In an article published by The Times, Gary Johnston has his say regarding the issue around IP rights in the fashion industry.

The recent Court of Appeal decision in Conversant Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L v Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd, ZTE Corporation and Ors [2019] EWCA Civ 38 builds on the same court’s decision in Unwired Planet International Ltd & Anor v Huawei Technologies Co Ltd & Anor [2018] EWCA Civ 2344 to firmly establish the English Courts as a forum for considering SEP disputes and the setting of global Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) patent licences.

We explore further what this decision means.

What are SEPs?

In the field of digital technologies, and in particular telecommunications, standards are used to ensure interoperability.  They allow products from one manufacturer to communicate and operate with products from another manufacturer.  The standards are set by standard setting organisations (SSOs).  SSOs are normally formed from a collection of industry participants, who evaluate technologies for inclusion in a new standard, encourage those participants to contribute their most advanced technologies to that standard and then promote the standard once it has been agreed.

There are various SSOs around the world and each of them operates in much the same way.  The European SSO is the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI).

Therefore an owner of a patent which relates to a standard set by an SSO (a Standard Essential Patent, SEP) may have a strong and valuable patent right.  However, to avoid this leading to potentially anti-competitive behaviour, ETSI and other SSOs require the owners of SEPs to give an irrevocable undertaking in writing that they are prepared to grant licences of their SEPs on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms.

What is a FRAND licence?

An undertaking to grant licences of SEPs under FRAND terms is designed to ensure that any technology protected by a SEP which is incorporated into a standard is accessible to users of that standard on fair and reasonable terms and that its owner cannot impede the implementation of the standard by refusing to licence it or by requesting unfair, unreasonable or discriminatory licence fees. However, there is no one-size-fits-all solution to what FRAND is and that what can be considered fair varies from sector to sector and over time.  Solutions can therefore differ from sector to sector and depending on the business models in question.  As noted in the decision in Unwired Planet, in practice, the negotiation of licences for SEPs on FRAND terms may be far from straightforward, with the owner of the SEP using the threat of injunction to force the payment of excessive licence fees, or the infringer refusing to engage constructively or behave unreasonably in the negotiation process to avoid paying the licence fees to which the SEP holder is properly entitled, a process known as “hold-out”.

Global licensing

It should be remembered that a patent such as a SEP only applies to the countries in which it is granted and therefore has limited territorial scope.  For example, if a UK SEP is found valid and infringed, a UK Court will only grant relief in respect of the infringement of that patent in the UK.  As Aldous LJ explained in Coflexip SA v Stolt Comex [2001] RPC 9 at [18], the injunction must equate to the statutory right given; a right which has been held to have been validly granted and infringed.  So, for example, a UK Court will only grant an injunction to restrain infringement of a UK SEP.  The same applies to a claim for damages: they will only be awarded for infringement of a UK SEP.

However, the position in relation to a FRAND undertaking is rather different.  ETSI is the SSO for the EU but what is important is that its standards are of international effect.  As a result, the FRAND undertaking given by a patent owner to ETSI in return for the incorporation into the standard of the technology protected by the patent is also of international effect.  It applies to all patents which belong to the same family irrespective of the territory in which they subsist.

As noted in the Unwired Planet decision, in practice SEP holders and infringers (who normally have more or less global sales), if acting reasonably, would therefore agree on a worldwide licence.  They would regard country by country licensing as madness.  A worldwide licence would also be far more efficient.  In particular, for products with a global circulation, SEP licences granted on a worldwide basis may contribute to a more efficient approach and therefore can be compatible with FRAND.

A global licence might well have different rates for different regions and for different standards – for example, if the licensee was a Chinese multinational like Huawei, they might well agree on different rates for China as for the Rest of the World – but again they would not go for country by country licensing.

The decision in Unwired Planet International Ltd & Anor v Huawei Technologies Co Ltd & Anor [2018] EWCA Civ 2344 considered these issues at length and established the English Court as willing to tackle FRAND disputes and get involved in the fine detail of royalty calculations.

Conversant v Huawei [2019] EWCA and the UK as a forum for SEP disputes

The Appeal in Conversant v Huawei [2019] related to four UK patents that had been acquired from Nokia in 2011 as part of a large patent portfolio acquisition.  Interestingly, however, the UK represented only 0.07% of ZTE’s mobile device sales, and only 1% of Huawei’s worldwide sales on which royalties are claimed.  As such, both Huawei and ZTE sought to argue that the English Courts were a forum non conveniens and that instead the issue of a global SEP licence should be considered by the Chinese Courts.  The dispute also centred around whether a global licence would be FRAND and what relief would be granted if infringement were established.

Huawei and ZTE submitted evidence in favour of their assertion that the Chinese Courts were the correct forum by submitting Guidelines issued by Guangdon High People’s Court: “Guidelines of Guangdong High People’s Court on Adjudicating Cases of Disputes Over Standard-Essential Patents (Trial)”.  However, the English Court found that no evidence was presented in the submission of the Guidelines that the Chinese Courts would actually determine or set the terms of a global FRAND licence, and that so far the Guidelines had only been brought in for a trial period.

In the present decision the Court considered that whether or not English Court is the correct forum depends on how broadly you characterise the claim.  Too broadly means you focus on a different property right and different underlying facts.  Too narrowly and you focus only on the relief available in the English Courts.  At the end of the day it was considered that what was at issue was a number of UK rights, and an assessment of whether these UK rights are valid and infringed.

In the end, the Court held that (at point 99 of the Decision):

(i) The UK patents are SEPs;

(ii) Conversant has complied with their ETSI undertaking;

(iii) Huawei and ZTE have not so complied;

(iv) Conversant are therefore entitled to enforce their UK SEPs including a FRAND injunction.

What was potentially also relevant was that there were no equivalent family members in China for the four UK patents at issue.  As such, at point 101 of the Decision it was held that:

“Leaving Conversant to seek a remedy in China would be compel them to advance a case based on different patents.  The Chinese patents are not the UK patents viewed through the lens of Chinese law, but are different property rights applied for and registered in China. They are not even in the same families as the UK patents.  They will have different claims […] I find it impossible to view such a dispute as being the same dispute as that which would arise in the English Court.”.

The Court held (at point 107) that: “Conversant is seeking to enforce UK patents, governed by English law”.  The Court also noted that the appellants were free to pursue their claims in respect of the Chinese patents in the Chinese Courts, and the result of those Chinese proceedings would be taken into account in any global FRAND licence.

As such it was held that the English Courts are the right forum for considering this issue and the fair assessment of a global licence for these SEPs, and therefore cemented the English Court’s position as a forum for the consideration of global SEP disputes and the setting of global FRAND patent licences.

If you would like any more information regarding this article, please contact the author, Andrew White.

Starting a business can seem like a daunting prospect, given that if you Google “startups and fail” there are lots of articles on the percentage of startups that fail before they get going, which could put you off even getting started!

However, by being well prepared and informed before you start the process, you may be able to avoid some of the common pitfalls and become one of the 2 out of 10 startups that succeed.  

Here are our top tips to get you on the right track.

1. Know Your Customer

Kevin Smith of SA One Healthtech Limited is the founder of six technology businesses since 2000, and specialises in generating seed and early stage investments for startups and young, growing ventures. He said, “Before you do anything, know your customer. Know who your customers are, where they are, how many (potentially) there are, what they want, and how much they will be prepared to pay for it. Know the competitive landscape and understand the advantages of your product or service. Knowing your customer will allow you to best define how to present these advantages.”

Whether you have had an idea for an online service or you have devised an invention, a top tip is to start with rigorous market research to ensure that you know the answers to these questions, and have evidence to back it up – potential investors will want to see this, so do it well. It will, of course, also tell you whether or not it is worth pursuing the venture.

2. Sufficient Funds

Developing a successful business invariably costs more than you think it will. When you are generating your business plan, ensure you build in reserves to allow for unexpected expenses, particularly in the development phases. When asking for investment, it is much easier to ensure from the start that you have sufficient funds to complete each stage, than to go back to investors and ask for more. In the worst case, if no additional funds can be obtained, the venture could fail, even before it gets properly off the ground.

Furthermore, and as Kevin Smith points out, “Speed to market is essential, so be sure the funding allows you to deliver your product as early as possible and investors add value to your development and market access where possible.”

3. Stagger IP Protection Costs Where Possible

It is, of course, important to protect your idea (or your Intellectual Property (IP)) to the greatest extent possible, but not all IP protection necessarily needs to be put in place at the very start of the project. If you have devised a product that has some novel technical feature, then a patent application is probably the principal means of protecting it. If you have devised something that is not technically new, but is novel in its appearance (i.e. design), then design registration is probably the more appropriate form of protection for it.

Patent and design applications should usually be filed before there is any non-confidential disclosure of the product, but that does not mean that you cannot disclose the invention to a selected and containable few individuals or companies using a Confidentiality Agreement or Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA), and some useful information, including templates that can be used, is provided on the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) website here.

For patent applications, you can file in your home country first and you then have 12 months within which to file corresponding overseas applications. For designs, a similar protocol exists, but the timeframe is six, instead of twelve, months. However, it is important not to file applications too soon in the development phase. Six and twelve months will fly by, and you may have to make expensive decisions about overseas protection before you have finished development and/or have sufficient funds to adopt an ideal protection strategy. Also, a lot can change during that time, so you will need to make sure your application is “topped up” with any additional features or changes before any overseas applications are filed.

Trade marks, whilst often an exceptionally important part of complete ‘concept to market’ process, are slightly different to patents and designs in that you do not have to register your trade mark(s) before they are used or otherwise publicly disclosed. So, whilst it may be important not to wait too long before considering trade mark registration (to minimise the chance of someone else registering something similar in the meantime), this expense can often wait until you are little further into the process, and a trade mark attorney will be able to help you decide how and when to file trade mark applications in your home and overseas markets.

4. Find the Right Manufacturer
It is essential to have the right expertise and guidance in your corner when it comes to getting your product manufactured, and to the right specification and quality. Depending on the type of product, it might seem like a good idea to get it manufactured overseas, but don’t forget that duty rates, shipping costs, cultural differences and communication can all become issues to be considered. It is worth visiting the manufacturer, if you can, and forming a business relationship with their key personnel. Another top tip, particularly when manufacturing in South East Asia, is to use a local agent (who will be familiar with the region, the language and any cultural aspects) to identify a few suitable manufacturers for you.

5. Don’t Commit to Branding and Packaging Without Checking if you are Free to Use Your Trade Mark 
Even if you don’t plan to register your trade mark until you get to the final stage and you are ready to sell your product, it can be a very costly mistake to commit to your branded packaging without checking to see if you will infringe someone else’s trade mark in any of your markets. An IP attorney can help you perform a so-called Freedom to Operate (FTO) search and provide the advice you need. Whilst this will incur some charges, they would be nothing like the expense of having to re-brand and re-package everything later if you find you are infringing someone else’s rights.

6. Protect Your Brand
Finally, do make sure your brand and ‘get up’ is properly protected against copying. Things like names and logos can, and should be protected by way of trade mark registration, but there may be other protectable elements of your brand identity that are also protectable, and an IP attorney will be able to advise. Do ensure that the relevant parts of your brand identity are protected in all of your target markets, although a staggered approach to this can be made if cash flow is an issue early on, and before sales have started to be generated.

Mathys & Squire works with a range of startups, helping them get their businesses off the ground and into the market. Our team work closely with the founders to ensure that their IP strategy aligns to the business objectives of the company. We use our expertise, innovation and creativity to become part of our clients’ success story. 

We have also prepared a downloadable pdf with more information on protecting the IP in your startup.

The issue of patentability of plants produced by essentially biological processes has been at issue since the original tomato and broccoli cases before the EPO’s Enlarged Board of Appeal issued in December 2010. The EPO attempted to put the matter to rest in 2017 by introducing a new rule (Rule 28(2) EPC) which expressly excluded such subject matter from patentability.

In the most recent twist to the story, in a Written Decision published on 5 February 2019, an EPO Technical Board of Appeal has now confirmed that plants produced by essentially biological processes are indeed patentable (T 1063/18).  This may on the face of it seem surprising given the introduction of Rule 28(2) EPC in July 2017. However, for those working in this space, or following the developments in EPO Board of Appeal case law over the last three years or so, this is perhaps not so surprising.  Numerous commentators have questioned the validity of new Rule 28(2) EPC, and arguments have been made that this could leave the member states of the EPC open to financial liability for adopting the rule.

The Enlarged Board of Appeal of the EPO settles questions of law to allow for uniform application of the EPC.  In G2/12 and G2/13 the Enlarged Board held that Article 53(b) EPC does not exclude plants and plant material produced by essentially biological processes as unpatentable.  It is also explicitly set out in the EPC that the Articles of the EPC take precedence over the Rules in case of any conflict.

The Board of Appeal in T 1063/18 found new Rule 28(c) EPC to reverse the meaning of Article 53(b) EPC, and hence to be in direct contradiction with the Article as interpreted by the Enlarged Board of Appeal, such that no conciliatory interpretation of the rule is possible.  Therefore, when faced with determining whether the pepper plants of T 1063/18 were patentable, the Board of Appeal followed the interpretation of Article 53(b) EPC provided by the Enlarged Board, allowing the patentability of such subject matter, rather than the recently introduced rule excluding it.

Some might question whether the case should have been referred up to the Enlarged Board, which would have allowed confirmation of the Enlarged Board’s interpretation of Article 53(b) EPC.  However, as noted by the Board of Appeal at the Hearing, the Enlarged Board’s reasoning and subsequent decision in G2/12 and G2/13 was unambiguous.  As the Board in T 1063/18 was not minded to diverge from the Enlarged Board’s approach, it was satisfied that no new referral was needed.

Furthermore, the Board in T 1063/18 calls into question the introduction of new Rule 28(2) EPC on the basis of an earlier Notice issued by the European Commission on the interpretation of the Biotech Directive, which the Board states has “no legal authority”.  Instead, the Board reasons that only the CJEU can provide a biding interpretation of the Biotech Directive.

Thus, as it stands, new Rule 28(2) EPC has been found to be in conflict with Article 53(b) EPC.  One would expect that other cases on this point before the Boards of Appeal would be decided in the same way.  However, there is a question as to whether EPO Examiners will be under pressure to follow Rule 28(2) EPC, given that the EPO made a policy decision to introduce this rule for consistency with the European Commission’s Notice issued in November 2016.

The EPO has yet to react to the Board’s decision in T 1063/18.  If it wishes to amend Article 53(b) EPC to exclude products of essentially biological processes from protection, this can only be achieved by an intergovernmental conference of the member states to the EPC.  There has been much political lobbying in favour of excluding this subject matter from patentability, and so it might be expected that this will be high on the EPO’s agenda.  On the other hand, this is proving a highly contentious issue, which can only truly be resolved by a decision from the CJEU providing a definitive interpretation of the Biotech Directive.  Therefore, the EPO may choose to defer further amendments of the EPC until such a time as an interpretation has been provided by the CJEU.  There is though no telling when a suitable case would be brought to the CJEU for such a decision to be made.

If you have any questions about this article, please contact Anna Gregson.

We are delighted that Mathys & Squire is in the World Trade Mark Review (WTR) 1000 directory as a recommended firm for 2019. Trade Mark lead partners, Gary Johnston and Margaret Arnott are also named as recommended WTR 1000 individuals.

Mathys & Squire’s trade mark team are leading the way by delivering unparalleled expert advice, whilst providing excellent client service.

Mathys & Squire client, Rigby & Peller said of Mathys & Squire “I find them to be highly responsive, and provide insightful commercial advice without pushing a point of view. I would not hesitate to recommend them”. Further, Kenwood stated that “Mathys & Squire are innovative about what they do. They are not just ticking boxes; they are always trying to come up with better ways of doing things, and are always open to suggestions from our side. We work very closely. Most importantly, with Mathys & Squire, [we] know [we] will be working with a stable team who know [our] business, and can deliver the technical and commercial advice [we] need to protect our IP”.

Mathys & Squire recognises that the effective management of trademark and design portfolios encompasses the delivery of a wide range of services. Our trademark services include:

• trademark portfolio management;
• trademark availability searches (including brand availability analysis for new products and services);
• the filing, prosecution and renewal of trademark applications (in the United Kingdom, the European Union and overseas);
• monitoring and watching services;
• oppositions, cancellation actions and contentious IP proceedings (including litigation);
• anti-counterfeiting and online brand protection and enforcement services;
• the preparation and recordal of trademark assignment documentation; and
• due diligence and IP audit evaluations

Get in touch with our trade mark team to find out how they can help.

Mathys & Squire wish all of our Chinese clients, contacts and friends a very Happy Chinese New Year for 5^th February, the year of the Pig.

For more information about Mathys & Squire’s China team, click here. 

On Thursday 24th January, Mathys & Squire hosted our annual Burns Night networking event at our offices in The Shard!

The evening was filled with whisky tasting, Scottish themed canapes and of course, a rendition of Auld Lang Syne.

Thank you to all who came to the event and made it a huge success – we hope you enjoyed it!

In an article published by The Times, Gary Johnston and Laura West discuss the recent decision issued by the EU Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) revoking McDonald’s rights in its Big Mac trade mark. This has been widely publicised as a “David and Goliath” defeat and a “unique landmark decision”.

The challenger, SuperMac’s, an Irish fast-food chain, has certainly tried to paint that picture, making various claims including that it has triumphed over “the McBully”. However, as damaging as it may be to McDonald’s at this early stage, the decision fails to satisfy any of these claims just yet. While certainly an initial success for SuperMac’s, it is doubtful whether this single decision will mark the end of the dispute. Not only does McDonald’s have the right to appeal, there are various other avenues it could pursue in challenging SuperMac’s should it wish to do so.

It is likely that this is only the beginning of a much more interesting story. However, it is to be hoped that the publicity around the McDonald’s case has communicated a useful message about the care that should be taken when presenting evidence at the EUIPO, regardless of the assumed knowledge of that brand among the public.

To read The Times article in full click here.

If you have any questions about this article please contact Gary Johnston or Laura West.

The Mathys & Squire patent, trade mark and design attorneys have been crystal ball gazing! Here are their IP trends to look out for in 2019…

Recycling

Green-tech innovations are taking an increasing role in the world of IP.

Since David Attenborough highlighted the devastating effects of plastics on our environment, consumers are much more concerned with waste management. Fortunately, an outstanding amount of research and innovation has already been undertaken to face this problem head on. 2018 saw some exciting breakthroughs in the area of recycling. Companies such as Parkside Flexibles have produced compostable, flexible food packaging. We also saw research from University of Portsmouth and the US Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) on genetically engineered enzymes which can digest polyethylene terephthalate (PET). As the war on plastic continues, we can expect further research and therefore new innovations in the field of recycling to emerge in 2019.

If you’d like to discuss protecting the IP in your eco-friendly ideas, please contact Laura Clews via [email protected]

AI, Autonomous Vehicles and Blockchain

2018 saw an increasing amount of press coverage surrounding artificial intelligence (AI) and autonomous or driverless vehicles. With the Government’s announcement at the end of 2018 that people in London and Edinburgh are set to be the first to trial self-driving vehicle services, we predict that 2019 won’t disappoint and will continue with this upward trend. The business secretary announced that “self-driving cars will revolutionise the way we move goods and people around the UK, and that autonomous vehicles and their technology will not only revolutionise how we travel, it will open up and improve transport services for those who struggle to access both private and public transport.  The UK is building on its automotive heritage and strengths to develop the new vehicles and technologies and from 2021 the public will get to experience the future for themselves”.

With such advances in innovation in these areas, as part of our daily work as patent attorneys we can expect to see more and more patent applications relating to AI and autonomous vehicles crossing our desks.  It is encouraging, therefore, that the European Patent Office (EPO) appear to be taking a pragmatic approach to assessing AI inventions (click to read more here).

Connected with this, blockchain-related technologies are also garnering a lot of press attention.  Although the UK seems to be lagging behind its competitors in terms of protecting innovations in this area (see previous article here), perhaps we will see things change in 2019.  With blockchain-related technologies finding applications in all walks of life, from sectors as diverse as medical records, food tracking, drug tagging, and even autonomous vehicles (where blockchain-related technologies may be applied to ensure the credibility of information on which an autonomous vehicle may act), we can also expect to see this area growing even further in 2019.

For further information or to discuss the IP in AI further, please contact Andrew White via [email protected]

Food

With your average consumer now more health & environmentally conscious than ever, innovation in the food & beverage sector needs to be protected with patents and trademarks.

Vegan Foods: with veganism hitting the headlines regularly in 2018, it was difficult not to notice that this food trend has now gone mainstream! Companies such as Marks & Spencer; Ben & Jerry’s and even McDonalds have been quick to respond to consumer demands providing new vegan food options. More recently, bakery chain, Greggs, has also aligned themselves with this ever growing lifestyle choice and launched a new vegan sausage roll, just in time for veganuary. With more and more people looking to try veganism (a survey by VoucherCode survey suggesting this could be as many as 2.66 million Brits in January 2019), I would expect to see more delicious and innovative vegan products in 2019 for us all to try.

“Gut healthy” fermented foods: if you haven’t yet heard of kombucha or kefir, you soon will. These are just two of the fermented drink products which are quickly gaining popularity in both the UK and US. In 2017, the global market for kombucha alone produced $1.5 billion in sales and has been predicted to continue to increase at a growth rate of 23% over the next five years (reported by research firm Mordor Intelligence). Fermented food and drink products satisfy two growing trends for consumers i) foods that are natural; and ii) foods that provide health benefits. Fermented foods have been reported to provide a source of essential minerals and are rich in probiotic bacteria and have been suggested as beneficial for improving gut health and boosting the immune system. These products are already available in teas, juices and, for the less traditional amongst us, craft beers. However, with interest in fermented food products ever growing, we would expect to see further innovation within this field in 2019. Some companies, such as DuPont have already filed patents relating to fermented food products, and so we look forward to see what new fermented snacks will hit our supermarket shelves this year/

Sea vegetable superfoods: sea vegetables such as kelp, seaweed, and algae have been flagged as the new superfood and saw increased popularity with consumers in 2018. As more and more consumers are focussed not only on what they eat but where it comes from, sea greens are well placed for those looking to try a more plant-based diet without further damaging the environment. As seaweed is one of the fastest growing plants in the world it is considered to be a more sustainable and environmentally-friendly food source. This new trend has not gone unnoticed by food manufacturers and provides a great opportunity for new healthy food products.

To talk more about protecting the IP on your plate – vegan, vegetable and otherwise – please contact Laura Clews via [email protected]

Life Sciences – Deal Making

The value of mergers and acquisitions in the biotech sector in 2018 saw a 30 year high, including eight deals worth more than $1 billion. A number of such deals in 2018 involved Mathys & Squire clients – in January 2018 Sanofi announced it would be taking over haemophilia-focussed Bioverativ for $11 billion, while by May 2018 Takeda had confirmed its purchase of Shire for $62 billion, the fifth-largest biopharmaceutical M&A deal in history.

It is anticipated that 2019 is likely to be another active year for deal-making in the life sciences sector. One of the factors pointing to this prediction is that a number of large biotech companies are facing the imminent expiry of patents protecting valuable authorised products. The possibility of competition from generics and biosimilars after patent expiry can have the effect of forcing biotech companies to consider alternative revenue streams, including potential mergers. Additionally, the now divided Congress and a House of Representatives means that we are unlikely to see patent reform in the US in 2019. This may encourage inventors to reconsider biotech stocks for 2019, fuelling further investment in life sciences.

For further information about protecting your ideas and innovation in the Life Sciences sector, please contact Bethany Gibbs via [email protected] 

The United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) recently published a report  on design infringement in the UK.  This report not only explores the attitude to design rights in the UK, but also the perceived level of design infringement across the UK’s design industry, and the impact of design infringement on businesses.

Copycat Crisis

The report highlights that a staggering 98.3% of designers believe that they have experienced some level of infringement of their designs, and subsequently suffered estimated financial losses of between £5000 and £500,000.

However, despite the almost inevitable negative commercial impact of infringement on their businesses, fewer than 10% of designers actually attempted to defend their designs.

In circumstances where an infringer was challenged, issuing a letter to the infringing party was the most common response, as it was found to be a simple, inexpensive and effective method of addressing design infringement, with most infringers ceasing their infringing activity when challenged.

So why the disconnect? If designers are plagued by copycats, and a simple letter can prevent these infringements from happening, why are designers not taking action?

Common Misconceptions

You can’t protect designs.

Research shows that awareness of design rights is generally lower than that of other intellectual property rights such as copyright, patents and trade marks, BUT designs can indeed be protected.  From consumer products and packaging to logos, patterns, typefaces, graphical user interfaces and colour schemes, there is very little that cannot be protected by filing a Registered Design.

It’s expensive to protect designs.

Filing registered designs to protect designs is in fact a relatively simple and inexpensive process.  Plus, under the UK and European Registered Design systems, it is possible to protect several designs in one ‘multi-part’ application where the cost per design reduces as the number of designs included in the filing increases.

Challenging an infringer is costly.

The UKIPO’s research has shown that often simply issuing a letter to the infringer was effective and inexpensive, and often resulted in most infringers ceasing infringement when challenged.

Don’t be part of the 98.3%. 

If you need help protecting or enforcing your designs, get in touch with our Designs team.