This raises questions as to how the international Hague design registration regime, which is operated by WIPO, will adapt to all this change, noting many facets of this change will be incompatible with what is currently possible using a Hague design registration.

For example, and starting with the adoption of the Design Law Treaty, this is set to mandate restoration provisions where the six-month priority term is missed, which is something which the Geneva Act (1999) of the Hague design registration regime (which is what currently governs the submission/handling of most, modern, Hague design registrations) does not expressly allow for.

The EU design reform legislation is also set to allow for the submission of videos as part of a design registration covering the EU, and also the submission of multiple designs in different Locarno classifications in a single application, which again is something which the Geneva Act (1999) of the Hague design registration regime does not currently allow for.

It will therefore be interesting to see how WIPO reacts, if at all, to such change coming through.

One option for WIPO is, of course, to do nothing with respect to the existing Hague design registration regime. In which case, any entity seeking to employ a measure from the above change will have to forego usage of the Hague design registration regime to otherwise make use of this measure (for example, the submission of a video for defining the scope of the design registration, which is a measure under the new EU design reform legislation package).

Another option might be for WIPO to consider a revision to the existing Geneva Act (1999) of the Hague design registration regime, to facilitate the implementation of such change. Realistically though, any revision to the Geneva Act (1999) is considered unlikely, in our view, noting any revision to one or more Articles of the Geneva Act (1999) would require a sufficient majority amongst its contracting parties (under Article 25 of the Geneva Act (1999)). Considering the extent of the change coming through, obtaining such a majority seems doubtful.

Another approach for WIPO might be to consider the adoption of a new piece of legislation to help govern the submission of Hague design registrations, which might then sit alongside the existing Geneva Act (1999). This new piece of legislation might then draw on the current provisions of the existing Geneva Act (1999), yet supplement them to include some or all of the latest measures set to be brought in under either of the Design Law Treaty or the new EU Design Reform Legislation Package. This approach might then allow for a more restricted adoption of this new piece of legislation, amongst a subset of the existing contracting parties of the Geneva Act (1999), to avoid placing obligations on the remaining contracting parties that may feel unable to practically implement these measures.

However it reacts WIPO has already made it clear that, at least in respect of the Design Law Treaty, its provisions are to be implemented independently of those under the Hague design registration regime, where it commented “The Hague Agreement and the DLT would pursue different goals, would be fully autonomous and independent from each other, and neither would prevail over the other.” Nonetheless, given it has now been over 25 years since the formulation of the Geneva Act (1999), now more than ever seems a good opportunity to consider the possibility of an update to the Hague design registration regime. Though time will tell!

Useful links

• EUIPO news release, EU adopts Design Legislative Reform Package, 10 October 2024: dycip.com/euipo-eu-design-reform-Oct24
• WIPO, Geneva Act (1999): dycip.com/wipo-geneva-act-1999
• WIPO press release, WIPO Member States Adopt Riyadh Design Law Treaty, 22 November 2024: dycip.com/wipo-riyadh-design-treaty