Protection of Graphical User Interfaces as Registered Design Rights or Design Patents in Germany

For an initial term of protection of five years (with publication of the representation of the design):

• Individual application of a design: €60 electronic filing (€70 paper-based filing) for one design.
• Multiple application, up to 100 designs: €6 electronic filing (€7 paper-based filing) per design with a minimum fee of €60 electronic filing (€70 paper-based filing).

For an initial period of protection of 30 months (deferment of the publication of the representation of the design):

• Individual application of a design: €30
• Multiple application, up to 100 designs: €3 electronic filing per design with a minimum fee of €30.

• Yes. The registered right can be kept alive by paying a renewal fee within two months following the last day of the month in which the term of protection ends. Even after the two-months deadline to renew, the registered design can still be kept alive by paying the renewal fee and an additional late-surcharge of €50 euros for each registered design.
• Fees:
  • for the 6th to the 10th year of protection for each design registered: €90
  • for the 11th to the 15th year of protection for each design registered: €120
  • for the 16th to the 20th year of protection for each design registered: €150
  • for the 21st to the 25th year of protection for each design registered: €180
  • Surcharge for late payment for each design registered: €50

• The typical time for the German PTO to register a design in this scenario is about one (1) month.
• Once registered, the PTO will publish the design (unless the applicant has applied to defer the registration, see below).

The disclosure period in Germany is 12 months.

Up to 30 months. When the application’s publication is deferred, only the file number, date of filing, date of entry in the Register, name of the holder, and name of the representative (if applicable) will be published. No other particulars, such as the representation of the design or the indication of products, will be published. During a period of deferred publication, the proprietor still enjoys protection of the registered design. Their ability to enforce vis-à-vis third parties is however limited to cases where the registered design was copied.

There is neither a formal requirement to submit a PoA to the PTO nor does the PTO usually request one.

The PTO does currently not accept WIPO DAS codes as evidence of priority. When claiming priority, the applicant must indicate the date, country and file number of the prior design application from which its priority claim is made. Moreover, the applicant has to submit a copy of the earlier application. The priority claim has to be filed within a 16 months period as of the date of priority.

Aside from formalities examination, the PTO’s examination of substantive protection requirements is limited to two grounds for non-registrability. A design application will be refused if it does not correspond to the definition of the design (that means, whether it shows the concrete colours, pattern and shape of a product) or if it is contrary to public policy and accepted principles of morality (including also if it constitutes an improper use of any State emblems and other signs of public interest).

No. There is no substantive examination of the design, and the PTO examiners will not examine the design’s novelty or individual character by reference to prior art. Post grant, third parties will be able to object to the registration by challenging the validity of the registration.

• Yes, although such examination is limited to formal requirements only. This consists of checking the Paris Convention/WTO membership of the country of the prior design application and the identity of the owners of the prior and subsequent design applications or their legal successors (to the extent possible with reasonable effort), and a cursory check to see if the deadline for claiming priority has been met.
• The PTO does not examine substantive requirements ex-officio, but only during inter partes proceedings (if necessary). It is, therefore, crucial for the applicant to ensure the design application meets all the substantive requirements, as the PTO will not invite the applicant to remedy potential deficiencies. Substantive requirements include, among others, whether the previous application is the first filing or whether it concerns an identical design. However, the missing identity of the design is sometimes taken up in cases of obvious differences, which is not the case if there are at least partial similarities between the designs.
• Designs are considered 'identical' if they differ only in details that can be qualified as 'immaterial'.

No, it’s not possible to oppose a German design application at the application stage. The only opportunity to challenge a design is through an invalidity action after registration.

The design must be represented by at least one view, with a maximum of ten views allowed per design.

• Yes, a sequence of animations can be protected within a design application. Currently, the relevant animation must be represented by including in the design application a sequence of the animation, done by filing a series of static images. The PTO does not currently accept a video as part of the application. However, the new EU Design Directive (see Q23) opens a possibility for designs to be represented in any form of visual reproduction, which could be static, dynamic or animated, including drawings, photographs, videos, computer imaging or computer modelling.
• Up to ten views can be used to show the sequence of the animation, at different specific points in time of the animation, though the ten views must be visually-related (i.e. must have features in common) and must show the sequence in a clearly understandable progression.

No written disclaimers are permitted. The representation of the views of the design must by themselves show the scope of protection the applicant is seeking. Accordingly, where the applicant wishes to disclaim any feature of a design this must be shown visually (graphically), typically by the use of dotted lines. Colour shading, blurring and boundaries are also accepted.

• The representation of the design consists of at least one colour or black-and-white photographic or other graphic reproduction (e.g. line drawing) of the design. The use of line and shading within drawings, the use of colour drawings and high-definition photographs are accepted.
• The PTO follows the following guidelines on drawing conventions:
  • The reproductions must clearly and fully represent the design and, at the same time, be suitable as a master copy for publication in the Design Gazette.
  • If protection is sought for a certain colour scheme of the design, colour illustrations are recommended.
  • Mixing colour images and black and white images within one representation of a design must be avoided. Otherwise, it will be unclear whether the colour is meant to be part of the subject matter of protection.
  • Mixing photographs and line drawings within the representation of a design may be useful if particular details cannot be photographically reproduced.
  • The background of the view must be neutral (i.e. as empty as possible).
  • The reproduction must show the design for which protection is sought without accessories (elements that are not part of the design) and does not contain any explanation, numbering or measurements.
  • A single reproduction should not show more than one view.
  • The first reproduction should show the overall view of the design because this view is displayed in what is called “result list” of the Design Register upon entering the design in the Design Register.
  • Any visual disclaimers must be consistent across all the views - exclusions can be illustrated by using dotted lines, blurring or colour shading.

• GUIs can be protected under copyright law, not as a computer program, but as a work of useful art, such as a ‘graphic work’. This is subject to the relevant GUI work qualifying as an original work of authorship by the creator (and the technical expressions of the components in the GUI not being dictated by a technical function).
• GUIs may also be protected as a registered trade mark, by way of registration of the elements in the GUIs, such as the screen display, icons, brands or logos.

The additional IP rights co-exist alongside any registered design right. By way of example, a GUI may be protected as a registered design, with the protection lasting for a maximum duration of 25 years. Concurrently, if the GUI or elements of the GUI such as logos or other artwork qualifies as a graphic work, it may have the benefit of copyright protection which lasts for the lifetime of the creator (i.e. the designer) plus 70 years after their death. At the same time, a GUI can be registered as a trade mark, lasting indefinitely if renewed.

• Limited scope / difficulties to illustrate animations: There is often added complexity when registering animations. As noted above in our response to Q14, only a maximum of ten views is allowed per design. It may therefore be necessary to split a single animated sequence up into multiple design applications in order to get the most effective protection for a full sequence. Moreover, although the applicant can include disclaimers/limitations in their design application, there is a difficulty with attempting to exclude content that is likely to change with use/when being interacted with by the user, and which is therefore dynamic and not ‘fixed’.
• Representation of only one GUI: A registered design is invalid if it includes representations of different products. Where multiple representations of a design are used, each must clearly and obviously relate to the same design and be consistent when comparing the features disclosed. This is often overlooked in design applications. There also exists in particular a risk for GUIs. If there exists one GUI with various design options (i.e. differences in colours, fonts, shading, graphics, etc) one would have to file several design applications even if differences exist only in very minor aspects.

• There are challenges when it comes to articulating the scope of design protection through a maximum of ten views. It is therefore crucial to be very diligent on the drawings since they define the scope of protection conferred.
• To ensure that the views relate to the same design as such, views (of the GUI, when depicting animations) need to be consistent and clearly relate to the same animation sequence (i.e. using the same colours, fonts, shading, graphics, etc).
• Along with submitting multiple representations to accurately define the GUI, it is also important to use disclaimers to ensure the application is not invalidated by giving the impression that additional sequences/animations are intended to be protected.
• As with all German registered design applications, we recommend professional legal advice is sought to obtain expert advice on the best way to present GUIs. We have specialist available to advise on this complex area of law.

• When filing a Hague application for GUI design protection, the applicant must be either a national of a contracting party, or to have domicile/habitual residence, or a real and effective industrial or commercial establishment in the territory of a contracting party.
• Filing via the Hague system also allows the applicant to seek protection for a design through a single (international) application, designating up to 100 designs in nearly 100 countries.
• Although filing via the Hague system allows the applicant to seek protection in multiple countries, and enables WIPO to undertake a central formalities check, the substantive examination process is left to the IP office of each designated country and their rules can vary considerably.
• Applicants are able to include an unlimited number of illustrations in their Hague application, as compared to the limit of up to 10 illustrations for German applications. German designation under Hague would therefore only protect 10 illustrations. At the same time the German design registration shall include as many illustrations as necessary to at the same time comply with the respective requirements in those other jurisdictions to which protection shall be extended. Alignment with counsel in these jurisdictions prior to even filing in Germany is advised.
• The Hague system also allows for a maximum of 30 months for deferment of publication of the application, running from the filing date (or where priority is claimed, from the priority date of the application concerned). This is subject, however, to the accepted deferment dates for the relevant designated country; this would not be an issue for Germany, which has a maximum period of 30 months for deferment (as opposed to, for example, the UK which has a maximum period of 12 months).
• When using visual disclaimers in German registrations, that shall be extended using the Hague system. It is of utmost importance to double-check with the jurisdictions to which protection is to be extended to ensure that they accept these forms of disclaimer, and to prepare the German applications accordingly from the outset.

In November 2024, the Council of the EU approved the adoption of the Design Legislative Reform package. The Recast Directive on the Legal Protection of Designs No. 2024/2823 (European Design Directive) entered into force in December 2024 and must be transposed by EU Member States by 9 December 2027. The EU design protection landscape will be modernised to reflect new technologies. Most importantly, the 'design' and 'product' definitions will become broader and clearer, with 'design' explicitly including animations, motions and transitions.
The new rules clarify that design protection is available also for non-physical products, such as 'graphic user interfaces', which are specifically mentioned in the new Regulation. The new legislation also opens a possibility for designs to be represented in any form of visual reproduction, which could be static, dynamic or animated, including drawings, photographs, videos, computer imaging or computer modelling.