EU Designs Reform Phase 2: New Legislation in Force From 1 July 2026

Why so many instruments?

EU law draws a hard constitutional distinction between delegated acts, which supplement or flesh out the legal framework itself, and implementing acts,  which ensure uniform practical implementation of that framework. Delegated acts and implementing acts cannot legally be combined into a single instrument. Hence one regulation was required for each, while the third is to clarify the wording of the law which has become somewhat complex following amendment.

Codifying Regulation (EU) 2026/715

The foundational EU designs regulation (EC) 6/2002 (“6/2002“) was heavily amended with effect from 1 May 2025 by Regulation (EU) 2024/2822 on EU designs (the “Design Reform Regulation“). The Codifying Regulation does not substantively amend the law, but formally brings together in one instrument the law as amended. It also repeals 6/2002. It was published in the Official Journal of the EU on 30 March 2026 and enters into force on 1 July 2026.

It is this Regulation which will govern EU designs from 1 July 2026, and not 6/2002.

Delegated Regulation (EU) 2026/137

This supplements the law set out in the Codifying Regulation.  Most interestingly:

A new “priority” stream for invalidity actions is introduced in article 7

Where invalidity actions are based on novelty or individual character grounds, and the holder of the REUD does not contest the grounds of invalidity or the relief sought, “the Office shall rule on the invalidity as a matter of priority“.

Invalidity actions become more frontloaded generally

Under article 2, an application for a declaration of invalidity must contain, alongside an indication of the grounds, a “reasoned statement setting out the facts, evidence and arguments in support of the grounds … invoked“, along with the supporting evidence itself.

In addition to the information above, article 2 also mandates the provision of specific information depending on the grounds of invalidity invoked.  For example, where novelty and/or individual character are challenged, evidence of disclosure of the prior right destroying novelty/individual character must be provided. It would be wise to check article 2 in detail when submitting an invalidity application to ensure all mandatory information has been addressed.

As this new approach discourages unmeritorious challenges, it should mean that validity challenges will be more substantial from the outset. It may also lead to quicker decisions, given there may be a shortened back-and-forth to establish the case up front. It may even mean that parties are more easily able to reach settlement, having sight of the case earlier.

Requests for amendment of the representation of the design application in immaterial details

These were first permitted by the Design Reform Regulation.  The Delegated Regulation sets out in article 1 what such a request must contain.

This is potentially a welcome practical change to the designs regime, which previously permitted only corrections to an applicant’s name and address and other obvious errors, but only if the correction did not change the representation of the design. In practice that was very restrictive and could often lead to applicants having to delete views in order to rectify a minor issue.

Of course it remains to be seen how “immaterial details” will be interpreted. Some commentators believe this will continue the previous rigid system while others believe it will be more flexible.

The Implementing Regulation sets out a parallel right to amend a design registration, and at article 7 sets out what that request must contain.

Alignment with EU trade marks processes

The recitals of both the Delegated Regulation and Implementing Regulation refer to the need to align rules as much as possible with those applicable to EU trade marks, “[i]n the interest of legal certainty, consistency and simplification“. To that end, the Delegated Regulation imports into the designs regime several aspects of delegated regulation (EU) 2018/625 on EU trade marks. This includes the EU trade mark rules and procedures relating to:

• appeals;
• the organisation of the Boards of Appeal;
• oral proceedings;
• evidence; and
• representation.

Calculation, duration and extension of time limits

Article 20 sets out details of how time limits are calculated. You would be well advised to check when the time limits begin and expire as they are not the same as UK lawyers might ordinarily expect. A time limit “shall start on the day following the day on which the relevant event occurred“, and shall expire after the full period permitted, rather than e.g. at midnight the day before the anniversary of the commencement.

Article 21 allows for extensions of time “upon reasoned request“. While extensions could be requested before, a request did not have to be “reasoned”. Where proceedings are suspended and then resume, time limits begin “in full as from the day on which the proceedings are resumed“.

Repeal of (EC) 2245/2002

The Delegated Regulation repeals the previous implementing regulation, (EC) 2245/2002.

Implementing Regulation 2026/138

The Implementing Regulation sets out the practical, operational rules for how the EUIPO is to apply the law, and to enable it to operate uniformly and efficiently. As might be expected, its contents are largely administrative and should be consulted when interacting with the office to ensure full compliance. Notable points include:

Seven-view limit removed

Previously the law permitted up to seven views of the design to form the representation of the design.  That limit has been scrapped, and article 2 imposes no legal limit on the number of views. We expect the EUIPO to have a limit for technical reasons, and we await the revised EUIPO Guidelines expected soon on that. For comparison, the UKIPO has a limit of 10 views for online filings; this would still be an improvement on seven but one would hope for more.

Representations can be static, dynamic or animated, using generally available technology

The design reforms were intended to accommodate and anticipate technological advances. Designs now include “movement, transition or any other sort of animation“, while products can be physical or non-physical.

Accordingly, article 2 of the Implementing Regulation provides that the representation of the design applied for “can be static, dynamic or animated and shall be effected by any appropriate means, using generally available technology, including drawings, photographs, videos, computer imaging or computer modelling“.

The revised EUIPO Guidelines are likely to advise how best to approach this in practice.

Note that the representation must show all the features of a design for which protection is sought. All views or reproductions will be combined to determine what is protected. The representation can include matter for which protection is not sought, but visual disclaimers should be included for that matter.

Care should be taken to ensure that the views submitted as the representations of the design are comprehensive, consistent and clearly disclaim superfluous matter.

Other points of note

Move towards electronic communication

Both instruments push towards electronic communication. Article 17 of the Delegated Regulation says that applications and all communications addressed to the EUIPO shall be made electronically.  Article 6 of the Implementing Regulation states that a certificate of registration “may incorporate the representation of the design by providing electronic access to the relevant file“.

Further codification on the horizon?

Note that both the Delegated Regulation and the Implementing Regulation refer to article numbers of 6/2002 as amended by Regulation (EU) 2024/2822. Those numbers are different in the Consolidating Regulation, and therefore we might expect further versions of the DR and IR to be issued in due course which refer to those updated numbers (particularly once 6/2002 has been repealed). In the meantime, Annex III of the Codifying Regulation has a helpful table of 6/2002 article numbers as amended alongside their new numbers in the Codifying Regulation.

Transitional provisions

Both the Delegated Regulation and the Implementing Regulation set out detail on transitional provisions, and which regime applies to ongoing matters. If you have a choice as to when to apply for a design/amendment/invalidity etc, you should check the detail of the transitional provisions to ensure that you put yourself in the most advantageous position.

If we can help you understand what this means for your business and your designs, please get in touch.

With special thanks to Jennifer Bryant, Professional Support Lawyer, for her contribution to this article.