Modernising Digital Protection: Navigating the UKIPO's New Guidance on GUIs and Animations

The UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) has recently released Designs Practice Notice (DPN) 01/26, providing long-awaited clarity on the Office’s internal guidelines for design registration of digital designs. For companies developing innovative software and hardware interfaces, the notice formalizes the requirements for protecting the design elements these interfaces – ranging from simple screen layouts to loading animations to complex animated transitions.

As graphical user interfaces become an ever-increasing part of our day-to-day lives, this DPN serves as a critical guide to provide clarity to practitioners and rights holders on what they should expect from the UKIPO in this area.

The Requirement for a "Unitary" Design

The cornerstone of the UKIPO’s position is that a single design registration must convey an overall impression for a single, unitary design that is clear to both the registrar and to third parties. Third parties must be able to work out clearly, easily and unambiguously, what is the overall impression shown by the design. For animations and interactive GUIs, this can sometimes present a challenge.

For a sequence of frames to be accepted, the views should show clearly how the animation progresses through its various stages. In particular, it must be clear to the examiner, and to somebody viewing the register, that the application relates to a single animation. If the transition between frames is visually unrelated or lacks a clear chronological link, the application risks being rejected on the grounds that it contains more than one design.

The "Flow" Prohibition: Why UX Paths Are Not Designs

Crucially, the DPN provides explicit disapproval for what practitioners often refer to as "flows." A flow typically represents a user’s journey through an application—for example, a sequence showing a splash screen, followed by a home page, and then an activity screen.

The UKIPO has clarified that such sequences do not constitute a single design. Because these screens are functionally and visually distinct, they lack the "unitary" character required by the Registered Designs Act. Attempting to register a navigation flow as a single animated design will likely result in a formal objection, as the office views these as separate "static" designs rather than a single "animated" entity.

Here, it is worth noting that the register contains several registered examples of designs of this type, and, at the time of writing, the UKIPO’s position on this type of design has yet to be tested before the UK courts.

Subjectivity and Inconsistency in Practice

Despite the clearer framework provided by DPN 01/26, it is important to note that the practical application of these rules by UKIPO examiners was, at least previously, somewhat inconsistent. In our experience, the boundary between a "unitary animated sequence" and an impermissible "flow" is not always applied in the same way.

We have observed several cases that might appear to fall foul of several of the requirements in the new DPN that have proceeded to registration without any objections being raised. This suggests a lingering degree of subjectivity in the examination process.

For applicants, this inconsistency creates a strategic "grey area." While the DPN sets a stricter formal standard in some areas, there may still be opportunities to secure registration for sophisticated UI sequences that sit on the edge of the new guidelines. However, relying on examiner leniency is a risky long-term strategy, especially if the validity of the registration is later challenged in court or via revocation proceedings. There is also inconsistency between other national offices in this area.

Practice Points and Strategic Considerations

1. Representation Strategy: Bridging the Visual Gap

To successfully register an animation, you must provide enough frames to show a fluid progression.

• Avoid "Jumps": If a GUI element moves across the screen without intermediate frames showing the path, the UKIPO may argue the link is not "unambiguous."
• Product Indication: Ensure the product indication explicitly includes the term "animated" (e.g., "Animated icon"). This alerts the examiner to view the representations as a chronological sequence.
• Written disclaimer: A written disclaimer can be used to disambiguate that the design should be considered an animation (but beware of risk in point 2 below if this is only added in response to an objection)

2. Managing the Risk of Re-dating

One of the most significant risks identified in the DPN is the use of written disclaimers to "fix" an ambiguous animation. If a disclaimer is added after the filing date to clarify the sequence, and the examiner deems this to be a "substantial" change to the design’s scope, the application may be re-dated to the date the disclaimer was filed. This can destroy novelty if the design was disclosed in the interim or result in the loss of a priority claim.

Note that the UKIPO has not raised the prospect of re-dating when images filed as a single design are split out into multiple design filings as a result of an objection, but we also consider this risk cannot be ruled out.

3. The "Multiple Design" Strategy

To mitigate the risks of re-dating or "flow" objections, we recommend a multiple design filing strategy. Rather than relying on a single design to the full animation, applicants should consider filing a multiple design application containing separate designs to:

• The full animation as one design.
• Core sub-sections of the animation without dissimilar start and end points.
• Key "hero" frames (e.g., the start and end states) as separate, static designs.
• Individual UI elements (e.g., a specific menu bar) independently of the full screen.

By decoupling the most valuable visual elements from the animation sequence, you ensure that even if the animated design faces a unity objection, the core static elements remains protected from the original filing date, whilst continuing to allow the full animation to be used as a priority filing for applications in other countries.

4. International Approach

If you’re based outside the UK, and registered design protection in the UK is important to you, or if you’re based within the UK and want to secure protection outside the UK, we recommend engaging early with your UK design expert.

The first filing for your design, in any country, should be informed by the requirements in the countries in which you eventually want to secure protection. In the case of companies filing first in the UK, this may mean including one or more additional designs that are likely to be subject to objections by the UK office, but which serve as a useful priority application for filings overseas. Similarly, for companies filing first outside the UK, this may mean including additional material in any written description (where relevant in that country) to reduce the risk of objections being raised in a subsequent UK filing.

Conclusion

While DPN 01/26 provides a welcome framework for digital protection, it also sets clear boundaries. The rejection of "flows" and the strict approach to re-dating underscore the need for a precise, multi-layered filing strategy, with the lack of international harmonisation of designs providing additional challenges.

For businesses investing heavily in unique user experiences, capturing registered design protection for the "movement" of a GUI remains a valuable and smart move, provided the application is structured to meet the UKIPO's specific formal requirements and the nuances of current examination practice.

As a member of CIPA’s Design and Copyright committee, Hindles Director, Chris Cottingham, was among the profession’s key contributors in working with the UKIPO to provide feedback on early drafts of this DPN.