Three new UK IPO decisions demonstrate the wide commercial applicability of registered designs

No items found.
​
August 24, 2012

In the UK, applications to declare a UK registered design invalid can be filed at the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO), whereupon the case is decided by a Hearing Officer of the UKIPO acting on behalf of the Registrar of Designs.

Such cases are not particularly common, but decisions in three have just been made available at the same time on the law reporting website BAILII.

In all three cases, the circumstances are rather more complicated than the usual commercial dispute between parties.

Diane Gillespie v Neil Corbett (Design) [2012] UKIntelP o26212 (05 July 2012)

In this first case, both parties held registered designs in relation to whelping boxes (boxes designed to keep puppies safe after birth). It has been alleged that some customers had believed that the defendant and the claimant were the same company. In respect of one of the designs, both parties had a registration, each being very similar to the other. Both of those designs were held invalid due to prior sales by the claimant. The other designs were held to be valid over the prior art cited.

James Kieran Padden v The Secretary of State for Defence (Design) [2012] UKIntelP o28912 (27 July 2012)

In the second case, the defendant had been involved in the design of a new badge for the Special Boat Service. He registered the design, but in the meantime the MoD had already registered a very similar badge. Mr Padden claimed that this prior art and other prior art that was published less than 12 months before his filing date was covered by the grace period provisions, as he was the designer. Therefore, in this decision, only prior art more than 12 months prior to the filing date was considered. The design was held to lack individual character over the disclosure of a similar design in a talk to the Flag Institute.

Registered Designs Limited v David Saville (Design) [2012] UKIntelP o28812 (27 July 2012)

In the third case, two designs were at issue, both being wallets for driving licences. One design was alleged to lack novelty over a wallet produced and distributed by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA). This allegation did not succeed as it was not substantiated by the evidence, so this registration was upheld. The other design was alleged to lack novelty over a product sold as “Protect-a-Badge”. The Hearing Officer considered that the prior sales were substantiated, and the differences between the two designs were immaterial, and so that design was declared invalid.

These cases illustrate the wide variety of commercial situations that registered designs can be used to protect.

By Darren Smyth

Recent Case Reports

No language change at Central Division
08 October 2026
Proceedings before the UPC Central Division must be conducted in the language in which the patent was granted. There is no legal basis to change that language. In a revocation action concerning a German-language patent, the Paris Central Division rejected a request to switch the language of proceedings to English, and also rejected a subsidiary request to allow written submissions in English and hold the hearing in English, holding that Article 49(6) UPCA permits no derogation and reflects a deliberate legislative choice.
Criteria for obtaining an order to produce evidence under Rule 190
07 October 2026
This appeal judgment clarifies that Rule 190 orders to produce evidence require three cumulative conditions: specificity, necessity and proportionality, and cannot be used for fishing expeditions. The Court of Appeal confirmed that first instance judges enjoy a broad margin of discretion when assessing such requests, and upheld the order requiring production of two fabric samples for ballistic testing. Both the appeal and the cross-appeal were dismissed.
Court of Appeal focuses on the technical effect to determine added matter
30 September 2026
The Court of Appeal provided guidance on their approach to assessing added subject matter, highlighting that the technical effect underlying the invention and how the claimed and unclaimed features contribute thereto is central to the analysis.