horak. Design Attorneys

Compare national design law · Representations and partial designs · Procedures and appeals

Der Beitrag Riyadh Design Law Treaty: Albania’s first ratification in 2026 erschien zuerst auf horak. Design Attorneys.

EUIPO’s 2026 design guidelines: evidence and electronic procedure

horak Attorneys at law — Wed, 11 Nov 2026 15:50:58 +0000

The 2026 EUIPO guidelines took effect on 1 July. They address representation practice, invalidity evidence and the shift to electronic proceedings.

Why updated guidelines matter

EUIPO’s announcement identifies changes to graphic representations, product indications and invalidity practice, including online evidence. It also states that postal and courier submissions in EU design proceedings after 1 July 2026 are treated as not received. A team relying on an old paper-filing fallback needs a different contingency plan.

Prepare evidence as a record, not a collection of links

When online material may support invalidity, preserve what was visible, where it appeared and the relevant date. Record the relationship between the asserted earlier design and the material relied upon. A link to a changing sales page may be insufficient to explain the historical facts.

Three practical situations

A former supplier’s catalogue disappears during a dispute: preserve it before correspondence begins. An online listing displays several product versions: identify the specific earlier appearance relied upon. An urgent filing faces an office-system problem: document the event and obtain advice on the applicable procedural remedy instead of assuming a postal dispatch is effective.

Review the procedural position separately

The admissibility of an application, the substantiation of a ground and the merits are different stages. Assign responsibility for translations and supporting material and track office communications. Faster priority examination is subject to conditions; it is not a general promise of an early invalidity decision.

Our approach

We connect evidence collection to the right, ground and procedural route being pursued. The objective is a coherent submission with a clear chronology and a manageable set of exhibits.

Practical analysis for design protection and commercial decisions.

Evidence should answer a specific legal question

An exhibit needs a purpose: proving an earlier disclosure, showing the appearance of the earlier design, establishing entitlement or supporting another ground. Label the material consistently and explain the relationship between documents. If several images are said to depict the same earlier product, make that connection clear. A large bundle of loosely related references can obscure the strongest evidence rather than improve the case.

Online records need context

A current webpage may have changed since the relevant date. Preserve the available historical record, catalogue references, invoices or other supporting material that explains when the appearance became accessible. Record the exact version and avoid treating an automatically generated page date as conclusive proof of publication. Where the date is uncertain, identify the uncertainty and investigate it before building the submission around the reference.

Electronic filing needs internal controls

Assign responsibility for preparing, approving and submitting the application and its attachments. Keep the submission receipt, verify the documents actually transmitted and monitor the office’s response. A technical problem should be documented at the time and assessed under the applicable procedural rules. An internal deadline earlier than the legal deadline provides room to resolve format, translation or account-access issues.

Compare national design law · Representations and partial designs · Procedures and appeals

Der Beitrag EUIPO’s 2026 design guidelines: evidence and electronic procedure erschien zuerst auf horak. Design Attorneys.

Video and 3D design filings: early EUIPO experience in 2026

horak Attorneys at law — Wed, 11 Nov 2026 15:50:51 +0000

EUIPO’s first three months of experience with new digital formats show early use of video and 3D representations. The practical question is which format most clearly defines the design.

What the first figures show

EUIPO reported 103 video and 36 3D representations among 25,591 design applications during the first three months of the new arrangements. Static representations remained the substantial majority. These figures describe filing behaviour, not successful enforcement or the commercial value of the resulting rights.

Select a representation for its legal purpose

Do not use animation simply because the software can export it. Decide whether movement forms part of the intended appearance, whether a 3D view improves clarity and whether irrelevant environmental features could obscure the subject matter. The final representation must be approved as a legal filing asset.

Three useful review questions

For a graphical interface, does the sequence identify the transition to be protected? For a physical product, are the relevant surfaces visible and consistent? For a configurable display, does the chosen file present one coherent design rather than several unexplained alternatives?

Connect design, legal and product teams

Keep source files, the submitted version, approval records and the product release history together. Check compatible file formats against the current office guidance before the filing deadline. A late export problem should not force an unreviewed change in the claimed appearance.

Practical next step

Compare static, animated and dynamic representations before preparing a larger filing programme. A small pilot application can expose workflow issues, but should not be treated as proof that the same approach is appropriate for every product.

Practical analysis for design protection and commercial decisions.

A file format does not define the legal objective

Before selecting a format, describe the appearance to be protected. Is the value in a static arrangement, a movement sequence or the surface of a physical object? A marketing animation may contain transitions, backgrounds and multiple alternatives that make a poor legal representation. The filing version should be deliberately prepared and approved, with the commercially relevant appearance identifiable without guesswork.

Keep the international strategy in view

A representation accepted by EUIPO is not a universal template for foreign design applications. Review the intended countries before investing in a single export format. Different views or supporting documents may be needed, and certain subject matter may be treated differently. The first application and later priority claims should be coordinated so that technical changes to the file do not silently change the design being claimed.

A review before submission

Compare the final file with the approved product version, inspect every visible surface or state and check that excluded material is treated consistently. Preserve the source file and the submitted copy separately. Record who approved the legal filing asset and when. This process helps the business explain what it protected if the product later changes or the registration becomes relevant to a dispute.

Compare national design law · Representations and partial designs · Procedures and appeals

Der Beitrag Video and 3D design filings: early EUIPO experience in 2026 erschien zuerst auf horak. Design Attorneys.

EU design reform 2026: what changes in the filing workflow

horak Attorneys at law — Wed, 11 Nov 2026 15:50:44 +0000

The second phase of the EU design reform has applied since 1 July 2026. Businesses should update their filing instructions, representation standards and deadline controls.

A new operational baseline

EUIPO’s July 2026 announcement confirms the modernised framework, including new representation options, electronic communication and revised procedures. The current codified EU Design Regulation is Regulation (EU) 2026/715. References in older templates to the former Community design framework need review.

Start with the material that will be filed

A better submission process links the designer’s output to the legal claim. Ask who prepared the images, which version they depict and which visible features should be protected. Preserve an approved master set so that marketing changes do not silently alter filing instructions.

Three actions for an in-house team

First, replace the old filing checklist and fee assumptions with current office requirements. Second, agree who can authorise publication or surrender of a deferred design. Third, assign ownership of each electronic deadline and identify a deputy for absences. An updated template without a responsible person does not solve a diary risk.

Practical examples

An appliance launch needs consistent views before manufacturing artwork is released. A portfolio of products from several departments needs a central decision on batching applications. A confidential seasonal collection needs a publication decision early enough for the applicable deferment rules.

EU registration and national law remain distinct

The EU regulation does not make every national procedure identical overnight. National implementation of the recast Design Directive follows its own timetable. Check the relevant national route when a project calls for national protection.

Practical analysis for design protection and commercial decisions.

Update the workflow, not only the terminology

Replacing the words Community design with EU design is only one part of the exercise. Review the actual application instructions, representation choices, communication process and deadline responsibilities. Templates should explain which decisions require legal approval and which information the product team must supply. The revised process should be usable by the people who commission images, authorise disclosure and maintain the portfolio.

Existing portfolios need a separate review

A new procedure does not mean every existing registration must be refiled. Check the right’s status, representations, ownership and next maintenance event before deciding what work is justified. Where the commercial product has evolved, assess whether the old registration still supports the current strategy and whether a further filing is available. Treat correction of records, renewal and a new application as different actions.

A launch-team exercise

Choose one upcoming product and trace it from final drawings through ownership approval, filing, public release and renewal recording. Identify gaps in responsibility and mismatches between the commercial timetable and legal deadlines. The exercise is particularly useful where several departments or external designers contribute material. A clear record of the approved design can support both later portfolio management and evidence in a dispute.

Der Beitrag EU design reform 2026: what changes in the filing workflow erschien zuerst auf horak. Design Attorneys.

When does a design infringement occur?

horak Attorneys at law — Sat, 15 Feb 2025 09:50:29 +0000

A similar product does not automatically infringe a design right. The assessment starts with the protected representations, the right’s validity and the overall impression on the informed user.

This article was first published on the date shown above and has been revised to reflect current terminology and practice.

Compare the right, not just the marketed product

Identify the territory, filing or priority date, current status and the views in the registration. The comparison concerns those representations and the challenged product. Features dictated solely by technical function and the designer’s freedom can materially affect the analysis. For an unregistered EU design, copying must also be established.

Separate infringement from validity

An accused supplier may rely on an earlier catalogue, trade fair exhibit or online publication to challenge novelty or individual character. A registration certificate is not a judicial finding that the design is valid. An invalidity argument and an infringement defence answer different questions and may need different procedures.

Three common disputes

A furniture maker discovers a similar chair: compare the significant visible features and the existing design corpus. A retailer receives a warning about imported lighting: check the registration, stock, supplier documents and deadline before giving an undertaking. A fashion label relies on an unregistered collection: preserve the first disclosure and evidence that the alleged copyist had access.

Choosing a proportionate response

Evidence preservation, correspondence, interim relief, a main action and settlement each serve different purposes. There is no guaranteed injunction or damages award. Territory, urgency, validity, proportionality and the evidence determine the available remedies.

Compare national design law · Representations and partial designs · Procedures and appeals

Practical analysis for design protection and commercial decisions.

Identify what the registration actually shows

The rights holder’s marketed product may have changed since filing. Begin with the registered representations and any limitations of the claim. Compare the accused product from the relevant angles, using a physical sample where online images are incomplete. A legal assessment based only on a front-view advertising photograph can miss features that materially affect the overall impression.

Investigate the earlier design field

The context of earlier designs can affect both validity and the infringement assessment. Preserve relevant dated material and distinguish a challenge to the right from an argument that the accused product falls outside its scope. Independent creation is not by itself a complete defence to registered-design infringement. Unregistered rights raise a different question because copying can be central.

Turn the assessment into a commercial decision

Identify the person responsible for the relevant acts and the country in which they occur. Consider evidence, urgency, likely remedies, costs and the risk of a validity challenge before sending a demand. A settlement should identify the affected products and future conduct precisely. If proceedings are necessary, the evidence file should already connect the product, seller and transaction rather than leave those facts to later reconstruction.

Der Beitrag When does a design infringement occur? erschien zuerst auf horak. Design Attorneys.

Design searches before filing: what they can and cannot establish

horak Attorneys at law — Sat, 15 Feb 2025 09:40:33 +0000

A design search helps assess the visual field before an application or product launch. It cannot prove that no earlier design exists or that a product is free to sell.

This article was first published on the date shown above and has been revised to reflect current terminology and practice.

Search beyond registered designs

Registers are one part of the picture. Catalogues, archived websites, trade publications, exhibitions and earlier products can be relevant prior art. Search by product terminology, Locarno class, competitors and visual features; document dates and sources.

Registration and freedom to operate answer different questions

A novelty search explores whether a design may survive a validity challenge. A freedom-to-operate review considers enforceable third-party rights in the intended market. Registering your own design does not clear another owner’s earlier rights.

Practical examples

For a lamp, review earlier silhouettes and shade arrangements. For packaging, distinguish a conventional container from the claimed ornamentation. For an interface, preserve dated versions and search the relevant display features, rather than relying on the application’s product name.

Turn the results into a decision

A useful report identifies close results, evidential gaps and the proposed next step: file, change the representation, redesign, seek a licence or commission a deeper review. Avoid a binary ‘safe/unsafe’ conclusion where the underlying evidence is incomplete.

Compare national design law · Representations and partial designs · Procedures and appeals

Practical analysis for design protection and commercial decisions.

Define the result you need

A search before filing asks a different question from a review before launching an accused product. Agree the products, territories, dates and sources to examine. A search focused on one competitor may be efficient for a particular dispute but should not be described as a complete market clearance. Record these limits so that a later reader understands what the report can support.

Preserve the references

Save the relevant pages, images and publication details rather than only a list of URLs. For catalogues, retain the cover, edition and pages that connect the date to the design. For online material, investigate whether the version shown existed at the relevant time. Image quality matters because a blurred or incomplete view may not establish the features relied upon.

Use the findings proportionately

A close reference may justify a revised filing, a more focused validity review or a design-around discussion. It does not automatically decide the legal outcome. Conversely, an empty search result does not prove that no earlier right exists. Deferred applications, unregistered appearances and poorly indexed material can remain outside the available search. The report should make the next decision clearer while explaining those limits.

Der Beitrag Design searches before filing: what they can and cannot establish erschien zuerst auf horak. Design Attorneys.

The EU design registration process

horak Attorneys at law — Wed, 15 Jan 2025 15:26:39 +0000

An EU design application should begin with a representation strategy and a disclosure review. Registration through EUIPO can cover all EU Member States, but does not itself establish substantive validity.

This article was first published on the date shown above and has been revised to reflect current terminology and practice.

Prepare the filing

Confirm ownership, identify the product and choose coherent views of each design. Review earlier publication and any priority claim. Registered and unregistered EU designs are distinct rights; the latter should not be treated as a substitute for a planned filing programme.

Apply under the current rules

Use the EUIPO requirements and fee schedule in force on the filing date. The second phase of the reform has applied since 1 July 2026, including new representation formats and procedural rules. Earlier fee examples and fixed registration timelines should not be relied on.

Publication and renewal

Consider deferred publication if launch secrecy matters. Diary publication and renewal deadlines separately. Registered EU protection can last up to 25 years, subject to renewals; enforceability still depends on validity and the circumstances of the alleged infringement.

Three filing decisions

A chair family may need separate designs for materially different versions. An animated interface needs a representation that captures the intended appearance. A launch planned for several non-EU markets needs a priority and disclosure strategy beyond the EU application.

Compare national design law · Representations and partial designs · Procedures and appeals

Practical analysis for design protection and commercial decisions.

Settle the claim before preparing the form

Identify the appearance that is commercially important and decide whether the whole product, a part or ornamentation deserves separate protection. Prepare consistent views and check the proposed applicant’s entitlement. A product description cannot repair contradictory representations. Keep an approved set of images so that a late marketing revision does not silently become the filed design.

Coordinate the territory and disclosure

EU registration covers the EU, while the UK, Switzerland and other non-EU markets require separate consideration. Review prior disclosures and any earlier application before scheduling the filing. Priority, publication deferment and renewal are different deadlines. A launch team should know which disclosures are authorised and which require further approval.

After the certificate

Record the exact representations, ownership and maintenance dates. Review new product versions rather than assuming they are all covered by the original registration. Registration does not establish novelty and individual character against all earlier designs, and it does not provide freedom to use third-party rights. These questions become particularly important before a warning letter, licence or acquisition.

Der Beitrag The EU design registration process erschien zuerst auf horak. Design Attorneys.

EU and international design protection: choosing territories

horak Attorneys at law — Mon, 03 Apr 2023 13:32:25 +0000

A German design is territorial. An EU design covers the European Union. A Hague international registration provides a central filing route for selected participating territories, not a worldwide monopoly.

This article was first published on the date shown above and has been revised to reflect current terminology and practice.

Start with markets and supply chains

Identify sales markets, manufacture, import routes, competitor locations and realistic enforcement needs. The European Union and Europe are different geographical scopes: the United Kingdom and Switzerland require separate consideration.

Choose the appropriate route

National filings, EU registration and the Hague System can be combined. Hague eligibility and designation requirements must be checked; designated offices may examine or refuse protection under their applicable rules.

Coordinate disclosure and priority

A public product release can affect protection abroad. Grace periods differ and are not a safe universal planning tool. Obtain advice before publication and build an explicit timetable for filings, priority evidence and local formalities.

Practical examples

A German exporter selling in France and Italy may consider EU coverage. A manufacturer entering Switzerland and the UK needs additional rights. A business launching in China and the United States should review local representation and prosecution requirements before reusing its European images.

Compare national design law · Representations and partial designs · Procedures and appeals

Practical analysis for design protection and commercial decisions.

Include the manufacturing country

A filing plan based only on retail destinations can miss an important source of copying. Identify where products are manufactured, stored, exported and sold, and where action against a supplier or importer would be useful. Territorial protection should follow those practical exposures. A contract with a manufacturer can help allocate obligations but does not automatically create a registered right against third parties.

Assess the route and the representations together

A Hague application can simplify filing and administration, but designated offices retain substantive requirements. A set of views suitable for EUIPO may need adaptation for another jurisdiction. Consider local representation, examination and possible refusal responses when planning the budget. The cheapest initial filing is not necessarily the most effective protection programme.

Keep later expansion realistic

A business cannot assume that countries can simply be added to an existing international registration after a successful launch. A further application may be needed, and earlier disclosure or an expired priority period can then matter. Decide the essential territories before the first filing and document the commercial choice where a market is deliberately excluded.

Der Beitrag EU and international design protection: choosing territories erschien zuerst auf horak. Design Attorneys.

Invalidity proceedings against registered designs

horak Attorneys at law — Mon, 14 Feb 2022 13:52:43 +0000

A registered design can be challenged even after it has been entered in the register. An effective challenge requires a legal ground and evidence, not simply a belief that the product is commonplace.

This article was first published on the date shown above and has been revised to reflect current terminology and practice.

Identify the right and procedure

German registered designs and registered EU designs have different procedures and competent bodies. Establish whether to use an office invalidity application, a counterclaim or another procedural defence, particularly where infringement proceedings are already pending.

Build dated prior-art evidence

The design, date and circumstances of disclosure must be established. Undated screenshots and current online listings may not prove a relevant earlier disclosure. Preserve original catalogues, archived pages, sales documents and witness information where available.

Three evidence scenarios

An old trade catalogue may show the same shape but needs a reliable publication date. A prior registered design may contain views that differ from the marketed product. A social media post may be relevant, but accessibility, timing and authorship must be assessed.

Assess commercial consequences

A challenge may affect an injunction strategy, licence negotiations and litigation costs. It does not automatically suspend every enforcement step. Coordinate deadlines and procedural applications rather than assuming the invalidity filing resolves the dispute.

Compare national design law · Representations and partial designs · Procedures and appeals

Practical analysis for design protection and commercial decisions.

Select a ground and prove it

A challenge should identify the specific legal ground and the facts required to establish it. An earlier product needs evidence of its appearance and relevant disclosure date. Technical-function or entitlement arguments require different material. Avoid treating a collection of similar-looking products as a substitute for a reasoned comparison with the design actually registered.

Coordinate the procedural routes

German and EU rights have distinct office and court procedures. A validity challenge may interact with an infringement claim, but starting one case does not automatically suspend every other obligation. Review the forum, admissibility, costs and expected effect of a decision before filing. Where a deadline is already running, the immediate response must be organised separately from the longer validity investigation.

Defending a challenged design

The proprietor should scrutinise the date, accessibility and content of the cited references. Explain why the actual representations do or do not support the asserted ground. Keep the development and ownership records available, and assess the commercial consequences of partial or complete loss of the right. A settlement may need to address related registrations and existing licences as well as the contested design.

Der Beitrag Invalidity proceedings against registered designs erschien zuerst auf horak. Design Attorneys.

Design application procedure in Germany

horak Attorneys at law — Mon, 08 Mar 2021 14:15:06 +0000

The DPMA registers German designs following its examination of the application. The visual representations and the scope sought deserve attention before the form is submitted.

This article was first published on the date shown above and has been revised to reflect current terminology and practice.

Prepare a clear application

Identify the applicant and product and choose representations that consistently show the design. Abstract ideas and technical principles are not protected as such by a design registration. Ownership and any earlier disclosure should be checked at the preparation stage.

Understand the limits of examination

Registration does not mean that novelty and individual character have been substantively confirmed. Those requirements can become decisive in later validity and infringement disputes. An earlier search can inform the filing decision without eliminating all risk.

Plan publication and maintenance

Consider whether publication of the representation should be deferred. The deferment procedure and its payments require a separate diary. Full registered protection can be maintained for up to 25 years through the applicable renewals; use current DPMA information for deadlines and fees.

Practical examples

For a household appliance, decide whether to claim the whole housing or a visible part. For a textile pattern, select a representation that clearly shows the repeat. For a range of related products, review whether multiple designs should be included and how they will be renewed.