Episode 189 - UK Government Design Framework Consultation

This week we will be talking about the changes to the UK Government’s Design Framework. This episode content meets PC3 - Legal Framework & Processes of the Part 3 Criteria.

Resources from today's episode:

Websites:

• https://www.riba.org/work/insights-and-resources/professional-features/why-should-architects-take-part-in-the-government-s-design-framework-consultation/
• https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/consultation-on-changes-to-the-uk-designs-framework

Thank you for listening! Please follow me on Instagram @part3withme for weekly content and updates or contact me via email me at part3withme@outlook.com or on LinkedIn. 

Website: www.part3withme.com

Join me next week for more Part3 With Me time.

If you liked this episode please give it a rating to help reach more fellow Part3er's!

Transcript

Episode 189:

Hello and Welcome to the Part3 with me podcast. 

The show that helps part 3 students jump-start into their careers as qualified architects and also provides refresher episodes for practising architects. If you would like to show your support for the podcast and help us continue making amazing content, click on the link in the episode notes to sign up to our subscription. I also offer one to one mentoring services to help you with your submissions, exams and interview, head over to our website to learn more or reach out to me on LinkedIn through the Part3 With Me page, or instagram my handle is @part3withme or email me at part3withme@outlook.com. 

I am your host Maria Skoutari and this week we will be talking about the changes to the UK government’s Design Framework.Todays’ episode meets PC3 of the Part 3 Criteria.

In September of this year, the government, namely the Intellectual Property Office, launched a consultation, seeking the views of the UK’s design community, including architects, on changes to the design framework and how to improve the design rights system. For context, the Intellectual Property Office is the official UK government body responsible for intellectual property rights. 

This consultation is a key area of concerns for architects as it deeply affects how we protect our creative and digital outputs, manage competition, and navigate intellectual property in an era of rapid technological change.

Why Does This Consultation Matter:
For context, this is the first major review of the UK’s design law framework in more than a decade. The last update dates back to the early 2010s, when most of us weren’t designing through Revit, exporting visualisations in real time, or training AI tools to generate parametric concepts.

Now, the Intellectual Property Office recognises that the system, originally geared towards physical, tangible designs, simply hasn’t caught up with digital creation, global collaboration, or AI-driven design processes that span continents.

As such, the consultation seeks to cover five overarching goals:

• Improving how registered designs are validated and protected.
• Simplifying the complex system of unregistered design rights.
• Addressing disclosure and enforcement issues post-Brexit.
• Making the system accessible for small businesses and sole traders.
• And modernising design law to reflect digital and AI-era creativity. 

For architects, these reforms could reshape how we safeguard everything from façade concepts and interior layouts to digital models, renders, and even virtual assets. The key specific areas, however,  architects should consider that are proposed by the Consultation includes:

• Clarifying the boundary between copyright protection and design rights, particularly around “works of artistic craftsmanship.”
• Simplifying the current system of multiple unregistered design rights into a single framework, potentially using supplementary unregistered design provisions as the basis;
• Introducing search and examination powers, bad faith provisions, and opposition periods to prevent designs being registered to block legitimate competition
• Including registered design disputes in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court’s small claims track to improve accessibility for small businesses;
• Allowing 3D CAD file submissions, expanding accepted file formats, and clarifying protection for animated designs and graphical user interfaces;
• Introducing an 18-month deferment period for applicants to keep design applications confidential before publication;
• Recognising design disclosures made outside the UK for supplementary unregistered design protection;
• Exploring how the design rights system should respond to designs generated by AI. There are existing provisions for protecting computer-generated designs where there is no human author, but the Intellectual Property Office says that these are legally untested and their future is being reviewed. The government's preferred option is to remove the existing protection for computer-generated designs created without a human author, due to the risk of AI tools producing vast numbers of designs that could inhibit innovation from human creators;
• Considering options to simplify the unregistered design system, potentially by creating a single, consolidated unregistered design right. Architectural works have their own copyright protection, separate from "works of artistic craftsmanship", which is where most overlap with design rights occurs.

So what is the Problem with the Current System:

To understand the need for reform, let’s look at where we are today.

Under current UK legislation, designs can be protected in overlapping and sometimes confusing ways, such as:

• UK registered designs
• International or Hague-registered designs
• UK unregistered design rights
• Supplementary unregistered designs (introduced post-Brexit)
• And copyright protection 

That patchwork has grown inconsistent. For example, an architect’s visual concept might qualify for copyright as a “work of artistic craftsmanship,” but its 3D model might separately enjoy unregistered design protection — or not, depending on how it’s shared. Small design practices say the existing system is too complex and inaccessible without legal support. Microbusinesses often don’t know where their protection begins or ends, and that ambiguity stifles innovation.

A similar consultation was carried out in 2022 which called for views on designs sought users’ opinions on ways to improve the UK’s designs framework. The key query posed during that consultation was for views on whether the UK should reintroduce novelty searching for designs, and the usefulness of introducing bad faith and opposition provisions into UK designs law. Responses to the call for views were mixed, identifying both benefits and disbenefits of these measures. 

As such, the aim of this review tries to simplify the whole process. Particularly for architects, designers, and digital practitioners who might inadvertently lose rights simply by sharing their work online or across borders.

So let’s look into the proposed reforms recommended within the consultation:

The consultation covers about nine to ten broad sections of potential reform, which together propose a fundamental rethinking of design protection.

1. The first looks at registered Design Validity and Search Proposals:

Currently, there is no novelty search when designers register a design in the UK. Meaning the Intellectual Property Office doesn’t check if something similar already exists before registration. That means weak or even plagiarised designs can slip through.

To address this, the consultation offers three options:

• Keep the process as is and do nothing (Option 0).
• Introduce targeted powers allowing search in certain cases (Option 1).
• Or adopt a two-tier system, where quick, low-cost registration is available, but a full search and examination is needed for enforceability (similar to Australia) (Option 2). 

Architects might appreciate that last model as it would give smaller firms affordable first-step protection, while allowing deeper checks when enforcing against infringement.

2. The second reform looks at Anti-Competitive Practices:

There is currently a recurring problem which is “bad faith” registration. Meaning when competitors register others’ designs to block market entry. UK Design laws currently have no specific bad faith provisions.

To address this, the consultation seeks to introduce new search and opposition periods, giving businesses or individuals time to challenge questionable registrations before they’re granted. For architecture practices specifically, this change could help prevent practices from being locked out of using forms or motifs they legitimately developed.

3. The next reform looks at Confidentiality in Design Applications:

Publication of a design at the time of registration can result in commercial difficulties for companies whose products have a long lead time before being placed on the market. Deferment of - or delaying - publication provides a solution to this, by allowing an applicant to keep their design confidential for a period of time whilst they make preparations for its commercialisation. In the UK, an applicant can currently choose to delay registration and publication of their design for up to twelve months. However, there is no explicit deferment provision in UK law. 

To address this, the consultation proposes to introduce a deferment provision into the Registered Designs Act 1949. This will provide an explicit legal basis for deferring designs, improving legal clarity. 

As well as introducing: 

• a deferment period of 18 month, 
• The deferment period to start from the earliest of the priority or filing date of the application 
• Both registration and full publication to be deferred 
• Basic information to be published e.g. name of applicant, date of application and classification of the design 

Why does this matter for architects? In architecture, competitions and client pitches often take months, sometimes years, before projects become public. Confidentiality would allow architects to register innovative forms or features but wait to reveal them publicly. This safeguards innovation at early concept stages, crucial for multidisciplinary practices competing for design-led commissions.

4. The next reform looks at Observation and Opposition:

Currently, unlike trade marks and patents, there is no mechanism in designs law to allow third parties to oppose a registration, or to provide the Intellectual Property Office with observations on the allowability of a design application. 

To address this, the consultation has identified four possible routes:

• Do nothing and retain the current system
• Introduce a post-registration opposition period for designs
• Introduce a pre-registration opposition period for designs
• Introduce an observation period

The aim of these options is to provide a way to address anticompetitive filings and provide an opportunity to consultees to provide their views. 

5. The next reform looks at Unregistered Design Rights:

This is perhaps the most complex area, and it’s directly relevant to architectural design.

Currently, unregistered design rights can protect the shape or configuration of an object for up to 15 years, while “supplementary unregistered designs”, created post-Brexit, protect surface design for three years. But the overlap between these has become messy, with different standards for what counts as “first disclosure.”

The Intellectual Property Office proposes three possible routes:

• Do nothing (retain the current dual system).
• Abolish the original UK unregistered design right and rely solely on supplementary unregistered designs.
• Consolidate into a single, unified unregistered design right — potentially merging protection for shapes, configuration, and decoration.

A single, consolidated right would make the system easier to navigate. However, concerns remain: for example, could architects still protect functionally shaped design elements, such as acoustic panel patterns or joinery details? And would large developers more easily appropriate these under a simplified regime?

6. The next reform looks at Graphical User Interfaces and Animated Designs:

Currently, applicants who wish to protect animated designs, have to do so by filing still/snapshot representations of the animation. This can be problematic as often these stills may show different visual appearances between different stages of the animation which can be interpreted as containing more than one design. 

To address this, the consultation has identified a number of possible routes so as to make it easier for designers to file the digital/animated designs they have created and to ensure the system remains relevant in the face of new and emerging technologies. The options include:

• Do nothing and remain with the current arrangement
• Provide further guidance on what can be protected as a design
• Amend the legislation
• Allow users of the designs registration system to file different file formats 
• Publications to be made of an additional description filed alongside stills/video clips 

There is also opportunity to combine these options.

7. The next reform looks at AI and Digital Design:

Perhaps the headline reform area is how the UK will handle AI-generated designs. Currently, under UK law, computer-generated works can enjoy protection, even without a human author, as long as the person who made the arrangements for the design is identified. But that rule is largely untested.

The Intellectual Property Office proposes scrapping protection for pure AI-generated designs, warning that AI systems could otherwise flood the registry with millions of trivial or automatically created variations. This raises a profound question: in a design studio using Midjourney or Grasshopper, at what point does AI assistance cross the line from tool to author?

To address this, the consultation has identified a number of possible routes:

• Maintain the existing protection for computer-generated designs without a human author 
• Reform protection for computer-generated designs without a human author 
• Remove the existing protection for computer-generated designs without a human author 
• Collect data on whether AI has been used in the creation of a registered design

For architect practitioners, this matters deeply. If design concepts are co-created by AI tools, firms might struggle to assert ownership — unless there’s a clear human conceptual contribution recorded.

Architects should start maintaining better project metadata — logs of authorship, AI prompts, or source files — to evidence human creativity.

Now let’s look at how the consultation also seeks to address a number of other miscellaneous issues:

The consultation acknowledges that smaller businesses struggle to enforce rights, given the costs of litigation. To address this, the Intellectual Property Office proposes allowing registered design disputes to be included in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court Small Claims Track, a lower-cost legal route currently limited to copyright and unregistered design cases. This would democratise enforcement and make it feasible for small firms or individual designers to challenge infringement.

Additionally, there’s a “call for evidence” on whether criminal sanctions, which currently apply only to deliberate copying of registered designs, should extend to unregistered design rights too. That could escalate the consequences for infringement but might also deter creative reinterpretation in legitimate architectural practice.

The Intellectual Property Office is also proposing to:

• Harmonise time periods for response to an official action - currently set at 2 months to object to substantive or formalities objections and 3 months for an objection that the representation of the design does not meet legal requirements.
• Remove the ability to file physical specimens
• Allowance for the registrar to share an application before publication - currently the Registered Designs Act requires the registrar to refuse to protect designs which contain protected coats of arms or heraldic devices. It is proposed to allow the Intellectual Property Office to share applications before publication with relevant authorities for the purposes of the registrar carrying out their statutory duties. 
• Powers to make a late objection 
• Warrant of validity and liability - currently it is not possible for the registrar to guarantee the validity of registered rights. As the current provisions limit the liability of the registrar, it is proposed to introduce provisions for registered designs to provide consistency across registered IP rights. 
• Rectification of the register allowing requests for rectification to be made to the registrar or the court 
• Update provisions relating to inspection of designs 
• Provide power to the registrar to direct the use of forms for any purpose relating to the registration of a design and any other designs proceeding. 
• Provision of priority claims allowing applicants to file an application for an industrial design in one contracting state and later file an equivalent application in another contracting state within 6 months and benefit from the filing date of the earlier application 

Now when it comes to aspects of Copyright and Artistic Craftsmanship in general:

The consultation revisits the definition of “works of artistic craftsmanship” but deliberately stops short of legislative reform. Instead, it encourages clarity through case law evolution.

Why does this matter? Because architecture already enjoys copyright protection under the “works of architecture” category, but architectural details or furnishings may only have partial or inconsistent coverage. RIBA highlights that this boundary is vital for designers, especially given how much crossover exists between digital fabrication, interiors, and brand environments. It’s also a warning that not all authored forms automatically enjoy robust, enforceable copyright status, something for architects to be wary of. 

The consultation also seeks to address Post-Brexit International Recognition:

After Brexit, UK and EU design laws diverged. The UK created Supplementary Unregistered Designs (SUDs) to replicate the EU’s “unregistered Community design.” But challenges remain: if a design is first disclosed digitally within the EU, does it still qualify for UK protection?

The new proposals aim to recognise design disclosures made outside the UK for SUD protection. This move would greatly simplify cross-border rights, especially for UK firms collaborating internationally.

What does this mean for the architectural profession:

RIBA’s response to the consultation emphasises that architects operate at the crossroads of artistic expression, technical function, and commercial design, making their work uniquely exposed to these legal grey areas. As such, practitioners are urged to engage directly with the consultation, not just because design representation is changing, but because the boundaries of authorship and ownership are being redefined at an algorithmic pace.

For young architects especially, understanding intellectual property is no longer optional. It stands alongside health and safety, CDM, and professional conduct as an essential part of practice competency.

What does the consultation mean for the broader Industry Context:

The consultation follows similar European reform efforts and arrives amid huge shifts in digital creation and global IP competition. In 2022, the UK Intellectual Property Office’s earlier survey revealed that designers felt the UK lacked parity with EU protection standards and that the administrative burden discouraged smaller studios from registering designs.

As of late 2025, the government is explicitly signalling that it wants to future-proof UK design rights, reflecting the same strategic ambition that drove reforms in trademark law and the 2024 IP Crime Strategy. That means this consultation doesn’t just tidy up old law but it lays the foundation for how UK creativity competes globally.

The consultation runs until 27 November 2025, and responses can be made directly through the Intellectual Property Offices’s online platform or via professional bodies such as RIBA or the Design Council. Responses can cover any aspect, from the merits of consolidating design rights to views on AI authorship or enforcement access. Architects often underestimate their influence in such consultations, but as industry professionals who both create and interpret design law through client contracts, their lived experiences and input into this consultation are crucial.

To sum up what I discussed today:

• In September of this year, the UK Intellectual Property Office has launched its first major review of design law in over a decade, aiming to modernise protection frameworks for digital, architectural, and AI-driven design.
• The consultation seeks to simplify the current patchwork of registered and unregistered design rights, introducing clearer rules for digital submissions, opposition systems, and unregistered design consolidation.
• One significant reform proposes removing automatic protection for AI-generated designs without human authors, reflecting concerns that mass AI outputs could overwhelm the system and stifle human creativity.
• Plans also include greater accessibility for small design businesses, introducing an 18-month confidentiality period, small claims track for design disputes, and measures to reduce anti-competitive “bad faith” registrations.
• For architects, these reforms could fundamentally reshape ownership and protection of design outputs such as digital models, visualisations, and façade concepts, marking a critical shift in defining authorship in the AI age. As such it is crucial as a profession to be heard and contribute to the results of this consultation.