UK Government Calls for Evidence to Inform Updated Design Rights Policy

In response to the release of an independent report on the state of UK IP policy (Hargreaves Report), the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) has issued a call for the submission of evidence to inform their re-assessment of the relationship between design rights and innovation in a new technological era. This represents an opportunity for industries affected by design rights in the UK to be heard on the positive or negative influence the current framework has on their sector. The Hargreaves Report, previously reported by E-TIPS® (“New UK IP Report: “Digital Opportunity: A Review of IP and Growth””, Vol 9, No 23, June 1, 2011), presented an extensive critique of outdated UK IP policy, and offered a series of recommendations generally accepted for implementation in a Government response this summer. With this call by the IPO for an evidence-based assessment on design rights, the UK Government is taking the first steps towards implementing the most fundamental recommendation in the Hargreaves Report: that IP policy decisions should balance the economic interests of various groups based on sound evidence; in other words, evidence should drive policy. The current state of UK design rights is generally thought to be a patchwork of overlapping registered and unregistered rights covering either the UK or the whole EU. Certain industrial sectors may only employ these design rights as supplemental to copyright or trade-mark rights, where the nature of their products support such claims. As a result, to many observers the framework seems to be unnecessarily complex, offering a variable scope and duration of rights, as well as different evidentiary requirements and penalties for infringement actions. The call for evidence solicits input from all industries on the extent to which this current framework supports enforcement of design rights or the incentive to innovate in their sector, and where Government can do more to support design innovation, protection and enforcement. Summary by: John Lucas