While the introduction of animated file formats remains under active consideration as part of the IPO's digital transformation programme, and considering that animated designs must currently be shown in static views, the UKIPO adopts, with immediate effect, revised practice in view of the increasing number of applications for protection of said type of design. The changes are welcomed and provide greater flexibility for applicants.

Clarity of the subject matter of a design registration is particularly important. It must be unambiguously identifiable from the representations on the register what is protected in order to determine validity and potential infringement of a design. This is generally easier for static designs than it is for animations, where the first representation may be significantly different from the last representation.

The UKIPO is addressing these difficulties with its new guidance, which may be summarised as follows:

• The overall impression must be that of a single unitary design and must be ascertainable clearly, easily and unambiguously.

The product indication should clarify the exact nature of the design, such as that it is an animation or a particular GUI, as the separate images may otherwise be considered to show different designs.

• Where a static icon is filed as a single image containing multiple elements, the IPO will assume that protection is sought for a single design showing those elements together. If the intent is instead to protect an animated sequence, the product indication must make this clear and each stage of the animation must be filed as a separate view.
• Each stage of an animation should be shown in a separate view. Up to 12 views can be filed and applicants should use as many as required to clearly and unambiguously show the progression of the single animation.
• Additional information on the sequence/transition should be provided using a disclaimer, if required to fully understand the design as shown. However, applicants should be aware that if the disclaimer itself is lengthy or complex, this may give rise to an objection on the basis that the overall impression of the design cannot be clearly and unambiguously ascertained.

Screens which vary depending on user input (e.g. different stages of a survey or questionnaire) will be treated as separate, distinct GUIs rather than a single animated design, and separate applications may be required.

It remains important to consider from the outset what exactly is to be protected and how this is best achieved. A design registration does not protect any functional aspects of a product apart from its visual appearance.

It should be considered whether the animation/movement really needs protecting or if a static image could provide sufficient protection. This should also be done in view of the considerable differences in practices of IPOs worldwide and therefore the risks to priority claims and differing scope of protection.

If the animation does require protection, it is important to determine whether one or in fact more designs are shown and ensure the appropriate number of designs within the application is filed. The UK remains highly cost-effective, despite a recent uplift in fees.

A design must be represented clearly from the outset. Additional views, information, or disclaimers filed in response to an office action can lead to the application being re-dated if the appearance of the design is significantly altered, which can be fatal for a design's validity.

Disclaimers should be carefully worded to provide the necessary clarification without unintentionally limiting the scope of protection.

While the UKIPO encourages more detail, it is always important to not only consider registrability but also enforceability and to keep the focus on the main elements that require protection.