This report, sponsored by the IPO and Creative Industries Policy and Evidence Centre (PEC), looks at how design protection in the UK is being used and makes suggestions for potential reform.

Read the Executive Summary  and Full Report.

The report confirms that the designs sector is economically significant. The UK design economy is large, and comparable in scale to the patent-intensive technology sector in some regards. Yet design protection, particularly registered design rights, appears underused, even in highly design-intensive industries. It also highlights that the UK design protection is complex which can create confusion for designers and firms.

Survey evidence showed low awareness and poor understanding of unregistered design rights, despite their central policy role in protecting design investment. It points to the fact that registration has increased sharply but unevenly and with risks, and is still lightly used by most UK firms protecting designs.

Worryingly, the report highlights that the system is being abused in ways that suggest strategic or abusive registration, particularly on online marketplaces where they are used to block competitors. Unsurprisingly, it finds that alleged infringement is found to be widespread. Around one quarter of surveyed firms reported recent copying of their designs, but many had been able to resolve disputes without significant expenditure or time.

Dids Macdonald OBE., ACID’s Chairman and Co-Founder and Director of Campaigning said, “We support many of the above and welcome positive recommendations to improve design policy and this report reinforces some of the campaigning reforms we have highlighted over many years.

However, it is remarkable that these independent and significant findings were only published in March 2026 whereas it would have been much more helpful had they had been published ahead of the Designs Consultation in September 2025”. She added, “We also very much welcome the recommendation that protecting emerging forms of design, including virtual and animated designs, to keep pace with technological advancements.”

“Read ACID’s response to the recent Design Consultation which closed in November 2025”.

Laura Newbold Breen, ACID’s CEO said, “it is good to see policy research according with what ACID has long campaigned for and highlighted as shortfalls in design protection for many years ahead of its publication. ACID and its members hope to at last see meaningful change as a result of this research and the Design Consultation“.

Key areas of research are the basis of some of the recommendations on which ACID comments:

1. Encouraging Design Registration:
Electronic filing has reduced costs, making registration more practical. The Intellectual Property Office (IPO) and Design Council should promote registration as the main way to protect designs for up to 25 years. Simplifying fee structures, charging around £30 per design and lower fees for related designs, would make registration more accessible. Periodic renewals every five years would encourage designers to decide whether protection remains worthwhile. Registered designs provide stronger enforcement options, including criminal penalties for intentional copying and better control over distribution channels. Awareness campaigns, clearer filing guidance, and possibly a distinctive “D in a circle” symbol could further boost registration. To prevent misuse, copyright fallback should be disallowed once registration lapses. The law should also give broader protection to particularly novel designs, addressing concerns from narrow interpretations such as in the Trunki case. Aligning UK definitions and exceptions with EU design law could enhance clarity.

ACID response– We agree that lowering fees for the registration of a single design is a no brainer and yet the IPO have recently increased their charges for a single registration by 20% as from April 1^st 2026. Instead of £50 per design, it is going to cost £60 for a single registration. Prioritising the importance of registration may disadvantage small or independent designers who lack time, knowledge, or resources to navigate the system. It risks creating a two-tier system where unregistered designs receive little to no protection or awareness, especially if copyright fallback is removed. Mandatory renewals add administrative burden, and failure to renew could lead to sudden loss of rights. Broader protection for “novel” designs may also create legal uncertainty and increase disputes. The fact remains that the majority of the UK’s designers rely on unregistered design rights. It is the same in the EU, and one must ask why?

2. Preventing Registration Abuse:
Abuse occurs when existing products are registered to block competitors, especially via online platforms. The current low-cost, rapid registration process allows this because novelty checks are minimal. Possible remedies include adopting Australia’s hybrid “registered then certified” model, using AI to detect duplicate designs, or introducing a refundable deposit that is forfeited if a design proves invalid, encouraging vigilance and deterring abuse.

ACID comment– Preventing registration abuse is a key concern, but this suggestion could have disadvantages for UK designers. Introducing stricter checks, AI screening, or refundable deposits may increase costs, delays, and administrative burdens, particularly for small or independent designers who rely on fast, low-cost registration. A “registered then certified” model could create uncertainty, as rights are not fully secure until certification, potentially weakening early enforcement. While these measures aim to deter abuse, they may unintentionally slow innovation, reduce accessibility to protection, and place UK designers at a competitive disadvantage compared to jurisdictions with simpler, faster systems.

3. Simplifying Unregistered Design Rights:
Post-Brexit, the UK has two overlapping unregistered design rights, the UK UDR and the Supplementary Unregistered Design (SUD), causing confusion. Options include abolishing one or merging both to simplify the system. If the UK UDR were removed, Section 51 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act would need revision, as it covers functional items not eligible for copyright. Awareness of unregistered rights remains poor; better communication by the IPO and Design Council is essential.

ACID Comment – unregistered design rights could reduce flexibility for designers. Removing one regime may narrow the scope or duration of protection, leaving gaps, especially for functional designs currently covered by UK UDR. Merging systems could also create uncertainty during transition, with unclear rules on eligibility and enforcement. Designers who rely on automatic, no-cost protection may be disadvantaged if simplification weakens coverage or increases reliance on registration, adding cost and administrative burden. Better still, offer UK unregistered designs the same advantage of SUD for up to 15 years.

4. Improving Enforcement:
Infringement is widespread, but litigation is often too costly relative to design value. While the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court offers lower-cost proceedings, many disputes are settled informally. To aid smaller designers, more accessible and affordable dispute resolution options—such as arbitration and small claims courts, should be promoted, drawing lessons from other countries like the Netherlands.

ACID COMMENT – We would respectfully argue this proposal does not address a fundamental issue of fairness and the availability of criminal sanctions for intentional infringement of unregistered design rights in line with copyright infringement. Also, whilst the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court offers lower-cost proceedings, even so, sadly, they are out of reach for most lone, micro and SME designers. We would add the caveat that enforcement reform must also consider the proportionality and fairness of criminal provisions, ensuring they are reserved for clear, deliberate, and well-defined intentional infringement beyond all reasonable doubt and in the public interest. From principal to protection, design law reform must deliver real deterrence.