Making sense of UKIPO's design law consultation: Key areas of reform

Are you involved in or affected by UK design laws? Do you have views on the current design registration and protection regime? Now is your chance to make a difference!

On 4 September 2025, the UK’s Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) launched a major consultation on potentially significant reforms to the UK’s designs framework. This was triggered by an ever growing need to tackle abuse of the UK designs system, a recognised demand to simplify the framework post-Brexit, and a desire to align IP laws with future developments around emerging types of designs and the rising relevance of AI.

The overall goal of the consultation is to modernise, simplify and strengthen the UK’s design protection framework so that it reflects technological developments, supports innovation, and protects designers effectively.

Consultation overview

Section A: Search, examination, bad faith & opposition/observation

This section of the consultation seeks feedback on possible ways of preventing unfair or false registrations.

One proposal is to give the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) powers to search for existing designs and object to applications, or to introduce a two-stage system in which designs are partially registered but require full examination before they can be enforced.

The consultation also seeks views on adding a “bad faith” rule, which would let the UKIPO reject design applications made with dishonest intentions. In practice, this would stop someone from trying to register a design that closely imitates an existing, well-known style — for example, a copy of Dr. Martens’ iconic 1460 boot.

UKIPO is also seeking views on the introduction of an opposition process, both pre-registration and post-registration This would mean that if someone applied to register a design, existing rights-holders with similar designs would be able to challenge the application. A system like this already exists for trade marks and patents. This process would give original designers an opportunity to ensure stronger protection by asserting their rights at an earlier stage and in a more cost effective way, and also prevent bad actors from misusing the system.

Section B: Deferment

Here, the government seeks feedback on extending the current 12-month deferment period, with the introduction of an explicit 18-month or 30-month deferment option into UK design law. There is a benefit to applicants where they are able to delay the registration or publication of their designs. The main benefit is that businesses can secure legal protection whilst keeping their designs confidential, which is particularly helpful when finalising a product launch or brand collaboration.

Length of deferment has to balance the interests of the designer with the interests of third parties who might infringe the design once it is published. Another consideration for which views are invited is whether to defer both publication and registration, or just registration by deferment of publication.

Section C: Graphical user interfaces and animated designs

This part of the consultation looks at ways to make it easier to register graphical user interfaces (GUIs) and animated designs in order to reflect advances in digital technology.

Animated designs are becoming increasingly common in fashion. For example, Burberry used a digital showcase with animated patterns for its spring/summer 2021 “In Bloom” show. Similarly, Eva Iszoro’s brand, Accidental Cutting, created a 3D fashion animation for its spring/summer 2022 ‘Accidental Cut’ collection.

To improve protection for animated designs, the government is considering several changes. One idea is to publish additional guidance explaining what qualifies as an animated or moving design, since current law does not fully reflect the digital era. Another option is to update the legal definition of “design” to explicitly include animated works, which would align UK law with recent EU reforms.

Another practical option being considered is to allow design applications to be submitted in alternative file formats, such as video files, which capture movement better than still photos (i.e. screenshots). Finally, the consultation considers allowing applicants to provide a description of their animated design, which would be publicly published. At present, descriptions are optional and not made public, but publishing them could help others understand the scope of protection.

Section D: Computer-generated designs

Feedback on the protection afforded to “computer-generated designs without a human author” is sought for this section, as well as whether change is needed. Although this term is not yet legally defined, it generally refers to designs created without clear human skill and effort. One concern is that allowing for the protection of designs without this human element of input could lead to a clogging up of the design registers where AI can create many designs at once, and multiple design filings can be made at the same time. This would in turn possibly have an impact on both the scope of designs, and the ability to assess their scope.

Given the growing use of AI and other technology in the fashion industry, digital and AI-generated designs are becoming increasingly prevalent. AI tools such as DALL-E and Cala are being used to create new clothing designs, transforming how designers work and how designs are made.

AI has also hit the runway. In 2023, Maison Meta, the generative AI studio led by Cyril Foiret’s, hosted the first AI fashion week in New York, which included a competition for aspiring designers to use AI to create a fashion line. More recently, Alexander Wang turned to the technology to aid in the creation of a 3D-printed, zero-waste stiletto called ‘The Griphoria’ for his SS26 collection. Ralph Lauren, meanwhile, launched an AI-driven styling tool during this season of New York Fashion Week dubbed AskRalph, through which shoppers can request outfit recommendations.

Section E: Miscellaneous changes

Here, the consultation covers various aspects of the design registration system, such as, time periods for objections/responses, introducing warrants of validity of registered designs, making adjustments to the system for claiming priority, and giving powers to the registrar to rectify the registrar (as opposed to only the courts).

Section F: Simplification of unregistered designs and overlap with copyright

The consultation explores ways of clarifying the distinction between registered and unregistered designs, and reducing the overlap with copyright law. Proposed changes include: keeping the current system; abolishing the unregistered “design right” but keeping the supplementary unregistered design (SUD) created after Brexit to mirror EU unregistered designs; or merging both unregistered systems into one framework that protects both aesthetic features (appearance) and functional elements (shape and configuration).

Other options include amending copyright legislation or updating copyright exceptions to draw a clearer distinction between designs and copyright, thereby reducing complexity and potential legal uncertainty. Simplifying this area of the law would make the system easier to navigate, especially for individuals and businesses without legal representation.

Section G: Post-Brexit issues relating to unregistered designs

For this section, the consultation seeks feedback on potential solutions to challenges arising from the lack of mutual recognition of design disclosure between the UK and the EU. In particular, the government is considering whether disclosure of designs outside the UK, whether in the EU or globally, should give rise to supplementary unregistered design (SUD) protection in the UK.

For example, Burberry presented collections via virtual and physical showcases in Shanghai, either through runways or store experiences, in 2014 and 2023 prior to their UK release. These early international presentations create legal uncertainty as to the status of SUD rights in the UK. Therefore, clarifying how overseas disclosures affect UK unregistered design protection is a key focus of the consultation.

Sections H and I: Calls for evidence

The final sections of the consultation request evidence on two specific issues: the potential introduction of criminal sanctions for the unauthorised copying of unregistered designs, and whether claims relating to registered designs should be handled through the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court’s (IPEC) Small Claims Track (SCT).

Designs cases have previously been considered too complex to sit within the SCT – however, the SCT has been very effective in handling and hearing various IP claims. Opening up the SCT as a forum for designs, as an IP right relied on most prolifically by UK micro-businesses, would potentially open up access to justice for design led businesses such as start-up, niche and other boutique and specialised fashion designers.

Next Steps

The consultation runs for 12 weeks and is open until 27 November 2025. Once the consultation closes, the government will assess the responses and use them to make policy and legislative changes. The government said that it will publish its response but the date has not yet been confirmed.

Have your say

The consultation is extensive and could lead to significant changes in how design rights are protected and enforced, with potential impacts for designers and businesses across the sector. This is an opportunity for anyone with an interest in designs and the protection system to share their views on the government’s proposals to ensure any future reforms reflect real-life experiences from those most affected.

The full consultation and guidance on how you can participate is available on the government’s website.

Stobbs are putting together a response to the consultation through its specialist designs team. Our aim is to ensure we reflect the needs of our clients to better protect and safeguard their rights, and be able to enforce them when necessary. We are hopeful that there may be future positive changes for our design-led clients, with a reformed designs system allowing for more confidence in investment, and better return on investment.