IPR
Topic 67 Comparative Designs
Topic 67 — Comparative Design Laws: India, EU, US, UK, Japan
Industrial design protection has developed differently across major jurisdictions, reflecting distinct legal traditions and policy preferences. The European Union's Community Design Regulation (CDR) 2002 — supplemented by the new Design Regulation 2024/2822 (entering into force 1 May 2025) — provides a unified registered Community design (RCD) and an automatic unregistered Community design (UCD). The United States protects designs as "design patents" under 35 USC §§ 171-173 — a hybrid of patent and design law. The United Kingdom maintains a dual regime — registered designs under Registered Designs Act 1949 and unregistered design rights under Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Japan's Design Act 1959 (extensively amended 2019) has pioneered protection for "related designs" and partial designs. India's Designs Act 2000 follows a registration-only model with no automatic unregistered protection. The November 2024 Riyadh Design Law Treaty represents the first global harmonisation step. This topic provides a comprehensive side-by-side comparison.
1. The Five Regimes — Master Comparison
Feature | India | EU | US | UK | Japan |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Principal Statute | Designs Act 2000 + Designs Rules 2001 | Community Design Regulation 6/2002 + Design Regulation 2024/2822 (effective 1 May 2025) | 35 USC §§ 171-173 (design patents) | Registered Designs Act 1949 + CDPA 1988 | Design Act 1959 (revised 2019) |
Type of protection | Registered designs only | Registered Community Design (RCD) + Unregistered Community Design (UCD) | Design patents (registered) | Registered designs + unregistered design rights | Registered designs + related designs |
Term — registered | 10 + 5 = 15 years | 5 + 5 + 5 + 5 + 5 = 25 years max | 15 years from grant (post-2015) | 5 + 5 + 5 + 5 + 5 = 25 years | 25 years from filing |
Term — unregistered | Not available | 3 years from disclosure | N/A | 15 years from creation OR 10 years from first marketing (whichever shorter) | Not available separately |
Substantive examination | Limited (formality) | No (formality only) | Yes (full novelty/non-obviousness) | No (formality only) | Yes (substantive) |
First-to-File principle | Yes | Yes | Yes (post-2013 AIA) | Yes | Yes |
2. Substantive Standards for Protection
Requirement | India | EU | US | UK | Japan |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Novelty test | Section 4 — anywhere in world | CDR Article 5 — absolute | 35 USC § 102 — absolute (post-AIA) | RDA s.1B — absolute | Section 3 — absolute |
Originality / Individual character | Section 2(g) — author origin OR new in application | CDR Article 6 — "individual character" (different overall impression on informed user) | Non-obviousness — different from prior art under § 103 | Individual character (similar to EU) | Creative non-obviousness |
Functional features test | Excluded only if EVERY feature solely dictated by function (Travel Blue 2025) | Article 8(1) — features solely dictated by technical function excluded | TrafFix v. MDI (2001) — essential to use/purpose; affecting cost/quality | Solely functional features excluded | Solely functional features excluded |
Aesthetic appeal required | Yes — "judged solely by the eye" | No explicit requirement — visual impression sufficient | No — utility design patents possible | Implicit | Yes |
Grace period | 6 months (limited circumstances) | 12 months | 1 year | 12 months | 6 months → 12 months (2019 reform) |
✅ "Individual character" — the EU innovation The EU's "individual character" test (CDR Article 6) is conceptually different from the Indian "originality" test: · EU — looks at whether the design produces a different "overall impression" on the "informed user" compared to prior art. · India — focuses on whether the design originates from the author OR represents a new application. The EU test is more sophisticated and operationally similar to trademark distinctiveness. The "informed user" — neither average consumer nor design expert — assesses overall impression. India's formulation has been less developed jurisprudentially but Travel Blue v. Miniso (2025) is moving toward similar holistic analysis. |
3. Registration Procedures
Stage | India | EU | US | UK | Japan |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Filing authority | CGPDTM (HQ Kolkata) | EUIPO (Alicante) | USPTO | UKIPO | JPO |
Examination time | 6-9 months (post-2024 reforms) | ~3-4 months | 12-24 months (substantive) | ~3-4 months | 6-12 months |
Examination scope | Formal + limited prior search | Formal only | Full substantive examination | Formal only | Substantive (novelty + creative non-obviousness) |
Multiple designs in one application | Limited — moving toward yes (post-Riyadh DLT) | Yes — up to 50 designs in same Locarno class | No (one design per patent) | Yes — multiple designs in one application | Limited |
Public opposition stage | No | Yes (RCD invalidity proceedings) | No (third-party submissions) | Yes | Yes (within 6 months) |
Standard filing fee | ₹1,000 / ₹4,000 | €350 (basic) | $760 (small entity) / $1,520 (large) | £60 | ¥16,000 |
4. Distinctive Features by Jurisdiction
A. EU — Unregistered Community Design (UCD)
The EU's most distinctive feature is the automatic unregistered Community design (UCD) — created by the Design Regulation 2002 and reaffirmed in 2024:
- Automatic protection upon disclosure (3 years from first disclosure in EU).
- No registration required.
- Protection only against deliberate copying.
- Particularly useful for fashion, footwear, and short-lifecycle products.
✅ UCD operational reality The UCD has revolutionised fashion and design industry IP strategy in the EU. Designers can launch products without formal registration and still enforce against deliberate copying. The 3-year window is short but matches the typical commercial life of fashion designs. India does NOT have an equivalent — Indian designers must register or lose protection. This is a significant gap in Indian design law and a frequent reform proposal. |
B. US — Design Patents
The US uniquely treats designs as "design patents":
- Granted under 35 USC § 171 — essentially a sub-category of patent law.
- Substantive examination including novelty (§ 102) and non-obviousness (§ 103).
- 15-year term from grant (post-2015 amendment).
- Different from utility patents — protects appearance, not function.
- Notable cases — Apple v. Samsung (multi-billion dollar damages); Egyptian Goddess v. Swisa (2008, ordinary observer test).
C. UK — Unregistered Design Rights
UK provides automatic unregistered design rights under CDPA 1988:
- Protection of original "shape or configuration" of articles.
- 15 years from creation OR 10 years from first marketing (whichever earlier).
- Available only to UK and EEA designers.
- Post-Brexit changes to EU UCD coexistence.
D. Japan — Related Designs and Partial Designs
Japan has pioneered design protection innovations:
- "Related designs" — variations of a main design protected as a family (Section 10).
- Partial designs — protect specific components or features (Section 2).
- 25-year term (extended in 2019 reforms).
- Strong substantive examination tradition.
E. India — Registration-Only Model
India's design law is registration-only:
- No automatic unregistered protection.
- Section 22(2)(b) civil remedies; Section 22A criminal track.
- Section 19 cancellation as central defence.
- No "related designs" framework — each variant requires separate registration.
- Travel Blue v. Miniso (2025) and Crocs v. Bata (Del-DB 2025) confirm parallel passing-off claims for sustained-use designs.
5. International Design Frameworks
Treaty | Year | Members | Indian Status |
|---|---|---|---|
Paris Convention | 1883 | 180+ | Member 1998 |
TRIPS Agreement (Articles 25-26) | 1995 | WTO members | Original WTO member |
Locarno Agreement (Classification) | 1968 | 60+ | Member |
Hague Agreement (International Registration) | 1925/1999 | 79 | NOT a member |
Riyadh Design Law Treaty | 2024 | Signed Nov 2024 | Signed (not yet in force) |
A. Hague Agreement — The Major Gap
India is NOT a member of the Hague Agreement — the international system for registering industrial designs in multiple countries through a single application. This is a significant strategic gap:
- Indian designers seeking international protection must file separately in each country.
- Costs and complexity are substantial — separate translations, agents, fees in each jurisdiction.
- Many countries (US, EU, Japan, UK) are Hague members — Indian non-membership creates one-way frictions.
- Periodic policy discussions about Hague accession have not resulted in joining.
B. Riyadh Design Law Treaty (November 2024)
India signed the Riyadh DLT in November 2024 — the first major design law harmonisation:
- Procedural harmonisation across signatories.
- Grace period extension — minimum 12 months for prior disclosure.
- Multiple designs per application — facilitates portfolio filings.
- Disclaimers — explicit framework for excluding non-claimed features.
- India implementing Riyadh DLT through 2025-2026 amendments.
6. Enforcement and Remedies
Feature | India | EU | US | UK | Japan |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Forum for infringement | High Court IPD; District Court | EU Community Design Courts (national) | US District Court | High Court of England and Wales | Tokyo / Osaka District Court IP Division |
Damages | Compensatory + reasonable royalty + punitive | Compensatory + actual losses | Lost profits OR reasonable royalty + treble for wilful | Compensatory + lost royalty | Compensatory + reasonable royalty |
Injunction | Three-prong test | EUTMR / CDR injunctions | Standard equitable | Standard equitable | Standard |
Criminal track | Section 22A — 2 years + ₹50K-₹1.5L fine | Variable by member state | No | No | Yes — limited |
Customs enforcement | Customs IPR Rules 2007 | Border measures via EU Customs Regulation | Yes — under TFR | Yes | Yes |
7. Strategic Implications for Indian Designers
A. Building International Portfolios
For Indian designers seeking international protection:
- File first in India (with Section 5 — establishes Indian rights and Paris priority).
- Within 6-month Paris priority window, file in priority markets — EU, US, UK, Japan.
- Consider regional applications — EUIPO (single RCD covering 27 EU states).
- For US, file design patents at USPTO (separate from utility patents).
- Coordinate Locarno class selection across jurisdictions.
B. Cost Optimisation
✅ Cost-effective international filing strategy For a single design seeking international protection: · India — ₹1,000 (natural person) / ₹4,000 (company). · EU RCD — €350 (covers all 27 EU states). · US design patent — $760 (small entity) / $1,520 (large). · UK — £60. · Japan — ¥16,000 (~₹10,000). Total for India + EU + US + UK + Japan ≈ ₹100,000 for a company. The EU RCD provides extraordinary value — single filing covers 27 states. India's cost-effectiveness for domestic filings supports portfolio building. |
C. Industry-Specific Strategies
- Fashion/footwear — leverage EU UCD (3-year automatic protection); supplement with strategic registrations.
- Electronics/devices — file design + utility patents in parallel; UST Global GUI strategy in India.
- Furniture/lighting — strong design + trademark + passing-off combinations.
- Automotive — long-cycle products; full registered design portfolios in all major markets.
8. Recent Trends and Reforms
A. Digital Design Protection
GUI/icon design protection has emerged as a major growth area:
- UST Global v. Controller (Cal HC 2023) — Indian breakthrough.
- US — well-established via design patents (Apple, Microsoft portfolios).
- EU — explicit recognition under CDR.
- Japan — partial design protection extends naturally to GUIs.
B. AI-Generated Designs
Emerging questions about AI-generated designs:
- Authorship — most jurisdictions require human author for design rights.
- Originality — algorithmic generation challenges traditional originality concepts.
- US — denying patent grants where AI is sole inventor.
- EU/India — yet to issue clear guidance.
C. Sustainability and Repair Right
EU's 2024 Design Regulation introduces "repair clause" — design protection cannot prevent reproduction of replacement parts for repair. This addresses tension between IP and circular economy. India has no equivalent provision.
9. Practical Takeaways
✅ Twelve cross-jurisdictional strategy points for Indian designers For domestic protection only — Indian Designs Act 2000 framework sufficient. For Asian markets — file Japan + China; both substantive examination jurisdictions. For European market — file EU RCD (single application covers 27 states). For US market — file US design patents; substantive examination but valuable scope. For UK post-Brexit — separate UK filing alongside EU RCD. For fashion/short-cycle products — leverage EU UCD automatic protection. For long-cycle products (furniture, automotive) — full international registered portfolios. Coordinate Locarno class selection for consistency across filings. Plan claim scope — solid lines for protected features in Indian and parallel filings. For functional articles (electronics) — focus on aesthetic features through selective claims. Build defence portfolio against international infringement — multiple jurisdictions strengthen position. Monitor international design databases for prior art relevant to defensive cancellation arguments. |
🎯 EXAM POINTERS — TOPIC 67
|