A ream of changes will be made to the UK design protection regime “when parliamentary time allows”. These changes are intended to improve the design protection system in the UK and are set out in full in a consultation outcome report published on 4 November 2026. The report also addresses possible further changes needing more investigation (including in respect of computer generated designs) and rejects others that were proposed. Some of the most significant of these are considered below. 

Key changes at a glance

• No new criminal offence for unregistered design right infringement.
• Unregistered design rights (UDR and SUD) will not be fully consolidated, but simplification work continues.
• Designs first disclosed anywhere in the world will be able to qualify for SUD protection in the UK.
• The Registrar will have discretion to conduct pre-registration searches where anti-competitive filings are suspected.
• Deferment of publication of registered designs extended to 30 months from the earlier of the priority or filing date.

No new criminal offence of unregistered design right infringement

The government has decided against enacting a new criminal offence of unregistered design right infringement. This has provoked comment as organisations representing designers were strongly in favour of it. The government’s decision was due to a lack of sufficiently robust evidence demonstrating that introducing this offence would be a balanced and proportionate remedy. In practice, the proposed offence was unlikely to have been of much benefit to designers which are often micro-businesses. The resources of Trading Standards and the Police are overstretched and currently only the most serious of existing IP crimes get investigated (counterfeit operations involving large scale trade mark and/or copyright infringements). Private prosecutions are expensive and unlike civil litigation cannot result in damages payments to the designer whose rights have been infringed. 

New criminal offences with unclear boundaries are rarely in society’s best interest. Implementing this one would have introduced significant unpredictable risk for the whole industry. Unregistered design rights are legally complex. Their existence and scope depend on the impact of pre-existing designs which are sometimes registered but usually aren’t. Therefore, the extent of protection provided by an unregistered design right is often only fully determined at a trial. 

The report also recorded some respondents’ criticisms of the existing criminal offence of registered design infringement which argued the low level of reported cases about this offence meant it had no real deterrent effect. 

Consolidation of unregistered design rights – a missed opportunity?

The UK’s design protection is intricate and confusing. In addition to the protection of registered designs there are two parallel forms of protection for newly created unregistered designs:

1. UDR (the homegrown UK Unregistered Design Right under the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988); and
2. SUD (Supplementary Unregistered Design): SUD was introduced at the end of the Brexit transition period to substitute for the form of unregistered protection previously available in the UK under the EU Designs Regulation. 

These rights have different qualification provisions, protect different (although overlapping) elements of designs, have different tests for infringement and last for different periods (15 years for UDR and only three years for SUD). SUD rights are closely aligned to registered designs, whereas UDRs are not. 

Although many consultation respondents wanted the system simplified, others were concerned not to reduce the overall width of protection available. The government therefore decided not to abolish UDR (leaving only SUD) and to continue considering the options for simplification. As a minimum, the government has said it wants to harmonise the qualification requirements (see the first disclosure issue section below) and the terms of protection between the two rights. However, any increase in the term of SUD would materially increase the overall protection available and reduce the incentive to seek UK registration – changing the balance in the opposite direction. 

This could be a missed opportunity for the sector. Is it not better for business overall to have a clear view of what can and can’t be protected against what, than to retain a theoretical maximum protection in a maze of legal complexity? 

The first disclosure issue to be resolved

If a design is first disclosed in the EU (or anywhere else in the world) it may not get SUD protection in the UK. If it is first disclosed in the UK, it obtains SUD protection here but may not obtain the unregistered design protection available throughout the EU. 

The government has decided to resolve this dilemma, which is frequently faced by the fashion and other sectors, by amending the legislation. When implemented the change will enable designs first disclosed anywhere in the world to obtain SUD protection, provided the disclosure “has come to the attention of relevant trade circles in the UK”. 

Pre-registration searches when an anti-competitive application is suspected

A UK registered design can be quick and cheap to obtain. This is partly because applications are not examined for novelty or individual character before registration. However, this benefit has also meant that filings are made for generic or pre-existing products by those wishing to use the resulting registrations for illegitimate online product platform take downs. 

The government consulted on several possible responses to this issue but has decided to grant the Registrar the discretion to make a search (on the grounds of novelty and individual character) in certain circumstances. Examiners will be given guidance on when to conduct a search which will include applications for (a) previously invalidated designs, (b) apparently generic products and (c) registrations which are otherwise suspected as being anti-competitive.

The nature of these searches has yet to be specified. If limited to databases of design registrations (whether in the UK or elsewhere) they may do little to resolve the issue. The design disputes which reach court demonstrate that many prior designs that impact validity are not registered. Will examiners be able to use other tools for identifying the prior design an application strongly reminds them of?   

Longer deferment of publication and prior use in good faith

The period during which applicants can defer publication of their designs will be increased from 12 months from filing to 30 months from the earlier of the priority date or filing date (bringing the EU in line with the EU and Hague systems). This will be welcomed by those wishing to maintain confidentiality before product launch and enable them to safely file well in advance. 

The prior use by third parties in good faith provisions will also be extended to deferred design applications.

What businesses can do now to make the most of their designs

• Take care with your launch strategy: As the report highlighted, until the changes are implemented, businesses risk losing SUD protection if they first disclose the designs of their new products outside the UK or EU protection if they first disclose in the UK. 
• Audit your existing design portfolio: Review your registered and unregistered design rights to understand what protection you currently have, identify any gaps, and assess whether your rights are adequately documented and whether there are any enforcement risks. Seek expert advice to assist you with this process..
• Keep watching for legislative updates: Once the announced changes are implemented, businesses may wish to revise their launch and filing strategies to take advantage of the greater flexibility these changes will offer. 

Navigating the UK's design protection landscape - whether registered or unregistered - requires specialist expertise. Our designs team advises clients across a range of sectors on protecting, enforcing, and commercialising their design rights.