A registered design can be challenged. We assess invalidity grounds, prepare evidence and represent clients in proceedings concerning German and EU designs, including the interaction with infringement disputes.
The decisions that matter
German and EU registrations have different procedures. The strategy depends on the right invoked, the grounds available, the parties and any pending court proceedings. A response to infringement and an office invalidity application may need to be coordinated.
Build the evidence around the ground
Earlier disclosures, technical-function arguments, entitlement issues and conflicts with earlier rights require different proof. We test the chronology, image quality and provenance of each document. A collection of undated screenshots is rarely an adequate substitute for a clear evidential case.
Defend an attacked registration
A design holder should preserve development material, disclosure records and documents explaining the appearance of the design. We analyse whether the cited material was publicly accessible at the relevant date and whether it supports the legal ground alleged.
Novelty and individual character are distinct grounds
A novelty attack and an individual-character attack require a disciplined comparison. Identify the earlier design, establish disclosure before the relevant date and show what its representations actually disclose. The analysis should not create an artificial earlier design by combining unrelated features from several products. Other invalidity grounds, including technical function or earlier rights, require their own factual basis.
Choose the procedure with the dispute in mind
An office invalidity application, a counterclaim in infringement proceedings and an appeal have different roles. The correct route depends on whether the right is German, EU or foreign and on proceedings already pending. Consider jurisdiction, admissibility, evidence, cost and the effect of the decision. Starting a challenge does not automatically suspend every enforcement obligation.
Defending the registration
The proprietor should test the date and accessibility of each cited disclosure and compare the actual views, not a simplified description of the earlier product. Explain material differences and the design context with evidence. If ownership or an earlier right is disputed, obtain the underlying contracts and register history rather than relying only on the current certificate.
Three dispute patterns
A component supplier may use an old catalogue to challenge a right asserted against its product. A design owner may show that the cited image depicts a materially different model or lacks a proven date. A buyer may need the likely effect of a pending invalidity case assessed before valuing a portfolio.
What we need to begin
Send the complete warning letter or court documents, registration details, the relevant product images and the dates when the conduct or demand became known. Include any imminent hearing, exhibition, shipment or platform deadline. Preserve the original documents and the product evidence; an initial enquiry does not suspend a legal 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.