1. Two reform phases and a new legal numbering
The first phase of the EU design reform applied from 1 May 2025 under Regulation 2024/2822. The second phase followed on 1 July 2026. On that date, codified Regulation 2026/715 entered into force and repealed Regulation 6/2002. This matters when reading older commentary: novelty and individual character now appear in Articles 6 and 7, previously Articles 5 and 6. Annex III provides the correlation table. [1] [2]
Renaming a Community design as an EU design does not mean every existing registration must be filed again. New applications do, however, require current rules, forms and technical requirements. EU reform does not automatically import every change into a Polish national application. Before selecting a route, distinguish the national right from the unitary EU right and identify the markets where products will be sold. [1] [3]
2. Identify the cut-off date and disclosure history
Start with a chronology: sketches, product versions, customer demonstrations, catalogues, exhibitions, online publications, first sales, filing and any priority claim. For a registered EU design, the reference point is filing or validly claimed priority. Preserve both the image of an earlier product and evidence of when and how the public could access it. Relevant disclosure is not confined to registers. [1]
Article 8 of Regulation 2026/715 addresses disclosure, confidentiality and the twelve-month period for specified disclosures originating from the designer or successor, and for abuse. This is not a general licence to publish freely before filing. Record the source, date and relationship to the right holder. Expansion outside the EU requires a separate review: the EU grace period must not be treated as a worldwide rule. [1]
3. Run two separate tests
Novelty asks whether an identical design was previously disclosed; differences confined to immaterial details do not create novelty. Individual character concerns a different overall impression on the informed user, taking account of the designer’s freedom. A list of minor modifications or software-generated similarity percentage does not answer these legal questions. Identify the product, user and design constraints before comparing overall impressions with particular earlier designs. [1]
In PepsiCo v Grupo Promer, C-281/10 P, the Court examined the informed user, attention and comparison. That person is neither the ordinary consumer from trademark law nor automatically a technical expert. A packaging, furniture or game-item analysis must justify the relevant perspective. Read this historical judgment with the present law and numbering in mind, while distinguishing the legal test from the outcome on its specific facts. [4]
4. Examine technical function separately
Design protection concerns appearance, but not every visible feature can be monopolised. Article 9 of Regulation 2026/715 addresses features solely dictated by technical function and mechanical interconnections, with a separate provision for modular systems. Record assembly requirements, standards, engineering documents and design decisions. This is a separate step from finding identical designs or assessing individual character; passing one test does not remove the need to consider another. [1]
In DOCERAM, C-395/16, the Court held that alternative shapes do not by themselves establish that features are not exclusively technical. The assessment concerns objective circumstances and whether technical function alone determined the features. An assertion that the product could have been made differently needs further analysis. Design records should accurately explain decisions, rather than reconstruct a cosmetic justification after a dispute has begun. [5]
5. Prepare a consistent representation under current rules
Current EUIPO guidance allows static, dynamic and animated representations, including suitable OBJ, STL and MP4 files. One representation type is chosen for a particular design: static views are not combined with a video to represent that same design. Features must remain consistent, the subject matter sufficiently clear, and visual disclaimers coherent across views. Check current file limits and technical specifications before submission. [3] [6]
For a hypothetical lamp shown in six views, two different base shapes are not something the Office should be expected to resolve by selecting one. Remove the inconsistency and consider genuine variants under the multiple-application rules. For an animated interface, show the visual transition rather than merely describing a button’s function. The representation defines what is claimed; marketing language cannot repair an ambiguous visual record. [1] [6]
6. Turn research into an evidence-based report
A report should state its purpose and search scope, cut-off date, databases and queries, identified disclosures and comparisons with individual earlier designs. Separate documented findings from hypotheses requiring proof. If a catalogue date or disclosure source cannot be established, record that limitation. Registration is not a certificate that a comprehensive substantive novelty search has been performed against the entire worldwide design corpus. [1]
The conclusion may recommend improving the representation, further research, confidentiality measures or a review of another protection route. Designs, copyright, trademarks and patents answer different questions. An EUIPO invalidity application and an infringement action before the competent court also serve distinct purposes. This guide describes an EU analysis method; assessing a product requires its actual documents and relevant dates. [1]
Sources and further reading
- 1EU Design Regulation — codified text ↗
Rozporządzenie (UE) 2026/715; art. 4–9,42,73–74,163–164; załącznik III
In force since 1 July 2026; repeals 6/2002 and provides a correlation table.
- 2EU design reform amending regulation ↗
Rozporządzenie (UE) 2024/2822; art. 3
Article 3 distinguishes 1 May 2025 from the deferred 1 July 2026 provisions.
- 3EUIPO — Design Reform hub ↗
EUIPO: Design Reform hub; aktualizacja fazy II 2026
Official explanations of definitions, procedure and representation.
- 4CJEU: PepsiCo v Grupo Promer Mon Graphic ↗
C-281/10 P, 20.10.2011, ECLI:EU:C:2011:679, pkt 53–59
The informed user and overall comparison, under the former article numbering.
- 5CJEU: DOCERAM v CeramTec ↗
C-395/16, 8.03.2018, ECLI:EU:C:2018:172, pkt 29–38
Solely technical features; alternative designs are not decisive.
- 6EUIPO — design representation and file formats ↗
EUIPO: Design representation; EX-26-03 z 1.06.2026
Current requirements for static, dynamic and animated representations.
Rekel Patent — an intellectual-property information website. Publisher: Vadym Rekel.