A useful design search answers a defined commercial question. We investigate earlier designs and product disclosures to support filing decisions, assess validity or prepare a response to a competing right.
The decisions that matter
A novelty search, a competitor watch and a freedom-to-operate assessment have different scopes. We agree the products, territories, dates and relevant registers before searching. Terminology and product classifications alone may miss visually similar material.
Look beyond registered designs
Earlier appearance can be evidenced through catalogues, exhibitions, websites, product manuals and other disclosures. Search results need an evidential record: dates, source locations, copies and the connection between the document and the depicted product.
Interpret the results
A matching image is a starting point for legal analysis. We consider the relevant features, overall impression, informed user and designer’s freedom in the applicable system. No search can establish that every unpublished or poorly indexed right has been found.
Search by appearance as well as terminology
Product names vary between industries and languages. A useful search combines classifications, applicant and designer names, visual features and relevant commercial sources. A part may be classified differently from the complete product. We define the search perimeter and record which products, countries and time periods were examined so the result can be interpreted in context.
Turn a discovery into usable evidence
For each important reference, preserve a full copy, its source, the publication date and the connection between the image and the product. A web archive capture may need supporting catalogue or sales evidence. Cropped images can hide features that alter the overall impression. Where a document is to support invalidity proceedings, the evidence must establish the relevant disclosure rather than merely suggest that an old product existed.
Understand the limits of a result
Unpublished applications, deferred designs, incomplete databases and unregistered rights can remain outside the search. A report should identify the strongest references and explain what further investigation would change the decision. It should not turn a database result into an unqualified promise of novelty or freedom to operate.
Three search assignments
For a lamp filing, review prior lighting products and surface ornamentation as well as design registers. For an invalidity case, seek a dated publication showing the relevant views of one earlier design. For a competitor watch, organise results by product family and legal status so that repeated publications do not conceal a newly relevant right.
What we need to begin
Useful starting material includes clear product images or drawings, the intended applicant, designer and ownership information, planned countries, earlier filings and all known disclosure dates. Tell us whether the product is a prototype, a final production model or a family of variants, and identify the commercial deadline.
Scope, fees and next steps
We first identify the legal question and the information needed to answer it. The proposed scope distinguishes filing or analysis, office correspondence, negotiations and proceedings, together with official charges and any foreign-adviser work. You receive a matter-specific proposal before the agreed steps are taken. Where another jurisdiction is involved, we coordinate with local advisers as required.
All enquiry fields are optional · National design guides · Meet our attorneys
Legal resources
Official guidance and legal framework. The applicable right, filing date and jurisdiction determine the detailed rules. Editorial review: 11 November 2026.