Designs‎ > ‎

Registered designs - introduction and subject matter


The Registered Designs Act 1949 begins, it might unnecessarily you might think, with the statement that a design may be registered under the Act on the making of an application for registration1. This statement of the blindingly obvious at least serves to draw attention to the fact that there are other possibilities for protecting designs that do not require registration, and even more indirectly that there is another way in which designs can be registered.

The Directive on which the current iteration of the Registered Designs Act is based is but one aspect of a European Community project, identical in many respects to that which had already been implemented in the trade marks field, to introduce a Community design registration system. The Community Design Regulation2 came into force on 6 March 2002, and the designs division of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) accepted is first application on 1 January 2003.3

As in the field of trade marks, the idea is that the substantive law of the Member States (as harmonised by the Directive) and the substantive law of the Community system should be identical. The choice between the two for would-be registrants will therefore come down to a matter of cost and territorial extent. Because the substantive law is identical, the two systems can conveniently be dealt with together.

History of registered designs protection

Registration of designs has been possible in the UK since 1839, though design protection was first introduced in 1787, when the Designing and Printing of Linen Act came into effect. The interface between registered designs and the copyright system was confused from the outset by the fact that the exclusive right of printing and reprinting ‘linens, cottons, calicos and muslin’ given to those who engaged in ‘the arts of designing and printing’ those materials was called copyright: the word continued to be used in connection with the right given by registration until 1989.

Proprietors of these eighteenth century rights were required to mark each piece with their name. By doing so they secured no less than two months’ protection from the date of first publication, a period that even by the fickle standards of the modern fashion industry hardly seems worth having. True, in 1794 the term of protection was increased (as it has been, steadily, through the life of this system of law), but then only to three months.

The Copyright of Design Act 1839 extended the protection afforded to fabric designs, by bringing within the ambit of the law fabrics composed of wool, silk, or hair and mixed fabrics comprising two out of wool, silk, hair, cotton and linen. More importantly, it expanded into non-textile areas, giving protection to every new or original design, covering for the first time the ornamentation, shape and configuration of any article of manufacture.

The 1839 Act introduced a registration system (some years before patents were registered, even more years before the registration of trade marks was introduced). A Registrar was appointed by the Board of Trade. The benefits of the Act would only be available if a design were registered before being published.

The legislation was consolidated in the Design Act 1842, which also increased the remedies available for infringement and divided into classes the different articles of manufacture and substances for which protection was available. In 1843, the legislation was again amended, extending protection to designs composed of functional features (laying the foundations for a great deal of later controversy) and requiring the applicant to submit a written description of the design. Unlike the modern statement of novelty (no longer required under the latest version of the Act) the 1843 Act required the applicant to identify those features that were not new.

Under the Copyright of Designs Act 1875, the powers and duties of the Board of Trade under the designs legislation were transferred to the newly established Patent Office. In 1883 consolidating legislation brought together the three areas of patents, designs and trade marks (all of which were dealt with by the Patent Office). The Patents and Designs Acts 1907-1946 governed design protection until the Registered Designs Act 1949 (together, in the other area covered by those Acts, with the Patents Act of the same year) replaced them.

The 1949 Act changed the definition of a design and abolished the classification system, changing the scope and validity of many existing registered designs. In 1988, the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (which came into operation on 1 August 1989) made radical changes to the protection of designs, amending the 1949 Act substantially as well as introducing a new unregistered design right to oust copyright from the designs area. This fundamental reform of design protection has become known colloquially as the New Deal.

The 1988 amendments to the 1949 Act removed the second-tier requirement that a design be original as well as novel (which commentators felt added nothing, as generally it would be the lower of the two bars), tried in vain to rationalise the eye-appeal test, increased the term of protection to 25 years (from 15) and introduced exceptions and licensing of right provisions to try to prevent overreaching, particularly in the motor vehicle spare parts field where the owner of rights in the vehicle design was strongly placed to control the replacement parts market and hinder the entry of competing suppliers.

On 9 December 2001, the EC directive on the legal protection of industrial designs4 was implemented in the UK by the Registered Designs Regulations5. Although accomplished by statutory instrument (made under the European Communities Act 1972) this amounted to a root-and-branch re-writing of the Act, changing radically the nature of designs that can be registered, abolishing the eye-appeal test and introducing an ‘individual character’ test in addition to novelty as well as altering the proprietor’s exclusive rights and abolishing licensing of right provisions that were incompatible with the directive.

The 2001 reforms do not completely replace the old rules. Validity remains a matter for the law in force at the time of the registration, and infringement is of course a matter for the law as it stood at the time of the infringing act. Pre-1989 registered designs did not receive an extra period of protection when the New Deal was enacted, so they all expired by 2004 at the latest – though for a few years there could have been three different versions of the same legislation to consider in any particular case.

The Community Designs Regulation enables designs (like trade marks) to be registered once for the entire European Community.6 The development of the European Community-wide designs system has similar effects on the development of the jurisprudence of design law as in the trade marks field.

Finally, the European Community has acceded to the Hague Agreement (the Geneva Act, 2003) opening the door to applicants for Community design protection using the international system (rather like the Madrid Agreement and Protocol in the field of trade marks). The UK remains outside the Hague Union (despite one version of the Agreement having been negotiated in London), though since the EU’s adherence to it the system can be used to obtain protection in the UK via a Community registered design.

Subject matter of registered design protection

Definition of a design

‘Design’ is now defined to mean the appearance of the whole or a part of a product resulting from the features of, in particular, the lines, contours, colours, shape, texture or materials of the product or its ornamentation.7

According to section 1(1) of the 1988 version of the 1949 Act, replaced by that definition:

design’ means features of shape, configuration, pattern or ornament applied to an article by any industrial process, being features which in the finished article appeal to and are judged by the eye...

These two definitions differ in at least two extremely significant respects. First, there is no requirement in the legislation now for even the smallest degree of eye appeal. Second, the legislation now refers to the appearance of a product, where the old legislation used the concept of an article.

Eye Appeal

The old requirement for eye appeal rarely hindered the registration of designs under versions 1 and 2 of the 1949 Act. Many pre-2001 registered designs had limited eye appeal, and in some cases it is quite impossible to see where it lies. There are examples of registrations of designs for such aesthetically-pleasing matters as the inside of a chocolate egg8, a digital watch display9, and the ribbing on a hot water bottle10 being not only registered but upheld by the court. These are pre-1989 examples, although the amendments did not change the requirement for eye-appeal in any material way: for a more modern example, see registered design number 1040670.

It was apparent from the earliest drafts of the Directive that a different philosophy of design protection would pertain in the European Community system. The merits of a design do not necessarily lie in eye appeal: they may equally lie in the efficiency with which articles made to the design perform their function.11 The registered design system is not apt to protect functionality, in the sense of the way things operate, a proposition reinforced by exceptions in the legislation: but that is not the same thing as saying that it is appropriate to discriminate against designs whose appeal lies elsewhere than in the eye of the beholder. On top of which, the sheer impossibility of applying the eye appeal test in a consistent and meaningful way argues strongly in favour of its removal in a modern registered designs statute.


As for the use of the notion of a product, the legislation provides us with an extensive and broad definition:12 any industrial or handicraft item, other than a computer program. A list of examples is set out, though this is non-exhaustive: it includes packaging, get-up, graphic symbols, typographic typefaces and parts intended to be assembled into a complex product13. It was widely assumed that the advent of the Directive would result in computer icons becoming registrable: in the event this was pre-empted by the Registered Designs Appeal Tribunal’s decision14 to allow registration of an icon, by analogy with the Casio digital watch display.15

Before the 2001 amendments, the Act required that the features of a design be applied to an article and no definition of an article was provided. There was, however, one very important limitation: a replacement body panel for a car (or other spare part for a vehicle) would not be an article as it has no independent commercial existence according to the House of Lords in R v Registered Designs Appeal Tribunal ex parte Ford Motor Co Ltd16. Clearly, the reference in the definition of ‘product’ to parts intended to be assembled into a complex product is at odds with the House of Lords’ decision, and it is hardly even necessary to consider the definition of a complex product – a product composed of at least two replaceable parts permitting disassembly and reassembly of the product – to appreciate this.

Although the expression was not used in the legislation before 2001, the protection of designs for parts of complex products was the key policy issue which informed the entire field of design protection. It was only after the Act had been amended in 1988 that the House of Lords was given an opportunity to say that these parts would rarely be regarded as articles. To protect against what was seen as the possibility of overreaching registered design protection, the legislature had built a number of other safeguards into the 1949 Act, so while the House of Lords’ judgment at least to some extent renders them redundant, to the extent that they are reflected (as we shall see they are) in the latest, Euro-inspired, amendments, the legislature had not wasted its time.

Formerly, designs could be applied to two or more articles that formed a set. The articles had to be sold together or intended for use together, and share a common identity of design – a design for a tea service may have been registrable, while one for a set of chess pieces probably was not. Article 37 of the Community design regulation now allows several designs to be combined in one application for registration, which achieves a very similar result. Unless the design is ornamentation, all the products must be in the same class in the International Classification for Industrial Designs.

Requirement of novelty

Designs will only be registered if they are new and have individual character17. A design is new if no identical designs or no designs whose features differ only in immaterial details have been made available to the public before the relevant date18. Before the latest amendment, a design would not be regarded as new if it was the same as, or differed only in immaterial details from, a design previously registered or ‘published’ (made available or disclosed to the public) in the UK, a parochial view of novelty which was probably past its best in 1949 and certainly made little sense in the 21st century.

Now, a design is considered to have been made available to the public before the relevant date if it has been published, whether following registration or otherwise, exhibited, used in trade or otherwise disclosed before that date19. However, certain disclosures are disregarded20.

First, a disclosure will be disregarded if it could not reasonably have become known before the relevant date in the normal course of business to persons carrying on business in the EEA and specialising in the sector concerned – which will be the sector in which the prior art is found21. The handicrafts of remote Amazonian tribes therefore might not count as ‘prior art’ for design registration purposes. In other words, only very obscure disclosures will not be taken into consideration when considering the novelty of an application. This new ‘obscurity test’ makes a great deal more sense than the former geographical novelty test.

Second, if the disclosure was made to someone other than the designer or the designer’s successor in title under conditions of confidentiality it will be disregarded. The obligation may be express or implied. This should not logically amount to ‘making available to the public’, but the Act makes it perfectly clear that it is not to be treated as if it were.

Third, no disclosure made by the designer or the designer’s successor in title during the twelve months immediately preceding the relevant date will prevent registration. This introduction of a twelve month period of grace, derived from French registered design law (which gave a six month period of grace), is one of the Directive’s more radical departures22. It replaces the exhibition priority formerly provided in Section 6(2), which gave a six month period of grace when the disclosure took place at an International Exhibition certified by the minister.

There is also protection against disclosures by third parties, where information is provided by the designer or a successor in title, or where that person takes certain actions leading to the disclosure. So, a disclosure by the designer’s agent would also benefit from the grace period.

Finally, there is a saving for disclosures made during the twelve months immediately preceding the application date (or in some cases a substituted date) as a consequence of an abuse in relation to the designer or the designer’s successor in title. This seems to bring unauthorised disclosures within the grace period, too.

Requirement for individual character

Just as, in the patent system, an invention must not only be new but also involve an inventive step, so too it is not enough for a design just to be new. It must also have individual character23, which is defined in the legislation as meaning that the overall impression it produces on the informed user differs from the overall impression produced on the informed user by any design which has been made available to the public before the relevant date24. In other words, a design may be new in the sense that it is different from any design that has gone before, but it might not be sufficiently different to justify protection.

In Procter & Gamble Ltd v Reckitt Benckiser (UK) Ltd25 the Court of Appeal considered that the ‘overall impression’ of a registered design has to be established with care, and the level of generality to which the court had to descend would be that of the notional informed user.

Design freedom

The extent to which a design has to differ from what has gone before in order to satisfy the individual character test will vary from case to case. The key consideration is the amount of design freedom enjoyed by the designer26. If constraints, perhaps relating to the job that the product had to do, limited the ability of the designer to choose particular design features, smaller differences between those features and ones that have gone before will suffice to demonstrate that the later design has individual character. To the extent that all designers in the field are compelled to produce similar-looking work, smaller differences will serve to differentiate them.

Individual character and component parts

The fact that the legislation protects designs for component parts of a complex product creates difficulties when formulating the ‘individual character’ test. A replacement part is generally not apt to be regarded as having this sort of quality, but there may exceptionally be circumstances in which a design for a part could meet the requirement. The legislation27 specifies that a component part may have individual character if, once it has been incorporated into the complex product, it remains visible during normal use28. Even then, it will only be regarded as having individual character to the extent that those visible features of the component part have such character, as well of course as being new. A mechanical part hidden under the bonnet of a car will not remain visible during normal use of the car itself, and it will therefore not qualify for protection. A car headlamp, on the other hand, is partly visible during normal use of the car: whether the design for it will be registrable will depend on whether the features that are not concealed within the structure of the car are new and have the requisite individual quality.


Registered design protection does not subsist in certain features of designs, and in certain classes of design as a whole. The exclusion of certain features is intended to prevent overreaching of protection, giving the owner of design right, particularly in a complex product, the ability to control the market for replacement parts for that product as well. It also ensures that design protection is limited to the appearance as opposed to the functionality of the products whose designs are registered.

Technical function

The first exclusion is for features of the appearance of a product which are solely dictated by the product’s technical function29. The old Act contained an exclusion for features dictated solely by function, and the exiguous change in wording is unlikely to overcome the difficulties encountered in trying to interpret what this expression means, if indeed it means anything different. Very few designs, if any, are dictated solely by function. The designer may (though the results might be eccentric) choose with some freedom between different designs, and it was always hard to tell whether it could truly be said that a design had been dictated solely by function. How much more workable the new language will be is, however, a moot point.


The designer’s freedom is certainly limited where features must necessarily be reproduced exactly to permit the product to be connected mechanically to, or placed in, around or against, another product so that either product may perform its function. This is the situation covered in the UK’s unregistered design right provisions by the so-called ‘must-fit’ exclusion.30 In 1988, when unregistered design right was first introduced and the Registered Designs Act was at the same time extensively amended, it was not seen as necessary to introduce into that Act the necessary language to create a similar exclusion as provided for in the case of unregistered design right. It was, simply, thought that the exclusion for features dictated solely by function covered any possible must-fit problem. As a result of the Directive, however, the 1949 Act now contains both belt and braces31.


The 1988 reforms also introduced the related ‘must-match’ exclusion from registration. This dealt with those features of a design which had to be copied by a replacement part manufacturer because of the need to retain or restore consistency with the shape of complex product. The intention was that it would limit the protection of designs for car body panels, glass and lamp lenses. There is no such exclusion from protection in the latest set of amendments, but no infringement will be committed if such features of a design are copied.32

Public policy and morality

Finally, there is an exclusion for a whole class of designs, namely those which are contrary to public policy or morality. No rights will subsist in such designs, and one which offends these criteria will be refused registration or, if registered, will be invalid. This is a wider exclusion than that provided for originally in the 1949 Act, which was concerned with lawfulness33. The new exclusion is, however, of extremely uncertain extent, given the shifting nature of the concepts referred to and the wide variations found between different EC countries.

Unregistrable subject-matter

Certain emblems and other matters may not be registered. Schedule A1 provides for designs ‘involving’ the use of Royal arms, certain flags, Olympic symbols, and other emblems (no attempt is made here to provide an exhaustive list) to be refused registration. It is not a matter of those elements being excluded from protection: the whole design is dead in the water.

Before 2002

The old legislation excluded:

  • methods or principles of construction

  • features dictated solely by function

  • must-match’ features (that is, features that are dependent on the appearance of another article of which the article is intended to by the author of the design to form an integral part: in the light of the Ford case, above, this is of little importance)

  • Olympic symbols, etc.

If the appearance of the article was not normally taken into account by persons acquiring or using them the design was not registrable34. In practice, this rarely resulted in protection being refused but probably meant that the validity of many registered designs was at best doubtful.


The initial proprietor of a design – or more accurately the person treated as the initial proprietor – is the author of the design. He or she is the person entitled to apply for registration.35

A design may be become vested in someone other than the original proprietor, either alone or jointly with the original proprietor. In that case, the person to whom the rights are transferred, or that person together with the original proprietor, will be treated for the purposes of the Act as the proprietor of the design.36

Recognising that designs may be created by computer, the Act provides that where there is no human author of a computer-generated design, the author will be considered to be the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the design are made. This reflects the corresponding provision in the copyright legislation37.

The basic rule is subject to exceptions for employed authors and commissions. The employer owns the rights in a design created by an employee in the course of her employment.38 Commissioners own the rights in designs commissioned by them39, provided the commission was for money or money’s worth. These provisions (like virtually all of this section) remain unchanged as a result of the 2001 amendments.

The legislation requires that registered designs and any unregistered design right in the same design go together and an assignment will not be registered unless the Registrar is satisfied that national unregistered design right vests in the same person as the registered design40.

Registered Designs: Obtaining Protection (UK)

The application – for which the fee is £60, except for the historical anomaly of designs applied to textiles made up of checks, stripes or lace, where the fee is £35 – is made by the purported proprietor of the design or the owner of UDR in the design on Form 2A to the Designs Registry, part of the Intellectual Property Office. It must be accompanied by two copies of illustrations of the design, and formerly it was also necessary to submit a statement of novelty, which directed the examiner to where the novel features were to be found (usually in such general terms as the pattern or ornament, or the shape and configuration, of the article made to the design)41. Now all that is required is that the applicant sign the application form stating that he believes the design is new and has an individual character, subject if necessary to any partial disclaimer included in the application.

On receipt by the registry, an application will be given a filing date and a number. The applicant or agent will be sent an official receipt. The registry will then check that all the documents have been prepared correctly and make a search.

Representations of the design

The illustrations which must be filed as part of the application are included to present an accurate and complete picture of the design to be registered. The illustrations should include a series of views of the design, appropriately labelled (‘front view’, ‘plan view’ etc.), where it is three-dimensional. They may be drawings or photographs, or in appropriate cases (two-dimensional designs) samples. They should be on A4-size paper. Disclaimers must be marked on the illustrations. One copy of the illustrations will eventually be attached to the registration certificate.

Illustrations must contain a sufficient number of different views of the articles to leave no doubt about the precise features for which protection is sought. For a set, there must be views of all the different articles which make it up.

Perspective views are generally much more revealing than straightforward elevational views. No descriptive matter may be included in the views, nor must their be any indication of the size of the article.

If the article’s design includes words, letters or numerals the representations or specimens should carry a disclaimer of any right to their exclusive use.

Where piece goods or articles in sheet form have a repeated surface pattern, the representation or specimen must show the complete pattern plus a sufficient proportion of the repeat.

An application can be made supported with a single copy of an informal illustration. In due course, this will have to be replaced by formal ones but this helps avoid delay in getting the application filed.

Revised versions

The proprietor of a design, or of an application for a design, may apply to register revised versions of the same design. A proprietor may also obtain further registrations if the design is to be applied to different types of article from those named in the original application.

In these cases, the later registration must be associated with the original. This formal requirement ensures that the period of protection of the later registration expires at the same time as the protection of the earlier.


The Designs Registry may make such searches as it thinks fit to establish the registrability of the design42. Pre-existing designs, including those registered in the design registry itself, may be searched, along with other designs published in periodicals, catalogues and other sources, to establish that the design is new and has individual character. However, the Registry’s web site states:

‘We do not carry out a novelty search on design applications. But if we know that a design is not new, we will object to it on novelty grounds.’43

There is no way, however, that this search can be exhaustive, so the mere fact that a design is accepted for registration cannot be a guarantee of its validity. The Designs Registry also had some difficulty judging whether a design has eye-appeal, although it is clear that in any event the legislative requirement was low. Consequently, many registered designs are vulnerable to attack on the grounds of invalidity in infringement proceedings. Interested third parties may also apply for cancellation of the registration44. The old validity rules continue to apply to pre-December 2001 registrations.

This process does not apply to checks and stripes patterns which are applied to textile articles, nor does it apply to lace designs. These are registered without a search.

If the search indicates that the design is not new then the registry will refuse registration and notify its objections to the applicant. The relevant pre-existing designs will be cited.


The Directive sets out exhaustively the grounds for refusal45. There are grounds relating to failures to observe formalities, and substantive grounds set out in Section 1A – a design that falls outside the statutory definition of a design, a design that lacks novelty or individual character or is dictated by technical function, one that is contrary to public policy or morality, or one that involves the matter mentioned in Schedule A1.

If the registry objects to registration of a design, the applicant has twelve months to argue against the objection either by making observations in writing or by applying for a hearing before a Hearing Officer in the Registry.

A hearing will decide a case on its merits and may overturn the initial objections. It may be that certain modifications still have to be made to the documents before registration can take place. If an application is refused an appeal may be made to the Registered Designs Appeal Tribunal, which is part of the High Court46.


Section 5 provides for the preservation of the secrecy of certain designs that are relevant for defence purposes, much as in the patent system. The Registrar is charged with checking whether a design for which registration is sought is one of a class of which the Secretary of State has given him notice, and if it is he may give directions prohibiting or restricting publication of the design. The Secretary of State will then consider whether publication would be prejudicial to the defence of the realm.

These provisions are supported by a requirement that anyone resident in the UK must (unless given written permission by the Registrar) make no application for registration of a design of a prescribed class outside the UK until six weeks after filing an application in the UK. However, there appear to be no prescribed classes for this purpose.

The Registry is also obliged to keep confidential all documents connected with an application. After it is registered, the illustrations are made available to the public.


The Registrar may permit modifications to be made, and if the design is altered significantly may decide to examine the application afresh as of the date of the modifications. Even where no prior designs are cited against an application, there may still be amendments to be made to the documents to bring them into line with standard requirements. But once all the documents are in order the application can go forward for the grant of a certificate of registration. The process normally takes about four months, and the registration is effective from the date of the application or the priority date (if there is one). If, following modifications, the date of the modified application has been substituted for the original filing date, the later date will be the one from which the registration runs.47

A period of 12 months from the application date is allowed for the application to be put in order for registration. This period may be extended by up to three one month terms using designs form 8 and paying additional fees. If an application is not in order after 15 months it will be deemed to be abandoned and cannot then be registered. It is impossible to start again from scratch because the necessary novelty will have disappeared.

At any time after the application has been filed the applicant may manufacture and sell articles made to the design. Corresponding protection abroad may be obtained using international conventions, which will give priority based on the UK filing date.

Obtaining protection (EC)

The procedure for obtaining protection in the EC does not differ significantly from the UK procedure. The fees are €230 registration fee plus €120 publication fee for the first design, €115 and €60 for each of the second to tenth design, and after ten designs €50 and €30.

1Section 1(1).

2 Regulation 6/2002, OJ No L3, 5.1.2002, p. 1-24.

3 Para 12.1.1.

4 supra, note 6

5 SI 2001 No 3949.

6 The Community Design system is described below, section 4.5

7 Section 1(2).

8Ferrero’s application, [1978] RPC 473.

9KK Suwa Seikosha’s Application, [1982] RPC 166.

10PB Cow & Co Ltd v Cannon Rubber Manufacturers Ltd [1959] RPC 240.

11 In this connection, it may be material that the initial work on the draft directive was carried out by a Commission official from Denmark, and the recognition of function as the equal of form for design protection purposes chimes with a Scandinavian design ethos.

12 Section 1(3).

13 ‘Complex product’ is also defined in section 1(3).

14 In the matter of Registered Design Applications 2094031 to 2094039 in the name of Apple Computer Inc [2002] FSR 38, [2001] WL 1171915 (Jacob J).

15 K. K. Suwa Seikosha's Design Application [1982] R.P.C. 166.

16[1995] 1 WLR 18 (HL). Some replacement parts, their Lordships acknowledged, did have an independent commercial existence and could be used an vehicles other than those for which they were designed. Seats fell into this doubtful category, and therefore a design for a seat could be registered.

17Section 1B(1).

18 Section 1B(2). The relevant date is the date on which the application is made or is treated as being made – for example, where there is a priority claim from an earlier application overseas, or the application is modified after the initial filing.

19 Section 1B(5).

20 Section 1B(6).

21See Green Lane Products v PMS International Group and others [2007] EWHC 1712 (Pat), a judgment on a preliminary point regarding a Community registered design by Lewison J.

22 There is an interesting parallel in the patents field, where the UK Patent Office launched a consultation in 2002 on introducing a period of grace along similar lines.

23 Section 1B(2).

24 Section 1B(3), and Article 6 of the Community Design Regulation. The informed user is a user of the product to which the design is applied: Bailey v Haynes [2007] FSR 10.

25[2007] EWCA Civ 936.

26 Section 1B(4).

27 Section 1B(8).

28 This is elaborated on in section 1B(9).

29 Section 1C(1).

30 On which, see below, para

31 Section 1C(2).

32 See below, para

33 Commentators, deprived of examples, suggested that this would probably prevent the registration of designs for housebreaking tools.

34Section 1(3).

35 Section 2(1).

36 Section 2(2).

37 Section 2(4).

38 Section 2(1A) and (1B)

39Section 2 (1B).

40 Section 19(3A), and see RTK Marine v Composite Industries 2000 WL 191163.

41 This requirement does not apply when the design is for wallpaper, lace or textile articles: In such cases, of course, novelty inevitably resides in the surface decoration.

42 Section 3(4).


44Section 11.

45 Section 3A.

46 Section 3D.

47 Section 3C.