Effective July 1, 2026, Phase II of the EU’s legislative reform on designs will complete a process that began on May 1, 2025, and many of its practical implications for the EUIPO will take effect.
Its goal is to adapt the European Union’s design protection system to a reality in which a product’s appearance can no longer always be captured by a still image. Today, there are digital interfaces, animations, complex three-dimensional products, moving graphic elements, and designs that are used in both physical and digital environments at the same time.
For this reason, one of the major changes concerns the way designs are represented. But that is not the only one. Changes are also being introduced to design invalidation proceedings, communications with the Office, and other procedures governing design applications or registered designs.
More views to represent a static design
Until now, the maximum number of views eligible for protection for a static design was seven. With Phase II, that limit increases to ten.
It may seem like a minor change, but in practice it can make a difference. Many products are difficult to understand from just a few angles: parts with different sides, products with details on the sides, designs with ornamental elements in various areas, or items whose appearance depends on how they are viewed from different angles.
Having more perspectives makes it easier to describe what needs to be protected and reduces uncertainty about the scope of the registry.
Dynamic 3D visualizations and animated designs
The most notable change is the acceptance of new types of representations. Effective July 1, 2026, the EUIPO will accept dynamic 3D representations and animated representations.
The planned formats are:
- Static views: JPEG, with a maximum of 2 MB per view.
- Dynamic 3D models: OBJ and STL, with a maximum of 20 MB per file.
- Animated files: MP4, with a maximum of 20 MB per file.
In practice, the registration may more accurately reflect designs whose appearance depends on a sequence, a transition, a movement, or a 3D visualization. Consider, for example, graphical user interfaces, a visual transition, an animated icon, a graphic sequence, or a product whose perception depends on its movement.
Even so, greater flexibility also requires more careful judgment. Before filing an application, you’ll need to decide which form of representation best reflects the value of the design: a series of static views, a three-dimensional file, or an animation. It is not simply a matter of using the most cutting-edge format, but rather the one best suited to clearly define the appearance you wish to protect. For example, in animated representations, the animation itself would form part of the subject matter of protection; therefore, in some cases, it might be preferable to choose static or 3D views to protect the design.
Visual Compromises and Image Correction
Phase II also specifies the use of disclaimers in representations. These elements make it possible to indicate which parts of an image are not part of the claimed design. In practice, they can be useful when one wishes to protect only a part of the product or when certain elements appear in the representation out of necessity but are not intended to be included within the scope of protection.
The rule also allows for the modification or alteration of renderings without losing the submission date, provided that the changes are minor. For example, a background may be corrected to achieve a neutral and acceptable rendering.
This provision can prevent an application from being rejected due to purely formal defects. However, it should not be confused with a second chance to change the design. The modification cannot affect the essential appearance of the protected object.
Streamlined Nullity Proceedings
Another significant section concerns applications for a declaration of invalidity of EU designs. The reform aims to make these procedures more efficient and orderly.
Among the measures envisaged, the suspension of proceedings may last for a maximum of two years. In addition, priority will be given to certain cases based on lack of novelty or singularity when the owner of the contested design has not filed a response.
Petitions for annulment must include a duly substantiated brief containing a precise statement of the facts, evidence, and arguments, accompanied by the primary supporting documentation. Particular emphasis is placed on the evidence and the manner in which it must be submitted.
In other words, challenging an industrial design will require greater organization from the outset. It will not be enough to simply claim that a design “already existed” or that it lacks distinctiveness. It will be necessary to provide adequate evidence, identify prior disclosures, and argue why they affect the validity of the registered design.
Proof of Use When Invalidity Is Based on an Earlier Trademark
The reform also includes a provision relevant to cases in which the invalidity of a design is based on an earlier trademark.
If that trademark has been registered for at least five years, the owner of the contested design may request proof of use of the earlier trademark during two five-year periods. These periods do not have to overlap and are calculated based on the filing date of the application for invalidation or the filing date or priority date of the contested design.
This change links the invalidity of designs to a principle already established in trademark law: whoever invokes a prior right must be able to prove its use when required by law.
Electronic Communications and New Procedural Tools
The reform also updates the practical relationship with the EUIPO. Communications and notifications will be sent electronically, which requires applicants, owners, and representatives to pay special attention to managing their accounts, notifications, and deadlines.
Another important development is the entry into force of the procedure for the continuation of EU design applications. This mechanism, already in place for EU trademarks, will allow applicants to request an extension for certain deadlines within two months of the original expiration date, upon payment of a fee of 400 euros.
Provision is also made for requesting the revocation of EUIPO decisions that contain an obvious error attributable to the Office. The deadline for filing such a request is one year from the date of the decision or from the date it is entered in the Register.
With regard to licenses, a practical change is being introduced: it will be possible to register a license limited to only one or more of the product designations of an EU design. This may facilitate more precise contractual arrangements, especially when the same design is used on different products, in different markets, or across different lines of business.
Ultimately, Phase II of the reform does more than just change the way applications are filed with the EUIPO. It requires a more precise approach to how each design is represented, documented, and managed. For companies—especially those that develop digital, three-dimensional, or dynamic products—the challenge will be to take advantage of these new tools so that the protection better reflects the true visual value of their creations.
Pedro Saturio, Associate Partner in the Patent Practice Group at Elzaburu