UK registered designs meaning

How to use this Checklist This Checklist flags issues that frequently emerge when negotiating and drafting the following agreement types: Design licence—pro-licensor Design licence—pro-licensee For further reading on design licensing, see these Practice Notes: Introduction to designs UK registered and unregistered designs Licensing intellectual property rights For example character merchandising agreements, consult the Precedents: Character merchandising agreement—pro-licensor and Character merchandising agreement—pro-licensee. For details of the key terms commonly found in a manufacturing agreement and designs licence, see: Manufacturing agreement and design licence—checklist. This Checklist can also, where appropriate, operate as the foundation for a straightforward non-binding heads of terms. For guidance on doing so, see Precedent: Heads of terms—commercial contracts. For support on negotiating an IP licence clause, refer to Practice Note: Negotiation guide—intellectual property licence clause. Checklist schedule for proposed licence of designs Points to consider • Further information • Notes (if any) (A) Key commercial considerations...

How to use this Checklist This Checklist flags typical issues that arise when negotiating a manufacturing agreement and a design licence, helping you focus on key points at each stage. For further information on the licensing of designs, consult the materials below and see the following Practice Notes: Introduction to designs UK registered and unregistered designs Licensing intellectual property rights For standalone design licences, consult Precedents: Design licence—pro-licensor and Design licence—pro-licensee. See also: Licence of designs—checklist. For character merchandising arrangements, refer to Precedents: Character merchandising agreement—pro-licensor and Character merchandising agreement—pro-licensee. Where suitable, this Checklist may serve as the basis for a brief, non-binding heads of terms. For guidance on how to do this, see Precedent: Heads of terms—commercial contracts. Checklist schedule for proposed manufacturing agreement and design licence The following notes apply to the key commercial considerations identified and outlined herein. Notes Parties Parties: verify each party’s legal status and whether any third parties...

Consider the nature of the IP right From a lender’s standpoint, use this checklist to pinpoint key points when taking IP as security and the steps to implement it... Identify the IP right and applicable law; patents, trade marks, registered designs and copyright can be mortgaged or charged... Select security: a legal mortgage (assignment plus redemption and exclusive licence‑back) offers stronger control than a fixed charge; for charges, restrict disposals and hold an executed undated assignment in escrow (verify foreign recognition)... Confirm ownership, term, existing security, licences and third‑party interests; demand warranties and title evidence, especially for unregistered rights... Assess validity and maintenance: search prior rights, check renewals and genuine use, monitor infringement, review litigation; obtain professional opinions where needed... Value the right and routes on default (licensing or sale); add complementary assets if required... Cover associated rights and materials: unregistered marks/goodwill (only with the business), unregistered designs, database right, know‑how/confidential information, domain names, and software/source code with escrow... Register...

This Flowchart provides an overview of a UK design infringement action. The right invoked may arise from any of the UK design rights that sit alongside one another: UK registered designs (including re-registered designs) UK unregistered designs (sometimes referred to as ‘design right’) supplementary unregistered designs For added guidance on these rights, see the Practice Note: UK registered and unregistered designs...

View or print a full-size PDF version:...

In this issue Designs Patents IP and technology Daily and weekly news alerts Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Designs EU design reforms prompt a portfolio review. Law360 notes that in-house IP teams should start examining their organisations’ design portfolios in light of soon-to-arrive, strengthened European design reforms to future-proof their IP approach. See: EU design reforms signal its time to review portfolios. Court of Appeal rejects appeal in design conspiracy case (Iqbal v City of Wolverhampton Council). The challenge to conviction and sentence for conspiracies involving counterfeit goods and the unauthorised copying of a design under section 35ZA of the Registered Designs Act 1949 was dismissed. The defendants received 31 months’ imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently. The Court of Appeal upheld the Crown Court’s convictions and sentences. See: [2025] EWCA Crim 498. Patents Patents Court strikes out claim against the Comptroller (Ahmad v Comptroller General of Patents). The Patents Court...

In this issue: Copyright & associated rights Patents Trade marks/passing off Designs General IP Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Latest Q&A Useful information IP Highlights 2024/2025 Copyright & associated rights Testing the outer limits of artistic copyright (WaterRower v Liking) WaterRower (UK) Ltd v Liking Ltd (t/a Topiom) [2024] EWHC 2806 (IPEC) centred on whether a rowing machine, the WaterRower, qualified for protection as a work of artistic craftsmanship under section 4(1)(c) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. The matter compelled the court to address a clash between the UK and EU criteria for this category. While earlier rulings had managed to sidestep that divergence, it could not be avoided here. Unable to bridge the divide, the judge determined the WaterRower was not a work of artistic craftsmanship under UK law, although it would have secured protection applying EU law....

Original news Canary Wharf Group Ltd v Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks [2015] EWHC 1588 (Ch) What is this case about? This matter concerns an appeal brought by Canary Wharf Group (CWG), a London-based property company, against a ruling of the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) that rejected the registration of CWG’s application to register the word mark CANARY WHARF, lodged in March 2013. The specification spanned printed matter (class 16) and services connected with real estate, building construction and design, car parking, landscape design and security (classes 36, 37, 39, 42, 44 and 45). By Decision O-423-14, the Hearing Officer refused the application on ‘absolute grounds’ under the Trade Marks Act 1994 (TMA 1994), namely: trade marks lacking distinctive character must not be registered (TMA 1994, s 3(1)(b)) trade marks consisting solely of signs or indications which may, in trade, designate the geographical origin or other characteristics of the goods or services shall not be registered (TMA 1994,...

What design protection is available in the UK? Design rights safeguard the shape, configuration or appearance of the whole or any part of a product or article, rather than its functional features. The purpose of design law is to specifically deter others from making products that closely follow the design or otherwise produce the very same overall impression as the original design. The design rights currently available in the UK are as follows: namely UK registered designs (including re-registered designs and re-registered international designs) UK unregistered design right (also known as design right) Supplementary unregistered design right (SUD) Each of these rights differs in qualifying criteria, scope and the duration of protection. For more information, see Practice Note: Comparison tables for design protection available in the UK. Before Brexit, the UK designs regime was substantially harmonised with the EU regime then. The Designs Directive (Directive 98/71/EC) harmonised the requirements for national registered design protection across the EU. It was...

Lookalike products and dupes are, by their nature, difficult for brand owners to deal with. They are designed to imitate, or to evoke, a famous or trending product, yet frequently avoid any clear branding cues for which the brand owner might hold registered rights. For example, a lookalike might mirror entirely the colour palette, overall appearance and tactile feel of the packaging of a renowned product, while adopting a different trade mark to sidestep liability. The difficulty in policing such products arises because, under UK law, there is no single, dedicated IP right tailored to address them. Instead, brand owners typically must piece together a mosaic of protections—copyright, passing off, and trade mark and design infringement—to prove the components of a claim against a copycat item. Makers and designers of lookalikes and dupes are, moreover, commonly sophisticated. They take care to steer clear of obvious trade marked brand names, choosing rather to reproduce more commonplace or generic features such as the overall design, visual impression and feel of a...

Why use artificial intelligence in design? As AI technologies, in particular generative AI, become more widespread and accessible, almost every sector is experiencing changes, opportunities and challenges, and design is indeed no exception. Employed for brainstorming, ideation and early concept development, AI can serve as a powerful aid, helping designers move past creative blocks and investigate a much wider range of visual possibilities. It can also raise efficiency: with generative AI, designers can quickly produce numerous variants and multiple design options at scale. That pace can accelerate the creative process and encourage further experimentation, potentially yielding highly innovative results. Nevertheless, bringing AI into design workflows introduces several legal risks that cannot be ignored. This Practice Note examines how IP practitioners advising design clients should respond to the rising use of AI across the industry by identifying and discussing these risks in detail. It considers ownership of IP rights in computer-generated designs and works lacking a human author, difficulties in protecting designs created wholly or partially by AI, and the...

The purpose of a claim form A claim form is the document that initiates proceedings. It sets out key details for the case, including: the court reference number to appear on all later court documents; the parties involved in the proceedings; the relief sought or what is being claimed; particulars of the claim (including any claim for interest); and contact details for the claimant, usually the claimant’s solicitor. The procedural requirements on how and where to commence proceedings are in CPR Part 7. General guidance on what a claim form should contain is provided in the Practice Note: Claim form—the contents. This Precedent is accompanied by material containing suggested wording for claims concerning infringement of UK registered designs, UK unregistered designs and/or supplementary unregistered designs. The Precedent also highlights the specific issues to consider when completing a claim form for these proceedings. The attached N1 claim form is illustrative only...

Case No. [ insert claim number ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND & WALES INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LIST (ChD) [ INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ENTERPRISE COURT (IPEC) OR PATENTS COURT ] BETWEEN: [ insert full name of claimant ] Claimant and [ insert full name of defendant ] Defendant REPLY AND DEFENCE TO COUNTERCLAIM REPLY Preliminary Points Unless indicated otherwise, in this Reply and Defence to Counterclaim any paragraph references are to those in the Defence and Counterclaim. The Claimant contests the Defendant’s allegations and contentions in the Defence and Counterclaim in their entirety, except to the extent that they amount to admissions. The Claimant's Rights Registered Design Paragraph 5 is denied. The Registered Design is neither currently nor at any material time has been invalid for the reasons advanced in the Defence and Counterclaim [ and/or in the Grounds of Invalidity...

Introduction: This questionnaire concerns the intellectual property (IP) audit overseen by [ contact name ] in [ identify department ]. IP covers intangible business assets, described further below, including: copyright works software confidential information databases trade marks (brands and logos) domain names patents inventions designs Reasons for the audit: The purpose of this audit is to [ review our business's IP and the measures taken to protect it. ] This review is required for [ risk management, legal compliance, accounting and tax planning ] purposes. Companies and territories covered by the audit: The audit applies to [ insert company name ] [ and [ identify other group companies covered by the audit ] ] in [ the UK ] [ and [ identify other jurisdictions within the scope of the audit ] ]. Your role: Please set out which IP is used by your [ department OR business ] and...