introducing a spare parts exception; and amending the panorama exception.

Post-Brexit issues relating to unregistered designs

As there is no mutual recognition of the rules around disclosure of unregistered designs in the UK/EU Trade Continuity Agreement (TCA), one interpretation of the current framework is that a design which is first disclosed in the UK will be protected in the UK, but not in the EU; and one that is first disclosed in the EU is not protected in the UK. Whilst there is some doubt as to whether this is a correct interpretation of the law, design-led businesses that would like to rely upon unregistered design protection in both territories have been put in a difficult position as a result. One solution may be to rely upon simultaneous disclosure in both the UK and the EU, but this remains untested legally.

This is going to be a complex issue for the Government to resolve. It says it is not possible, at this stage, to seek reciprocal recognition with the EU on disclosure rules, and it also rejects allowing any disclosure that takes place abroad to give rise to unregistered design protection in the UK. Instead, it seeks views on the following options (in addition to maintaining the status quo):

Unilaterally recognise simultaneous disclosure in law. This would recognise the increasing importance of digital technology and the commercial realities of doing business, but would also introduce an asymmetry with the EU, and the benefits such a change would bring would only apply to those disclosing their designs outside the UK (unless other countries changed their laws also).
Introduce a grace period for unregistered designs. Under this option, first disclosure of a design outside the UK would give rise to a supplementary unregistered design if that design was subsequently disclosed or put on the market in the UK within a certain period of time. However, this would introduce complexity and could put UK-based trade shows at a disadvantage.
Supplementary design is created following first disclosure anywhere in the EU which has come to the attention of the relevant trade circles in the UK. This option recognises that the EU is a key market for many designers, but it again would lead to an asymmetry, as disclosure of the design in the UK would not give rise to unregistered design protection in the EU.
Supplementary design is created following first disclosure anywhere in the world which has come to the attention of the relevant trade circles in the UK. Again, this option would introduce asymmetry.

Call for evidence on other issues

Finally, there are some issues where the Government seeks evidence from stakeholders. These include:

Criminal sanctions for unregistered design infringement. This has been dismissed as a proposal in previous reform exercises, but the Government is seeking further evidence from stakeholders as to whether a new criminal offence for unregistered design infringement should be introduced.
Inclusion of designs in the small claims track in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC). The small claims track in IPEC is suitable for cases where the damages are lower than £10,000. Registered designs are currently excluded from the small claims track, but the Government seeks views on whether there is support for the track being available.

Next steps

The deadline to respond to the consultation is 27 November 2025. As this summary makes clear, there are a number of complex and overlapping issues for designers to consider in this consultation, though they are not required to answer all sections in the document. The UKIPO has issued video explainers and will no doubt be engaging with designers and their representatives during the consultation process.

If you would like to discuss the consultation in more detail, please get in touch.