Thursday, 16 October 2025
The UK Intellectual Property Office has launched a new consultation that could transform how designs are registered, challenged and protected. The proposals, now open for comment until 27 November 2025, explore whether the current fast-track registration system should be replaced by a more rigorous model involving search, examination, and formal opportunities for third parties to object.
The review follows growing criticism that the UK’s design system, while quick and inexpensive, may have become too open to abuse. Under current rules, design applications are not examined for originality or individual character before registration, which allows rapid approvals but sometimes results in weak or duplicative filings. The IPO is now considering whether it should be able to carry out discretionary checks in suspicious or borderline cases, particularly where there are signs of repeat or potentially dishonest filings.
One of the most significant ideas under discussion is the introduction of a specific “bad faith” ground in design law. This would allow the IPO to reject or cancel registrations that are made with dishonest intent, such as filing designs copied from competitors or re-filing previously invalidated material. The concept already exists in trade mark law, but would be new to the design system, which currently relies on general invalidity grounds to tackle misconduct.
Another major question is whether the UK should introduce an opposition or observation process, giving competitors and other interested parties a chance to intervene before a design is fully registered. Today, any challenge must take the form of an invalidation action, which can be costly and time-consuming. A short pre- or post-registration objection window, as seen in trade mark law, could make it easier to weed out questionable designs earlier.
At the same time, the consultation highlights the potential for the IPO to expand its design search functions. Take-up of the current optional “DF21” search service has been extremely low — only 98 requests were filed in 2023 — suggesting that applicants either find it unnecessary or lack confidence in its usefulness. Officials are now asking whether the service should be re-engineered or replaced entirely with modern, image-based or AI-driven tools.
Proponents of reform argue that the changes could improve the integrity and credibility of the design register, reducing the number of low-quality filings and making rights easier to enforce. Introducing a bad faith rule and an opposition process, they say, would deter opportunistic behaviour and bring the UK system into closer alignment with those of the EU and other major jurisdictions. More rigorous checks could also strengthen confidence among designers and investors by ensuring that registered designs genuinely meet originality standards.
However, the proposals have also raised concern among smaller businesses and individual creators who depend on the simplicity and affordability of the current model. Adding examination, opposition and redaction procedures would almost certainly increase cost and delay, potentially undermining one of the UK system’s core advantages — its speed. The administrative burden of reviewing third-party comments and managing bad-faith investigations could also strain IPO resources and create uncertainty for applicants unsure how much scrutiny their submissions will face.
Legal commentators have also questioned how feasible it will be to carry out meaningful prior-art searches, given that design novelty often depends on visual features rather than words. Developing an effective image-search infrastructure could require major investment in technology, and without it, any new examination system may remain inconsistent. Some also worry that allowing pre-registration objections could open the door to tactical challenges by established competitors seeking to slow down newcomers.
The consultation represents one of the most wide-ranging reviews of UK design law in over a decade. The government’s challenge will be to find a balance between accessibility and reliability — a system that remains open to innovation while ensuring that the designs it protects are genuine, distinctive, and created in good faith. The outcome will determine whether the UK remains a fast, flexible jurisdiction for design protection, or whether it opts for a slower but more controlled approach aligned with international norms.
Source: CMS
