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

The Commercial Court in England and Wales is preparing to launch a six-month pilot designed to make business litigation more open to the public. The initiative aims to publish key documents from major commercial cases, marking a shift toward greater visibility in how high-value disputes are handled.

Supporters say the move will strengthen public trust in the courts and bring the justice system into line with modern expectations of openness. Critics, however, warn that it may expose sensitive commercial information, creating new risks for companies and individuals involved in complex cases.

A Move Toward Public Access

For the first time, members of the public will be able to access the main written materials used in certain commercial trials — including the arguments, witness statements and expert analyses that judges rely on to reach their decisions. The pilot is expected to run for half a year, after which the court will assess whether the initiative should become a permanent feature of civil justice.

The project builds on a growing belief that justice should not only be done, but also seen to be done. By releasing materials that would normally remain behind legal firewalls, the court hopes to improve understanding of how business disputes are resolved and make proceedings less opaque.

The Benefits: Accountability and Trust

Many legal observers welcome the pilot as a step toward a more accountable and transparent system. Making documents public could help demystify the complex world of corporate litigation and allow journalists, academics, and the wider public to better follow major cases that often involve billions of pounds.

Greater visibility could also reinforce confidence in judicial independence and fairness. When evidence and arguments are accessible, observers can see for themselves how decisions are reached, helping dispel misconceptions about bias or inconsistency. Some lawyers believe that this openness may even lead to higher standards in advocacy, as submissions will now face both judicial and public scrutiny.

The Risks: Confidentiality and Competitive Exposure

Yet the pilot is not without controversy. Business litigants often rely on the courts to protect commercially sensitive data such as pricing models, contracts, or trade secrets. Once published, such information could easily be copied, shared, or used in rival proceedings, damaging a company’s competitive position.

Another concern is the potential rise in redaction disputes, as parties seek to remove confidential details before publication. This could increase costs and slow down proceedings, undermining one of the Commercial Court’s greatest strengths — its efficiency. Smaller businesses, which may lack the resources to manage these additional layers of review, could be particularly disadvantaged.

Lawyers also warn that full disclosure might discourage open communication between clients and their legal teams. If every argument or expert report could later become public, firms may feel compelled to hold back certain details, reducing the candour that often helps courts reach fair outcomes.

A Balancing Act Ahead

The transparency pilot reflects the judiciary’s determination to modernise, but it also highlights the delicate balance between public interest and the right to confidentiality. While the court promises mechanisms for redaction or restriction, it remains to be seen how effectively these safeguards will work in practice — and whether the benefits of openness will outweigh the costs.

As the pilot begins, all eyes in the legal and corporate sectors will be on how the Commercial Court manages this new experiment. If successful, it could set a precedent for wider transparency across the English justice system. If not, it may prove to be a cautionary tale of how too much visibility can come at the expense of fairness and trust.

Source: CMS

A recent High Court ruling has prompted widespread discussion in the legal profession about who is legally permitted to carry out litigation work within law firms. The case, Mazur & Stuart v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP, decided in mid-September 2025, found that non-qualified employees may assist with litigation but cannot themselves perform activities reserved exclusively for authorised legal professionals.

The dispute centred on whether a non-lawyer staff member within a regulated firm could legally undertake actions connected to managing court proceedings. The judgment clarified that employment by a regulated firm does not in itself grant the right to conduct litigation, a function that remains reserved to those holding specific professional authorisation under the UK’s Legal Services Act.

Legal observers say the decision has immediate implications for firms that rely heavily on paralegals, legal executives, or other non-qualified staff in high-volume practice areas such as personal injury, insurance, or consumer claims. Many of these businesses had assumed that employees could act under the firm’s authorisation provided adequate supervision was in place. The court’s interpretation, however, restricts that assumption, reinforcing that only authorised individuals can directly handle the procedural steps defined as litigation conduct.

Professional bodies and regulators have responded cautiously, with the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Legal Services Board both acknowledging the need to review how firms structure supervision and delegation. The Chartered Institute of Legal Executives, whose members are among those most affected, has signalled it may seek reform to expand or clarify its members’ rights in this area.

For law firms, the ruling means revisiting internal compliance systems and ensuring that clear boundaries exist between staff permitted to conduct litigation and those limited to supporting roles. Insurance advisers also note that professional indemnity policies may need reassessment, particularly for firms engaged in bulk litigation, where non-lawyer staff often manage large caseloads.

Although the case was decided in England and Wales, its reasoning underscores broader questions facing the modern legal services sector: how to balance operational efficiency with the strict regulatory framework that defines who may carry out core legal functions. For now, firms are being urged to review their procedures and ensure that day-to-day practices remain aligned with the law’s reserved-activity rules.

Source: CMS