EU designs: main changes from 1 July 2026

EU designs: main changes from 1 July 2026

On 1 July 2026, the second phase of the EU design reform became applicable before the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). This reform modernises the EU design system and adapts it to new forms of product creation, digitalisation and commercialisation.

The changes are particularly relevant for companies protecting product shapes, packaging, graphical user interfaces, digital products, animated icons, screen transitions, three-dimensional products and designs used in both physical and digital environments.

Below we summarise the main practical changes introduced by the reform.

1. Increase from 7 to 10 protected views for static designs

One of the most relevant changes concerns the number of views that may be used to represent and protect a static EU design.

Until now, applicants could file a maximum of seven protected views for each design. Under the new system, this limit has been increased to ten protected views per design.

This may be particularly useful for products whose relevant visual features appear on different sides, angles or parts of the product. Additional views can help define the protected appearance more accurately and reduce uncertainty as to the scope of the registered design.

2. New ways of representing EU designs

In addition to traditional static JPEG images, the EUIPO now accepts new forms of representation. Designs may also be represented by dynamic 3D files, in OBJ or STL format, or by animated representations, in MP4 format.

This is a significant development. It allows the application to reflect more accurately the real visual value of certain designs, particularly where their appearance depends on movement, a transition, an animation or three-dimensional perception.

This may be especially relevant for graphical user interfaces, animated graphic symbols, product animations, digital designs or products whose appearance is better understood through a 3D representation.

However, the choice of representation will now become more strategic. Each design must use a single type of representation: static, dynamic 3D or animated. The representation filed with the EUIPO defines the scope of protection of the design. Therefore, it will not always be advisable to use the most sophisticated format available.

In some cases, a set of static views may offer broader or clearer protection. In others, a 3D file or an animation may be the most accurate way to protect the design. In particular, where an animated representation is filed, the animation itself may form part of the protected appearance.

Applicants should also consider whether the EU design application may later be used as a priority filing outside the European Union, as not all foreign IP offices may accept dynamic 3D or animated representations in the same way as the EUIPO.

3. Product indications and Fast Track

The reform also introduces greater flexibility regarding product indications.

When filing an EU design application, the applicant must indicate the product to which the design relates. If the product indication does not correspond to the relevant Locarno classification, is not acceptable, or does not match the representation of the design, the EUIPO may amend the product indication of its own motion, provided that the applicant has authorised the Office to do so.

This option may be useful to avoid formal objections and to keep the application moving forward, especially where the applicant wishes the application to proceed under the EUIPO Fast Track procedure.

If this authorisation is not given and the product indication is considered irregular, the EUIPO will issue an objection. In that case, the application may no longer be eligible for Fast Track processing.

4. Visual disclaimers

The reform also expressly recognises and further clarifies the use of visual disclaimers.

Visual disclaimers are elements used to indicate that certain parts shown in the representation are not claimed as part of the protected design. They may be useful where protection is sought only for a specific part of a product, or where other elements are shown merely for context.

In practice, visual disclaimers allow applicants to define more precisely the scope of protection, provided that the disclaimer is clear and applied consistently across all views.

This may be particularly important where the same product includes both claimed and non-claimed elements, or where only a specific component, surface, ornamentation or visual feature is intended to be protected.

5. Minor corrections to the representation

Another practical improvement is the possibility of correcting certain minor defects in the representation without losing the original filing date.

This is possible only where the correction concerns immaterial details and does not alter the essential appearance of the design. For example, this may help resolve purely formal issues, such as problems with the background of an image.

However, this should not be understood as an opportunity to change the design after filing. Any amendment must remain limited to non-essential aspects and must not affect the identity of the design.

6. Invalidity proceedings and evidence

The reform also introduces changes in invalidity proceedings.

Applications for a declaration of invalidity will need to be properly structured from the outset, with a clear statement of the facts, evidence and legal arguments. In practice, this means that a party challenging a design will need to identify the relevant prior disclosures and explain why they affect the novelty or individual character of the contested design.

This reinforces the need to prepare invalidity actions carefully from the beginning, rather than relying on general allegations that a design already existed or lacks originality.

In addition, where the invalidity action is based on an earlier trade mark that has been registered for at least five years, the holder of the contested design may request proof of use of that earlier trade mark. This brings EU design practice closer to trade mark practice and may become a relevant defence in certain cases.

7. New procedural tools

The reform also introduces the possibility of requesting continuation of proceedings for certain missed deadlines, subject to the applicable requirements and payment of the official fee.

It will also be possible to request the revocation of EUIPO decisions containing an obvious error attributable to the Office, within the relevant time limit.

These tools may provide additional procedural flexibility in specific cases, although they should not replace careful deadline management and filing strategy.

8. Licences and portfolio management

From a portfolio and contractual perspective, it will now be possible to record licences limited to only some of the product indications covered by an EU design.

This may be useful where the same design is exploited in different product areas, business lines or markets, allowing for more precise licence structures.

Final comments

The reform gives applicants greater flexibility, but it also makes the filing strategy more important.

Before filing a new EU design, applicants should carefully consider which form of representation best protects the commercial value of the design: static views, a 3D representation or an animation.

For companies developing digital, three-dimensional or animated products, the new framework offers useful tools to align design protection more closely with the real visual value of their creations.