We previously reported on the Hong Kong Government's plan for public consultation for reforming the registered designs regime under the Registered Designs Ordinance (Cap. 522). On 17 December 2025, the Hong Kong Government launched a three-month public consultation on proposed reforms to the city's registered designs regime ("Consultation"). The Consultation paper is available here.
In view of technological innovation and the evolving needs of the creative and manufacturing industries, the Consultation is timely. Hong Kong faces a growing need to modernise its registered designs regime (which has been in place since 1997) to maintain a robust system befitting its role as a regional IP trading centre.
The Consultation draws reference from various overseas jurisdictions, such as Australia, Singapore, the EU, the UK and Mainland China. Hong Kong’s efforts to review and update its regime demonstrate a welcome commitment to keeping pace with international standards.
The Consultation calls for the public's views on a wide range of reform proposals, with key issues summarised below.
Issue 1: Statutory definition of "design" and "article"
The Consultation addresses a fundamental issue – the amendment of the definition of "design" and "article" to focus on the appearance of a product.
Under the current statutory definitions, "design" means features of shape, configuration, pattern or ornament applied to an article by any industrial process, while "article" means any article of manufacture and includes any part of an article if that part is made and sold separately. These definitions limit protection to designs with the four specific features applied to an article produced by an industrial process and exclude handmade or artistic products and arguably even 3D printing.
Proposed changes include:
- Shifting protection from "features applied to an article" to "appearance of an article" as this is considered to be "closer and more intuitive to the common conception of a design".
- Expanding the list of design features beyond the current four exhaustive features.
- Removing the requirement for a feature to be applied to an article by an industrial process.
- Replacing "article" with "product" to provide a broader scope (e.g. to include handicraft or handmade items).
For reference, overseas jurisdictions have adopted contemporary definitions enumerating specific features on a non-exhaustive basis covering "lines and contours", "colours", "texture", and (in the case of the EU) even "movement or animation". In Australia, the EU and the UK, "design" is defined as the "appearance of a product" resulting from its features, and the definition of "product" includes handicrafts alongside industrial items.
Issue 2: Scope of protection for virtual designs, spare parts and partial designs
Registrability of virtual designs
As commerce increasingly shifts to digital platforms, virtual designs such as dynamic graphical user interfaces (GUIs) for web applications and software, static or animated icons for mobile apps, projected image designs, 3D designs in augmented reality, etc. have proliferated.
Currently, designs are registrable only when applied to a physical article. In line with this principle, GUIs and icons in respect of screen displays are registrable in Hong Kong. However, this principle poses challenges for the protection of other virtual designs.
The Consultation proposes reviewing whether protection should be extended to designs not applied to physical articles. However, it emphasises that the fundamental principle of registered designs is to protect designs applied to an article of manufacture. An article should have some purpose, rather than merely serving as a vessel for the design. Therefore, a display screen or mere canvas would not qualify as an article if it serves no other purpose.
The Consultation also seeks views on whether existing forms of IP protection, particularly copyright, would be suitable for protecting virtual designs.
Registrability of spare parts
The Consultation also addresses the registrability of designs of spare parts and parts of articles. Under the current law, component parts of a product are not registrable for protection if they are not "made and sold separately" with an independent commercial life. Component parts that are dictated by product functionality, requiring designs in the exact form and dimension, or that must match the appearance of a complex product for the purpose of repair are excluded from protection.
For instance, in the context of a car, components such as main body panels or doors are excluded from protection because they form part of and contribute to the car's overall shape and appearance. In contrast, components like steering wheels or seats, which can be separated and sold independently, may qualify for protection.
The underlying rationale is that when suppliers of spare parts have no design freedom, they should not be allowed to register component designs as this could create monopolies and hinder product interoperability. However, the precise definition of a "component part" and its corresponding registrability remains open for discussion.
Notably, jurisdictions such as Australia, the EU, and the UK allow registration of component parts that must match the appearance of a product. In these cases, a "right to repair" can serve as a limited defence against infringement where repairs to a complex product are necessary.
Registrability of partial designs
Similarly, partial designs that form only part of the design of an article and are not sold separately generally do not qualify for protection in their own right. Examples include the armrest of a chair or the handle of a cup. This position contrasts with the mainstream approach in jurisdictions such as Mainland China, the EU, Singapore and the UK.
The Consultation proposes relaxing the existing regime to allow registration of partial designs and removing the requirement for component parts to be "made and sold separately", while ensuring the scope of protection is not overly broad and avoiding fragmentation of designs.
Issue 3: Requirement for novelty and distinctiveness, and the need for substantive examination
Under the current regime, a design must be "new" at the filing date to qualify for registration, meaning that it (or a substantially similar design) has not been previously registered, published or disclosed in Hong Kong or elsewhere. Designs that only differ from previous designs in immaterial details or in features which are variants commonly used in the trade will not be considered "new".
In addition to novelty, certain foreign jurisdictions require designs to be "distinctive" or possess "individual character". The Consultation explores whether Hong Kong should introduce similar additional requirements guided by the overall impression of the design. This would help meet market demands for greater differentiation and ensure that protected designs reflect genuine creativity and skill.
The Consultation also explores the need for substantive examination in the design application process and considers that there is no compelling case to introduce this. Currently, while the Designs Registry does not generally conduct substantive examination to ascertain novelty (and therefore does not raise prior art citations), a statement of novelty is required at the time of filing. Furthermore, an application for design that is not new on its face may be refused, and if registered, may be vulnerable to invalidation actions by third parties.
Issue 4: Ownership of commissioned work
The Consultation considers aligning Hong Kong’s position on commissioned designs with international practice. Under the current law, when a design is created pursuant to a commission for value, the person commissioning the design is deemed the original owner by default, unless otherwise agreed. This differs from the international standard, where ownership typically vests in the designer, subject to any contrary agreement.
Reversing the default position would bring consistency with Hong Kong’s copyright law, under which ownership of commissioned works rests with the creator unless otherwise agreed.
Issue 5: Grace period for disclosure before filing and deferment of publication
Grace period before filing
The current registered designs regime in Hong Kong does not provide a general grace period for prior disclosure. This creates challenges for design owners who have already showcased their designs through advertising or marketing as this may destroy the novelty of the design.
The Consultation considers introducing a grace period that would allow design owners to market their products before filing design applications. This reflects the commercial reality in product marketing and development where there are legitimate reasons to disclose a new design to selected parties at an early stage. For example, for product testing and financing.
Many overseas jurisdictions provide a 12-month grace period, during which designers, their successors, or third parties may disclose the design for any purpose without jeopardising its novelty.
Deferment of publication
Similarly, recognising that design owners may have strategic reasons to defer publication of designs until time is ripe for product launches, the Consultation explores the option for applicants to defer publication of designs after they are accepted for registration.
A balance has to be struck between granting the design owners flexibility while protecting innocent third parties who may invest in other designs without knowledge of the accepted designs with publication deferred and thereby risk infringement from the date of the design registration.
Issue 6: Overlap between design rights and copyright
Copyright protects the original expression of ideas in an artistic work, while registered design rights safeguard new design features of mass-produced products. However, an innovative design with multiple elements and functions may attract protection under both rights, making it difficult to clearly delineate which or both rights apply.
The Consultation references the approach in other jurisdictions to limit the extent of overlap between the two. For example, some jurisdictions restrict copyright protection for an artistic work if a design derived from that work has been registered as a design.
The concept of unregistered designs in the EU and the UK adds further complexity. For example, the UK currently provides for unregistered design rights which are automatic rights without the need for registration, subject to certain requirements for originality and residency of the designer. Although these rights are considered "lesser" and last for a shorter period of time, they offer practical protection for products with a short life cycle more readily. The Consultation calls for responses on whether Hong Kong should offer enhanced protection for unregistered designs, noting that it may not be necessary given the relatively speedy design registration process in Hong Kong.
Issue 7: Application of the Hague System
The Hague System enables design owners to secure an international design registration by filing a single application with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). This streamlined, one-stop mechanism allows design applicants to obtain protection in multiple jurisdictions that are parties to the Hague Agreement, and manage their design rights centrally.
The Hague System does not currently apply to Hong Kong. The Consultation explores the need to extend the application of the Hague Agreement to Hong Kong such that overseas applicants may apply for design protection in Hong Kong more conveniently and cost-effectively. Such an extension could strengthen Hong Kong’s attractiveness to businesses and investors worldwide.
Conclusion
The Consultation marks a significant step towards modernising Hong Kong’s registered designs regime and aligning it with international best practices as seen in the references drawn from overseas jurisdictions. It raises a series of practical questions aimed at enhancing operational efficiency, legal certainty and user experience in the design registration process.
By addressing fundamental issues such as the statutory definitions of "design" and "article", expanding protection to virtual and partial designs, and considering the registrability of spare parts, the proposed reform aims to ensure that the law remains relevant in an era of rapid technological and commercial change.
The outcome of this Consultation will shape the future of design protection in Hong Kong, with far-reaching implications for businesses across sectors – from technology and manufacturing to fashion and consumer goods. Businesses should keep an eye on how the reforms will be implemented. Submissions to the Consultation are welcome until 16 March 2026.
AI tools have been used to support editing and proofreading of this publication. All content has been reviewed and approved by Hogan Lovells lawyers.
[View source.]
