Registering Designs Under the Reformed EU Design Regime in the EU

The EU design registration landscape has changed materially following the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2024/2822, which introduced new terminology, an expanded scope covering animated interfaces and graphical user interfaces, and a permanent repair clause for spare parts. Phase I of the reform took effect on 1 May 2025, while Phase II – bringing revised representation formats and updated procedural rules – applies from 1 July 2026. Understanding how these two phases interact is essential for any business seeking reliable protection for its product designs across the European Union.

Legal Basis: What Changed and Why It Matters

For many years, EU-wide design protection rested on the Community Design Regulation and its implementing rules. Regulation (EU) 2024/2822 replaces the core instrument and introduces the terms Registered EU Design (REUD) and Unregistered EU Design (UEUD) in place of the previous "Community" terminology. The change is not merely cosmetic: the new regulation broadens the definition of a protectable design to encompass animation sequences, transitional effects, and graphical user interfaces (GUIs), reflecting the commercial reality of digital and software-driven products.

A complementary instrument, Directive (EU) 2024/2823, requires EU Member States to align their national design laws. Member States must transpose the Directive by 9 December 2027, so businesses should treat national systems as a work in progress during the transitional period; specific national implementation details remain subject to each Member State's legislative calendar.

The reform also codifies a permanent repair clause for must-match spare parts – components whose appearance is dictated by the need to restore the original appearance of a complex product. This clause had been contentious in IP litigation and before the CJEU for years; its permanent inclusion removes a long-standing source of legal uncertainty for the automotive and consumer-electronics sectors in particular.

Phase I (from 1 May 2025): What Is Already in Force

Phase I, operative since 1 May 2025, introduced the following changes that practitioners and applicants need to act on immediately:

• New terminology throughout EUIPO filings. Applications and certificates now reference REUD/UEUD. Existing registered Community Designs retain their validity but are automatically redesignated.
• Expanded subject-matter. Designs covering animation, GUI transitions and dynamic visual elements are expressly protectable. Applicants with digital products should revisit their portfolios to capture previously unregistered elements.
• Permanent repair clause. The must-match spare-parts exemption is now permanent under EU law, resolving the uncertainty that previously arose in trade mark and design enforcement disputes.
• Multiple applications across Locarno classes. A single application may now encompass designs belonging to different classes of the Locarno Classification, reducing administrative burden and filing costs for product families spanning several categories.

Foreign applicants should note that these changes affect not only new filings but also the strategic review of existing design portfolios. A design that was once considered difficult to register – for example, a GUI animation – may now qualify, and the multi-class application route may consolidate what previously required separate filings.

If you are reassessing your EU design portfolio or preparing a first-time filing, the Ferraz & Whitmore intellectual property team can assist with an initial review. Please reach out to us at info@ferrazwhitmore.com or visit our contacts page.

Phase II (from 1 July 2026): New Representation and Procedural Rules

Phase II brings the new EU Design Implementing and Delegated Regulations into effect on 1 July 2026. The principal innovations concern how designs are represented in the application and the procedural framework governing examination and registration.

• Electronic, animated and 3D representation formats. Applicants will be able to submit animated files and three-dimensional models as the official representation of a design, replacing or supplementing traditional static views. The technical specifications will be set out in the Implementing Regulation.
• Revised procedural rules. The examination and registration process at EUIPO will be governed by an updated rulebook. Deadlines, formality requirements, and the handling of deficiencies are expected to be recalibrated to align with the broader representation possibilities.
• Practical implication for pending filings. Applications filed before 1 July 2026 under Phase I rules will continue under those rules. Applicants planning to rely on animated or 3D representations should assess whether it is more advantageous to wait for Phase II or to file static representations now and supplement later.

The window between now and 1 July 2026 is the right moment to map your design assets, identify gaps, and decide whether to proceed under current rules or align filing strategies with the Phase II framework. The interplay between design registration, copyright infringement risks, and trade mark protection often requires a coordinated approach rather than piecemeal decisions.

Step-by-Step Registration Procedure Under the Current Framework

The following steps reflect the procedure as it stands under Phase I rules, with notes on how Phase II will affect each stage.

• 1. Conduct a prior-art search. Search the EUIPO design database, national registers and relevant commercial sources. A design lacking novelty or individual character cannot be registered regardless of filing strategy.
• 2. Determine the scope of protection sought. Identify which features – shape, lines, colours, texture, materials, ornamentation, or, under the new regime, animation and GUI elements – you wish to protect. Unclear scope is a common source of errors by foreign clients unfamiliar with EU examination practice.
• 3. Prepare the representation. Under Phase I, static views (typically up to seven perspectives) remain the standard. Under Phase II, animated and 3D files will be admissible. The representation defines the scope of protection, so precision is critical.
• 4. Classify the product under the Locarno system. Correct classification affects searchability and the validity of the application. Under the reformed regulation, a single application may cover multiple Locarno classes.
• 5. File at EUIPO (or via national office for national registration). EUIPO accepts electronic filings. The application must identify the applicant, the representation, and the product indication. An optional description may be included but is not mandatory and can, in some cases, narrow protection.
• 6. Formality examination. EUIPO examines the application for formal compliance. It does not conduct a substantive novelty examination at this stage. If deficiencies are identified, a period is granted for correction.
• 7. Registration and publication. Once formalities are satisfied, the design is registered and published in the EUIPO Register. Third parties may apply to invalidate the design, but there is no opposition procedure analogous to trade mark proceedings.
• 8. Maintenance and renewal. An REUD is protected for an initial period of five years from the filing date, renewable in five-year increments up to a maximum total term. Renewal deadlines should be tracked carefully to avoid lapse.

Realistic Timelines and Cost Drivers

EUIPO has published indicative processing times, though actual timelines vary with workload and any formality issues. Under normal circumstances, a straightforward application without deficiencies can result in registration within a matter of weeks from filing. Applications involving formality queries extend this timeline by the period granted for response.

Cost drivers for foreign applicants include: representation preparation (particularly for animated or 3D designs under Phase II); professional fees for prior-art searches; the official EUIPO filing fees, which vary depending on the number of designs in a multiple application; and any translation requirements for supporting documentation. The multi-class application introduced under Phase I can reduce aggregate fees for applicants with diverse product lines, but the savings depend on the specific combination of classes involved. Applicants should also factor in the cost of monitoring for infringement: design registration is only valuable if it is enforced, which may involve IP litigation before national courts, potentially raising issues previously examined by the CJEU and matters that have been the subject of EUR-Lex guidance.

Common Errors by Foreign Applicants

Businesses based outside the EU regularly encounter the following pitfalls when seeking design registration or protection:

• Underestimating the novelty requirement. Prior disclosure – including by the owner – can destroy novelty. The 12-month grace period under EU design law protects against the owner's own earlier disclosures, but foreign applicants accustomed to different grace-period rules in their home jurisdictions sometimes misapply this provision.
• Confusing registered and unregistered protection. The UEUD provides three years of automatic protection for designs first made available in the EU, but only against copying – not against independent creation. Relying solely on unregistered status is a weaker position in IP litigation than holding a registered right.
• Filing representations that are too broad or too narrow. Views that include features the applicant does not wish to protect can restrict freedom to operate; overly narrow views may leave elements unprotected. This requires careful professional judgment before filing.
• Missing the interaction with copyright infringement and trade mark protection. A product's visual appearance may simultaneously qualify for design registration, trade mark protection as a shape mark, and copyright protection. Failing to coordinate these streams can leave gaps that a competitor may exploit.
• Ignoring the repair clause implications. The permanent repair clause under Regulation (EU) 2024/2822 means that a design registration for a must-match spare part will not confer the right to prevent use of that part for repair purposes. Applicants in the automotive and related sectors need to account for this when assessing the commercial value of their registrations.
• Overlooking the interaction with text and data mining. For designs embedded in software or digital products, the interplay between design rights and exceptions such as text and data mining under copyright law is a developing area that may affect enforcement strategy.

The intersection of design rights with trade mark, copyright, and regulatory frameworks such as those overseen by the European Commission, ESMA, and EBA in fintech and financial product design contexts adds further complexity for clients in regulated sectors. Our intellectual property practice works across these intersecting frameworks to develop coherent filing and enforcement strategies.

Decision Checklist: Registered or Unregistered?

The choice between pursuing registration and relying on the unregistered right involves the following considerations:

• Will the design be commercially exploited for more than three years? If so, registration is almost always preferable.
• Is independent creation by a competitor a realistic risk? Registered protection covers independent creation; the UEUD does not.
• Is the design first disclosed in the EU, or elsewhere? Disclosure outside the EU may preclude UEUD protection entirely.
• Does the product fall within the spare-parts must-match category? If so, assess whether registration carries practical enforcement value given the repair clause.
• Are animated, GUI or 3D elements central to the product's appearance? If so, consider whether to file now under Phase I rules with static views or await Phase II's broader representation options.
• Is the design part of a broader IP strategy involving trade mark or copyright assets? If so, coordinate the filing timeline and scope across all relevant rights.

The Reform in Context: Looking Ahead to Phase II and National Transposition

The reform reflects a broader effort by the European Commission to modernise IP frameworks in response to digitalisation, as evidenced by the parallel EUR-Lex legislative record covering the regulation and directive. The practical implications will continue to develop as EUIPO publishes Phase II technical specifications and as Member States implement Directive (EU) 2024/2823 ahead of the December 2027 deadline. Businesses with significant design assets should engage in ongoing monitoring of both EUIPO guidance and national legislative developments, particularly where they rely on national registrations alongside EU-level protection.

For disputes arising from design rights – whether in infringement actions, invalidity proceedings, or cross-border licensing disagreements – a clear understanding of the reformed framework is a prerequisite. Our litigation and arbitration team works alongside the IP practice on contentious design matters before national courts and EUIPO.

For clients interested in the specific dynamics of the repair clause and the spare-parts market, our in-depth analysis is available at Design Repair Clause and Spare Parts in the EU.

If you have questions about how the reformed EU design regime affects your existing portfolio or a planned filing, we welcome the opportunity to discuss your situation. Please write to info@ferrazwhitmore.com or use our contacts page to arrange a consultation.

Disclaimer: This publication is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The information herein should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional legal counsel tailored to your specific circumstances. Ferraz & Whitmore assumes no liability for actions taken or not taken based on the contents of this material. For advice regarding your particular situation, please contact info@ferrazwhitmore.com.