UK Design Law Consultation Spotlight Series: Deferment

The UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) is currently consulting on significant reforms to the legal framework for designs. Section B of the consultation addresses the process of deferment in UK design applications.

The call for views is due to close on 27 November 2025. Responses can be sent via the UK IPO’s Citizens Space (https://ipoconsultations.citizenspace.com/ipo/uk-designs-consultation/) or by emailing designsconsultation@ipo.gov.uk.

This second article in this series provides an overview of the key legal issues in Section B of the Consultation, which addresses the process of deferment in UK design applications.

Deferment - Background and Rationale

Section B of the Designs Consultation relates to the ability for applicants to delay registration and publication of their designs. Deferment allows applicants to maintain confidentiality of their design during critical pre-launch periods., whilst still securing a priority date. This is particularly valuable for businesses with long product development cycles, as premature publication can expose strategic plans and undermine a commercial first-mover advantage. While UK designs practice currently allows up to twelve months’ deferment, this is not explicitly embodied in legislation, potentially leading to uncertainty and inconsistency.

The Current Approach

The UK’s twelve-month deferment period is notably shorter than the thirty months permitted by the EUIPO. Many UK designers and businesses feel disadvantaged by this, as it may force premature disclosure and complicate international filing strategies, particularly those where UK and EU filings are made in parallel. The lack of a formal provision also risks driving applicants to jurisdictions with longer deferment options.

Conversely, a shorter deferment period could benefit third party competitors, who currently run the risk of investing substantial resources in developing products in good faith, only to later discover—once the deferred design is published—that their efforts inadvertently infringe a prior-filed deferred design right, potentially requiring costly withdrawal from the market.

Proposals for Reform

The UKIPO proposes to introduce an explicit deferment provision into the Registered Designs Act 1949, to give legal footing to a practice that already exists – but with possible changes to its scope. The aim is to achieve greater legal clarity and a fairer balance between the interests of applicants and third parties. The key features under consideration are:

• Extending the Deferment Period: The UKIPO suggests an extended deferment period of up to 18 months, starting from the earliest application or priority date. This is seen as a compromise between the interests of design owners (who favour longer deferment) and third parties (who seek certainty). However, many practitioners prefer a 30-month period to align with the EU and the maximum term available via WIPO, simplifying global filing programmes and making the UK system more attractive to overseas filers. A longer deferment period would allow greater flexibility for design applicants to plan their product launches and to abandon speculative design applications that will not proceed to commercial launch, helping to avoid some of the perceived ‘clutter’ on the register.
• Publication of Basic Information: To balance confidentiality and transparency, the UKIPO suggests publishing basic information (such as the applicant’s and representative’s names, filing date, priority date, and possibly Locarno class) should be published during the deferment period, aligning with the EU system. This would put third parties “on notice” of the potential existence of a deferred design, without revealing full details until publication. 
• Calculating deferment from UK filing, or (if earlier) the claimed priority date: The latter option would ensure that all applicants are offered the same length of deferment, irrespective of whether the priority application is made in the UK or overseas, and avoid extending deferment “by the back door” by claiming deferment as a top-up to a priority period.
• Clarifying Prior Use Rights: It is noted that a deferred design cannot be enforced in respect of activities that took place before it was published and granted. There is also a ‘prior use’ provision which applies to persons who have, in good faith, used or made preparations to use a design which is subsequently registered. Currently, this only applies to acts commenced before the registered design was applied for, which means, third parties who begin using a design during the deferment period in good faith cannot rely on these prior use rights. The UKIPO is seeking views on whether to extend them to cover the deferment period, so that it applies to acts commenced after the design was filed but before it is published. This would help allay concerns about longer deferment periods unfairly prejudicing innocent infringers and better balance the interests of applicants and third parties.

Our thoughts

The government’s proposals for a formal deferment provision in UK design law are a welcome step towards modernisation and international alignment. While the suggested 18-month period better reflects the commercial realities of a new product launch, there are good reasons for considering a further extension to 30-month deferment to match the EU and make the UK system more attractive to global filers. There is relatively limited risk to “innocent” infringers in practice, which could be further mitigated by extending the prior use provisions to cover the deferment period, enhancing legal certainty and fairness.

Aligning the start of the deferment period with the earliest of the priority date or UK filing date would help ensure fairness and simplicity regardless of the origin of a UK design application. Deferring both registration and publication, and publishing basic information in line with the EU approach, seems to strike an appropriate balance between confidentiality for applicants and a degree of transparency – or at least a space to watch – for third parties.

Overall, the proposed reforms indicate a positive leap towards strengthening the UK’s position as a competitive and user-friendly jurisdiction for design protection.

CMS is playing a central role in shaping and implementing design related policies and procedures in collaboration with the UKIPO and other stakeholders. Members of the CMS Design Team sit on the CITMA Design Law Committee (Kaisa.Patsalides@cms-cmno.com), INTA Design Law Committee (Sarah.Wright@cms-cmno.com) and IP Federation (Ben.Hitchens@cms-cmno.com) to help lead the conversation.

If you have any questions on the UK Design Consultation or have any other design queries, please do not hesitate to contact DesignLaw@internal.cms-cmno.com or the individuals listed above.