< Back to latest news & events

Retail Scanner

Justifying designs

March 2017

Seasonal disruption and fast fashion demands. Last year saw fashion retailers hit by the reality that Spring and Autumn key season collections may become a thing of the past as an unseasonably warm Autumn/Winter caused consumers to shun the woollies and layers.

Partnered with a consumer move to invest in select quality pieces, 2017 could very well see retailers offering cross-seasonal products the year through with more investment and innovation in staple pieces.

And yet, the EUIPO’s 2017 statistical report on EU designs reveals that whilst the second highest number of designs are registered in Lacarno Class 02 – Articles of clothing and haberdashery, figures remain relatively low and show no exponential growth in response to the change in retail trend. The number of designs filed in 2016 in Class 02 was 10,396 with no obvious correlation with seasons on the monthly statistics, an increase just short of 2,000 on 2015’s figures.

Figures for textiles and fabrics (not including ready-made articles) are lower still, ranking in 24th position in 2016 when breaking registration figures down by class, moving down two positions from the two years previous. Only 916 design registrations were granted in 2016. Since the EUIPO does not carry out a substantive examination of design applications – it is limited to ensuring the application corresponds with the definition of a design and that the design is not contrary to public policy or accepted principles of morality – low figures are unlikely to be attributable to refusals.

In the past, the main explanation for not protecting designs through registration in the fashion industry has been short product lifecycle driven by the seasons and, in turn, a willingness to place reliance on unregistered design rights. However, if the lifecycle of fashion pieces is going to get longer, then reliance on unregistered rights might not be justified in as many instances. Add to this the real concern that when the UK leaves the European Union, unregistered design rights in the UK will be much narrower without a new or extended form of unregistered design right in the UK (for more on this see the article by HGF’s Suzan Ure, ‘The Good, the Bad and the Ugly of Brexit for Intellectual Property Law in Fashion’, December 20, 2016, first published by The Fashion Law).

Relatively speaking, figures for UK registered designs are higher. 2015 saw the number of design applications for clothing haberdashery more than double (319 to 667) whereas the number of applications for textiles decreased (from 79 to 52). At the time of writing, statistics for 2016 have not yet been published. We would however expect to see a rise at least in reaction to Brexit on the back of comments made in the preceding paragraph.

Fashion is getting faster

What was a 6 month lead time on new stock is now closer to 3 months; some brands such as Public Desire have told how they have sourced materials, produced and promoted footwear in a 6 week timeframe to be on people’s feet first. Last year we saw Burberry bridge the gap between catwalk and capsule. Instagram allows large exposure and promotion in a very short timeframe. Consumers are ever-demanding. Not only are they telling retailers what they want, they’re saying when they want it… and that’s now!

As well as meeting the demands of consumers, there are obvious advantages to this from the perspective of designers – cutting out the usual production cycle between catwalk and capsule and reaching consumers ahead of counterfeiters. Some might say this supports the position of a lesser need for registered designs. On the other hand, however, faster fashion surely leaves less room for innovation, meaning even legitimate traders are more likely to take “inspiration” from designs already gone. Against this backdrop, registered designs are an even more valuable asset in keeping copy competitors at a distance, even for cross-seasonal non-staple pieces.

Latest updates

The EPO Board of Appeal comments on the scope of the morality exclusion from patentability

The recent decision, T1553/22 of the Board of Appeal required the Board to consider the scope of the exclusions from patentability under Article 53(a) EPC. The invention in this case …

Read article

HGF ranked highly recommended in the WIPR Trade Mark Rankings 2025

HGF has been recognised as a leading firm in the recently published World IP Review (WIPR) Trade Mark Rankings 2025. This achievement highlights our continued commitment to excellence in trade …

Read article

T1977/22: Can claims defined by open-ended ranges ever be sufficiently disclosed?

The EPO’s Board of Appeal’s decision in T1977/22 provides an interesting review of the case law concerning the compatibility of whole range sufficiency and claims defined as a result to …

Read article

The draft of The Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Regulations 2025 reveals practical details on how to obtain a Precision Bred Organism status

In a recent blog post we discussed the Precision Breeding Regulatory Framework developed by the Food Standards Agency (FSA). Further details on the application process for Precision Bred Organism confirmation …

Read article

A £2.1M Lesson: The Power of Confidential Information

A recent High Court ruling1 serves as a stark reminder of the importance of respecting confidential business information. Hambro Perks, was found guilty of breaching confidentiality and ordered to pay …

Read article
Event - 6th March 2025

IQPC Global IP Exchange Europe 2025

HGF is sponsoring the IQPC Global IP Exchange Europe, which will be held on the 11th-12th March 2025 in Meliá, Berlin. Head of Electronics, Chris Benson, will be chairing the …

Event details

IP Ingredients: Pouring Over the Verdict: What Thatchers v Aldi Means for Food & Drink Brands

Readers of our IP Ingredients blog may recall that we covered something of this case last summer in our post IP Ingredients: Summer case law review. The dispute between Thatchers …

Read article