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

No items found.
​
August 24, 2012
#
Building a Resilient Quantum Patent Portfolio: Winning the Race to File First
Table of contents
  • Toc Heading
  • Toc Heading

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

See all Case Reports

UPC Court of appeal issues final decision, despite no finding on infringement at first instance
30 March 2026
In Rematec v Europe Forestry, the UPC Court of Appeal overturned the Mannheim Local Division’s revocation of the patent and, applying Article 75(1) UPCA, issued a final decision on both validity and infringement despite no infringement finding at first instance. The Court adopted a narrower, description‑led approach to claim interpretation, confirmed the patent’s validity, found infringement, and granted final remedies without referring the case back to the Court of First Instance.
​
Litigation insurance as security for costs
30 March 2026
In Syntorr v Arthrex, the UPC Court of Appeal clarified that while litigation insurance is not itself a form of security under Rule 158 RoP, it is a relevant factor when deciding whether security for costs should be ordered at all. By failing to consider the claimant’s insurance policy, the Munich Local Division wrongly exercised its discretion. The Court set aside the €2 million security order and confirmed that insurance can mitigate concerns about cost recoverability.
​
National law applies to claims for loss of profit if the events occurred before the UPC came into force
30 March 2026
In Fives v REEL, the Hamburg Local Division of the UPC dismissed a standalone damages action despite prior findings of infringement. Although the UPC was competent to assess damages, the court held that national law applied because the relevant events pre‑dated the UPC’s entry into force. Applying German law, the court found that the claimant had not proven causation or lost profit, highlighting the demanding evidentiary burden for price‑reduction damages claims and the importance of substantiating counterfactual tender outcomes.
​