UK Design Law Consultation Spotlight Series: Miscellaneous Changes

The UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) is currently consulting on significant reforms to the legal framework for designs. This long-awaited consultation provides a rare opportunity for design businesses and stakeholders to have their say on shaping the future of UK design law.

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

In this mini-series, we will cast the spotlight on each consultation topic to provide a summary of the key issues, the options on the table, and insights on the way forward.

Our fifth article examines Section E of the consultation, which sets out a series of miscellaneous reforms intended to modernise registered design law and align it more closely with other intellectual property regimes. While Section E spans 11 discrete topics, we focus on those that are most likely to affect designers in practice.

1. Harmonising time periods for response to an official action

Currently, there are different response periods to official actions which lead to a ‘staggered’ approach to prosecution. Applicants have two months to respond to substantive or formalities objections, followed by a separate three-month window to deal with any objections relating to the design representations. Objections to the representations can only be raised once the substantive or formalities objections are resolved. This staging leads to multiple rounds of official actions, elongating prosecution and increasing the cost and administrative burden for applicants and the UKIPO.

The UKIPO proposes allowing all objections to be issued simultaneously and harmonising the response period to two months, which is extendable. The UKIPO considers that applicants would not be disadvantaged by this change whilst benefiting from a simpler, more predictable process.

2. Priority claims

Currently, if applicants want to benefit from claiming priority under the Paris Convention, they need to provide the number, filing date, and country of the priority filing and then either submit a declaration of identicalness or a certified priority document. The UKIPO checks documents where supplied, but often accepts declarations at face value, creating inconsistency in the examination process.

The UKIPO has outlined three options for reform, for a more consistent and simplified process:

Option 1:  only ask for the priority claim details (no declarations and no documents needed). This aligns with the procedure for trade mark registration and reduces administrative burden on the applicants and the UKIPO.

Option 2: only ask for details of a priority claim and a priority document whenever a priority claim is made. This aligns with procedures for patent applications and facilitates third‑party verification. The related administrative burden will be reduced once the UKIPO joins WIPO’s DAS document exchange system for designs. Inspection of priority documents would become particularly relevant if search and examination of design applications to assess novelty and individual character were to be introduced in response to this consultation (see our Law‑Now on Section A  here, which discusses this in further detail).

Option 3: maintain current practice.

3. Powers to make a late objection

In Section A of the consultation, the UKIPO seeks views on a mechanism that would allow third parties to oppose or comment (via ‘observations’) on design applications before registration.

The UKIPO is also seeking views on introducing a separate late-objection mechanism, enabling the registrar to raise objections after an opposition or observation period (if these were to be introduced) where relevant matters came to light, including any observations raised by third parties.

The intended policy outcome is to correct errors and reduce the risk of invalid designs entering and remaining on the register.

4. Matter prohibited by law contained in a design application, and provision to allow the registrar to share an application before publication

The current UK design law bars registration of certain protected emblems, such as the Royal Arms and flags of Paris Convention countries. Although there is a list (Schedule A1), it is limited and does not capture all symbols that are considered prohibited. This creates a gap, whereby a design may include an unlawful symbol yet fall outside Schedule A1, leaving the registrar without a clear legal basis to object. By contrast, UK trade mark law includes a general refusal ground permitting refusal where the use of a mark is prohibited by any other enactment or rule of law, not limited to the law relating to trade marks. To close this gap and remove inconsistency across UK regimes, the UKIPO proposes adding an equivalent provision to the Registered Designs Act.

In parallel, the registrar’s ability to enforce such prohibitions is impeded in practice by the absence of a searchable database for heraldic devices, which are recorded as textual “blazons” requiring specialist expertise to interpret. To address this practical constraint, the UKIPO proposes a limited power for the registrar to share applications, before publication, with relevant authorities solely for the purpose of carrying out statutory duties. This targeted sharing is intended to improve accuracy and efficiency at the examination stage, while preserving confidentiality and limiting disclosure to what is necessary in the public interest.

Together, these measures would align design law with trade mark practice and facilitate the identification and refusal of matters prohibited by other laws.

5. Rectification of the register

UK design law requires rectification of the designs register to be sought through the courts, with no parallel administrative route via the registrar. Inevitably, this ends up being costly and slow (even for uncontroversial corrections).

The UKIPO proposes providing an option for rectification via the registrar, alongside the courts. The UKIPO envisages that straightforward rectifications would be made through the registrar (such as entitlement or ownership issues), particularly where corrections are clear and agreed between parties, whilst complex and contested issues can be dealt with in court.

6. Other proposed changes

(i) Updating provisions relating to inspection of designs

• The provisions outlining the Registrar’s responsibilities for the inspection of registered designs are outdated. For example, they refer to providing a certified extract of the register in documentary form.
   
•  The UKIPO proposes to modernise the inspection framework by making all currently registered designs available online and publishing a contemporaneous journal recording key information about registered designs, thereby delivering a more accessible, user‑centred register.

(ii) Removing the ability to file specimens

• UK design law permits physical specimens to be retained by the UKIPO, but few are filed, they are impractical to search, and practice is shifting towards fully digital filing.
   
• The UKIPO proposes deleting specimen‑filing provisions to simplify administration, cut costs, improve searchability and accessibility, and reflect modern practice.

(iii) Warrant of validity and liability

• Unlike patents and trade marks, the Registered Designs Act lacks an express no‑warranty and limited‑liability provision whereby the registrar disclaims any warranty as to the validity of a registration, and limits its liability arising from the examination process.
   
• The UKIPO proposes adding such provisions to ensure consistency across UK registered IP rights.

(iv) Power to direct the use of forms

• The registrar can currently mandate the use of specific forms only for applications, representations/specimens, and other filed documents. This excludes certain prosecution practices which are common, such as deferment, and causes workarounds to be adopted which risk a lack of consistency and legal certainty.
   
• The UKIPO proposes broadening this power to apply to any design registration or proceedings purpose, aligning with other UK IP rights.

Our thoughts

The UKIPO’s proposed reforms are designed to modernise UK designs law and bring it into closer alignment with the patent and trade mark regimes, promoting greater consistency across registered IP rights. It also reflects the gradual shift in filing practices by purging redundant and under-utilised provisions from the law and clearing the way for simpler, more practical ways of working.

There is also a welcome focus towards reducing the UKIPO’s administrative load by placing more of the onus of upfront diligence on applicants. For designers and applicants, the outcome should be a more nimble, accessible and higher‑quality designs register that further improves the relative ease of creation and management of design rights, which has long been recognised as one of the core benefits of the current UK system. Taken collectively, Section E is largely pragmatic – and yet valuable – housekeeping, aimed at delivering greater legal certainty and a more streamlined, digitally enabled registration process.

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.