Design disputes

What do design rights protect?

Design rights protect the appearance of the whole or part of a product/article in three-dimensional form and, in some cases, two-dimensional design features such as surface decoration and texture.

Design rights in the UK

The design rights currently available in the UK are as follows:

  1. UK registered designs (including re-registered designs and re-registered international designs)

  2. UK unregistered design right (also known as ‘design right’)

  3. supplementary unregistered design right (SUD)

UK registered designs are governed by the Registered Designs Act 1949 (RDA 1949). Re-registered designs and re-registered international designs effectively operate in the same way as UK registered designs and are also governed by RDA 1949.

UK unregistered designs are governed by sections 213264 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

SUDs are governed by Assimilated Regulation (EU) 6/2002 and amendments to the Community Design Regulations 2005, SI 2005/2339.

For further detail on the nature of the design rights available in the UK (and the differences between them), refer to: Design transactions and management—overview.

Impact of Brexit

The UK is no

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest IP News

Court of Appeal considers relationship between pictorial representations and written descriptions in trade marks (Babek International Ltd v Iceland Foods Ltd)

IP analysis: On 23 October 2025, The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal filed by Iceland Food Ltd (Iceland) in trade mark infringement proceedings, following a decision in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) to refuse Iceland’s application for summary judgment on its counterclaim for invalidity of Babek International Ltd's (Babek) UK trade mark registration. Iceland had applied to invalidate Babek's registration on the basis that the registered mark did not meet the requirements under section 1(1) and section 3 of the Trade Marks Act 1994 (TMA 1994), arguing that the registration lacked the necessary precision and clarity to identify the mark, based on alleged inconsistencies between the verbal description, the pictorial representation and the colours claimed. The Court of Appeal found that Judge Hacon had applied the incorrect test in determining when colour hues must be specified but, having reconsidered the issues the court concluded that Babek's mark complied with the conditions for registrability, being a single, clear and precise sign, and dismissed Iceland's appeal. The judgment affirms that, when assessing a trade mark, the categorisation of the mark, the pictorial representation and the written description are all relevant to defining the mark to be protected, with the purpose of identifying a single, clear and precise trade mark. Written by Alice Martins, Registered Trade Mark Attorney, and Helene Whelbourn, legal director, at Lee & Thompson LLP.

View IP by content type :

Popular documents