The Hague design system celebrates 100 years – but will “one size” ever be able to “fit all” when it comes to harmonised design protection?
As a patent attorney with a product design background, I am (perhaps unsurprisingly) an advocate for registered designs being a key part of a robust IP strategy. With design registrations still being an under-utilised form of IP right (although I have seen huge improvements over the years), I am always pleased to see any celebration and showcasing of design rights. So, I was pleased to recently attend the WIPO Hague System’s 100th Anniversary event – a milestone that celebrates a century of international design registration and recognises how far they system has come but also a time to reflect on how far it still has to go.
The event brought together a diverse panel of voices, from national IP offices to in-house counsel at global corporations, offering a wide range of viewpoints on the Hague System’s strengths and shortcomings. It was interesting to hear how the system is favoured by many in-house attorneys and direct filers due to the system’s ability for speed, cost-efficiency, and simplicity across 99 countries. Yet, I couldn’t help but notice the absence of private practice attorneys present on the “successful users” panel (a telling omission…?).
The Good: Efficiency, Reach, and Streamline Costing
The Hague System has clearly matured. Panellists from companies like Philips and Embraer shared positive experiences, highlighting the ability to centrally control design filings across multiple jurisdictions. The system’s streamlined fees and reduced need for local counsel were praised, especially by those managing large portfolios.
It was particularly refreshing to hear from Tracy-Gene Durkin, Chair of INTA’s Designs Committee, who candidly admitted her initial scepticism of the Hague system. Her conversion to a supporter, largely thanks to the control and visibility it offers for filings, was a powerful endorsement of how the system is evolving to meet user needs.
The Challenges: Harmonisation, Drawings, and Complex Filings
Despite the celebratory tone, the event didn’t shy away from the system’s limitations. The lack of harmonisation across jurisdictions remains a significant hurdle. The most common pain point mentioned by the panellists was the interpretation of drawings, which can vary dramatically across the jurisdictions, with the potential of leading to narrow or even invalid registrations in certain countries. While WIPO governs formal requirements, substantive interpretation is left to national offices, creating uncertainty for applicants.
The system’s “one-size-fits-all” approach also struggles with the reality of modern design protection. Practitioners who are experienced in design filings will often file multiple applications, each of which carves out combinations of important features (much like a set of patent claims), so to as obtain optimal protection. However, the Hague System isn’t fully equipped for this due to the differences in how multiple designs and disclaimers are used across the different jurisdictions. The inability to flexibly manage multiple embodiments across jurisdictions, severely limits its utility for more complex strategies. Many panellists commented on scenarios where the direct national filing route is still favoured when there is commercially important design with a complex filing strategy.
The Role of Local Qualified Attorneys: Still Essential
The Hague System really comes into its own when looking to protect a single design across multiple jurisdictions. However, in my opinion, it is not (yet) a substitute filing method for more complex design filings, where nuanced, jurisdiction-specific advice is required. Our wealth of experience in handling design registrations in the UK and EU allows us to guide clients confidently through those processes, but outside these regions, local expertise remains crucial.
Interestingly, the panellists touched on the high burden placed on local practitioners, who are expected to be across the local requirements and case law of all 99 countries Hague countries, so as to advise their clients effectively for Hague designs. In reality, this just is not possible (or legally safe), and so more often than not advice will be sought from local experts ahead of filing a Hague design application, which incurs a cost and negates the cost savings afforded by Hague filing fees.
Looking Ahead: Room for Improvement
Encouragingly, WIPO is exploring tools to help applicants navigate local requirements, such as the ability to preview successful designs in a target jurisdiction so that applicants can get a feel for the types of drawings that are required. There was also discussion around expanding official languages to include Chinese, reflecting the growing importance of Chinese filers, as well as removing the need for all designs in a multiple application to belong in the same classification (which would bring it into line with the UK and EU systems).
The Hague system has come a long way, and its centenary is a moment worth celebrating. But if it’s to become the default choice for global design protection, it must evolve to accommodate the realities of modern design practice. That means better harmonisation, more flexibility, and deeper collaboration between international bodies and national experts.
For now, the Hague System remains a powerful tool – especially for straightforward (e.g. single design) filings – but for strategic, high-value designs wherein multiple embodiments will be filed, national filings with local expert advice is often still thought to be the gold standard.
Scintilla is Where Innovation Thrives
We put you in control of your destiny by organising, optimising, & monetising your intellectual property.