For more than 25 years ACID has been the leading UK design voice on intellectual property issues which affect not only its members but the broader design community. We speak to Government, key influencers & policy makers to ensure that the best possible IP enforcement framework is in place to protect our invaluable UK Creative Industries.
It takes years to create a brand with a pedigree of creative excellence and skill, talent, sweat equity and significant investment to develop first class design and products to maintain a position as a market leader and innovator. In challenging markets, design leaders need and demand a route to growth without being threatened by widespread lookalikes and copies.
To inspire and empower UK designers from all industries to protect their creations from imitation and exploitation, raising awareness of the value of innovative design and how designers can protect their work.
To create a safer trading environment for our members by encouraging respect for intellectual property within corporate social responsibility.
To ensure that the ultimate deterrent of criminal provisions for intentional infringement of an unregistered design becomes a reality, monitoring legislative, political and commercial developments within the IP landscape.
Following Brexit, ACID successfully campaigned for the introduction of a Supplementary UK Unregistered Design Right, lasting 0–3 years, to retain the key advantages previously offered by the EU right. However, we are continuing to push the government to clarify the rules around simultaneous publication, which is essential for ensuring that UK designers retain access to protection in the EU27. Without this, UK designers risk losing vital EU unregistered design coverage.
There remains a significant disparity between copyright and unregistered design rights. Copyright lasts for the life of the creator plus 70 years and includes criminal provisions for intentional infringement. In contrast, unregistered design rights last a maximum of 15 years and currently carry no criminal consequences. ACID is campaigning for equal protection — arguing that design creators deserve the same level of deterrence as songwriters or photographers.
ACID is at the forefront of discussions on generative AI and copyright, particularly in relation to large language models and Big Tech using copyrighted content without consent. We fully support the use of AI in ideation, transformation, and prototyping — but firmly oppose data training without transparency, attribution, or recompense. The government’s current AI growth plans put creative industries and rights holders at risk without meaningful safeguards.
Since 2022, ACID has worked collaboratively with policymakers through Calls for Views, a government Questionnaire, and the 2025 IPO Design Survey. Our focus is to simplify design law and push for affordable enforcement options to combat IP theft. As the long-awaited 2025 Designs Consultation approaches, we are urging designers to share real-world case studies and examples of infringement — including estimated financial losses — to inform government decision-making.
We are engaging with online platforms such as Temu to find constructive solutions to the rising number of resellers offering knock-offs that harm IP creators. ACID has also written to Ministers expressing serious concerns over Shein’s potential Initial Public Offering (IPO) on the UK Stock Exchange, highlighting their troubling human rights record and disregard for IP law, which has led to hundreds of global legal actions. Members are invited to add their names to future letters.
While 3D printing offers valuable opportunities, it also raises serious IP concerns. The majority of UK designers rely on unregistered design rights, which are not protected by criminal law — creating vulnerabilities that could be exploited, including by organised crime. ACID first raised this in 2016, and the rise in illegal 3D-printed firearms in the UK further highlights the urgent need for stronger protections.
Enforcing design rights remains financially inaccessible for many micro and SME designers. Although the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) and Small Claims Track have improved over time, registered designs still cannot be heard in the Small Claims Track — a gap that defies logic. ACID continues to push for practical, affordable enforcement options to ensure all designers can defend their rights.
