< Zurück zu den aktuellen Neuigkeiten & Events

Articles

Design-focused furniture industry

April 2020

Should IP protection be a priority? Over the past few decades, furniture design has taken the leap from basic utility to luxury symbol. As a result, appearance and exterior shape play an ever more important role in the success of a furniture product.

Trend changes in Europe

The change in attitude to furniture design has had a particular impact in Europe, where many global furniture design trends are set. The current industry trends are putting European manufacturers, in particular, at risk of having their designs replicated.

European manufacturers also face stern competition from countries having lower production costs. This, in combination with globalisation of the furniture industry, has put design at the forefront, shifting focus away from mass production to that of luxury furniture.

Why does IP protection matter?

A recent European Cultural and Creative Industries Alliance (ECCIA) report on the contribution of high-end industries to the European Economy states that Europe’s share now accounts for 70% of global sales of these industries. In this context, “high-end industries” includes 12 sectors of activities including furniture and furnishing and design household equipment.

Therefore, the design-focused nature of the industry, and its increasing importance, means that companies should consider protecting and enforcing the full suite of intellectual property (IP) rights as a matter of priority.

The often overlooked, and understated, design protection is taking on an increasingly important role. Around 16% of designs registered in 2018 at the EU Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) related to furniture and household goods.

Design protection is a territorial right, like other forms of IP rights, and provides protection for the whole or part of the appearance of a product. Designs can be registered, requiring an application to be filed at the relevant government office, but unregistered design rights also arise automatically upon creation of the relevant design in the UK and EU.

Registered and unregistered designs

The term of protection is longer for registered designs than for unregistered designs, and enforcement is simpler. In the case of unregistered designs, the claimant must prove that the rights exist, that it owns them and that a design was actually copied by the alleged infringer. For these reasons at least, registered designs are generally preferred.

To qualify for registration, designs must be new and have individual character and the end product must give a different overall impression to previously disclosed designs. In return, the registration can provide a monopoly right for the design for up to 25 years.

Who owns the design rights?

The shift to luxury furniture has also resulted in external design consultants being engaged by manufacturers, to create special editions or limited lines. This brings ownership of designs into the spotlight. By default, under both UK and European design law, the person who created a design owns the rights to it, unless the design is created by an employee.

Consultants are regarded as independent parties, unless otherwise agreed. As such, the rights in any such designs should be assigned from the consultant to the company. This can be critical to ensure both that continued use of the design by the manufacturer is allowed, and that the manufacturer has the ability to enforce any IP rights associated with the design.

Counterfeit

Another consequence of the high-value nature of goods in the luxury furniture segment is counterfeiting. Counterfeit products are produced with the intent to take advantage of the value of an imitated product, with the intention to deceive or defraud.

Whilst simple copying of a design does not constitute counterfeiting, some of the remedies available for counterfeiting are available for designs. For example, items suspected of infringing design registrations can be recognised relatively easily by UK border officials, and seized on entry into the country. Knowingly infringing a registered design is also a criminal offence, providing a further deterrent for would-be infringers.

Summary

The cost of design registration is modest, particularly in comparison to the potential damage that can be caused by the theft of a luxury furniture product design. Taking the time to develop an appropriate IP strategy can make all the difference.

Aktuelle Neuigkeiten

Event - 7. January 2026

HGF Brand & Design Conference 2026

Join us on 3rd February 2026 for HGF’s Brand & Design Conference, the must attend event for in-house legal teams, brand leaders, creatives, and innovators shaping the future of IP. …

Veranstaltungsdetails

Empowered, Not Replaced: The Risks and Rewards of Using AI Tools in Patent Prosecution

With the rapid rise of AI and extreme hype around generative AI tools in the workplace, patent firms around the world have had to seriously consider to what extent they …

Weiterlesen

EU Agrees on NGT Plant Regulation: What It Means for Patents and Licensing

The European Parliament and Council have reached a provisional agreement for plants developed using New Genomic Techniques (NGTs) – below we summarise the main points and set out the requirements …

Weiterlesen

When Retail Branding Meets Politics

(Inter IKEA Systems v Algemeen Vlaams Belang (Case C‑298/23) In November 2022, the Flemish political party Vlaams Belang presented its “IKEA-PLAN – Immigratie Kan Echt Anders” (“Immigration Really Can Be Different”). …

Weiterlesen

Büro geschlossen – Dezember 2025 / Januar 2026

HGF Büro geschlossen – Dezember 2025 / Januar 2026   UK Donnerstag, 25. und Freitag, 26. Dezember 2025 GESCHLOSSEN Donnerstag, 1. Januar 2026* GESCHLOSSEN * Freitag, 2. Januar 2026 – …

Weiterlesen

Oft kopiert, nie erreicht: Wann werden Alltagsgegenstände zum Gegenstand des Urheberrechts?

Die Grenze zwischen „reinen“ Kunstwerken und bloßen Gebrauchsgegenständen – Können ikonische, aber alltägliche Produkte urheberrechtlich geschützt werden? Die obige Frage wurde vom Generalanwalt in den verbundenen Rechtssachen C‑580/23 und C‑795/23 …

Weiterlesen

T 0883/23: Dosierungsansprüche und ihr Anspruch auf Priorität, wenn in der Prioritätsanmeldung nur das Protokoll der klinischen Studie offengelegt wurde

In einer kürzlich ergangenen Entscheidung der Beschwerdekammer (BoA) des EPA entschied die BoA, dass Ansprüche, die auf eine Kombination von pharmazeutischen Wirkstoffen (APIs) in bestimmten Dosen gerichtet sind, keinen Anspruch …

Weiterlesen

Das Ende des Brexit-Überhangs für Marken: Überprüfung, Neuanmeldung und Widerruf.

Am 31. Dezember 2025 sind fünf Jahre seit dem Ende der Brexit-Übergangsperiode am 31. Dezember 2020 vergangen. Warum ist das relevant? Für im Vereinigten Königreich geklonte Markenregistrierungen, die infolge des …

Weiterlesen