Designs are a particularly effective tool for protecting the appearance of a product, or of part of a product: lines, contours, colors, shape, texture, materials and, since the recent European reform, certain dynamic features such as movement, transitions or animations.
Yet designs remain the poor relation of intellectual property. This underuse is often due to an incomplete understanding of their strategic value, even though they can very usefully complement protection through trademarks, patents or copyright, depending on the circumstances (see our newsletter of January 2026 on this subject).
However, this protection can become complex when considered internationally. Unlike a purely European strategy, a worldwide strategy requires applicants to anticipate, from the very first filing, the sometimes very different requirements of foreign offices.
Unlike the Madrid System for international trademarks, which has the advantage of applying fairly harmonized rules, the Hague System for designs is more difficult to navigate.
The Hague System does indeed make it possible to centralize the filing of an international design application. However, this centralization should not be misleading: each designated territory retains its own requirements, particularly as regards representations, novelty, unity of design, description, declaration of the creator, and so on.
A first point of vigilance concerns disclosure of the design before filing. In the European Union, the applicant may, under certain conditions, benefit from a 12-month grace period: a disclosure made by the creator or their successor in title is not necessarily novelty-destroying if the filing takes place within that period. However, this rule does not apply uniformly at international level. In China, for example, there is no grace period comparable to that of the European Union: only certain very specific disclosures may, subject to strict conditions, be disregarded. In practice, where protection in China is contemplated, it is therefore recommended that the initial filing be made, for example in the EU, before any public disclosure.
A second point of vigilance concerns the very nature of the right obtained. Depending on the country, design protection is closer to the trademark protection system, as in the European Union, or to the patent protection system, as in the United States or China. These differences give rise to very practical requirements, particularly regarding the quality, consistency and completeness of the views.
Thus, representations accepted without difficulty by the EUIPO may give rise to objections in other territories. Some offices are more demanding as regards consistency between views, disclaimers, or the indication of the product. It is therefore essential to adapt the representations used to the intended geographical scope before filing, rather than reasoning solely on the basis of European standards.
Multiple applications are another example of the difficulties that may arise. The European Union allows multiple design filings in a single application, including, since the latest reform, where the designs fall within different Locarno classes. However, this flexibility cannot be transposed everywhere. Under the Hague System, the designs included in the same international application must, in particular, belong to the same Locarno class, and some offices may still raise unity of design requirements. Divisional applications may then become necessary, resulting in additional costs and delays.
Other points may also prove decisive: whether or not it is possible to file the design with deferment, formalities relating to the creator, declaration of an exhibition or prior disclosure, or even the choice, in certain cases, of a national filing strategy rather than an international one.
International design protection therefore cannot be reduced to designating a list of countries. It requires a strategy to be built in advance, taking into account the target markets, the launch timetable, disclosures that have already taken place or are planned, and the specific requirements of each office.
We therefore recommend that you seek professional advice before embarking on an international design filing project. A prior analysis will help avoid objections, additional costs or, more problematically, a refusal of protection in certain territories.
Our team remains at your disposal to define with you the protection strategy best suited to your international design projects.
June 2026
Contributing author
