Changes afoot for Hague System

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Changes afoot for Hague System

AIPPI Congress attendees were updated on the changes underway for designs and the Hague System during an IP Lunch Panel yesterday

Christian Archambeau, vice-president at the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM), gave the keynote speech. He noted an increasing acceptance of the importance of registered Community designs since they became available in 2003. OHIM receives 95,000 design applications a year, with 10,000 applications coming through the Hague System. “Even though the international route is not as fast, it has become increasingly popular,” noted Archambeau.

He added: “But for design rights to reach their full potential, greater efforts need to be made to reach international agreements on terms and definitions.” He said further work is also required to create interfaces with effective search facilities. There have been particular challenges around image searches. “We will be working proactively with all our partners to reach this goal,” he said.

Archambeau was followed by Grégoire Bisson (pictured), director at The Hague Registry. He referenced a WIPO report that found that trade mark and patent applications increased almost 50% between 2004 and 2012 but international design applications were up 110%.

He said the Hague System is a “one-stop shop” but is a “fairly Euro-centric system at present”. Until South Korea’s ascension to the Hague System in July, there was little action from Asia. “All of this is about to change,” said Bisson. “Stay tuned – it is going to become a big system very soon.”

This is because the United States, Japan, China, Mexico and Canada all have efforts underway to join. “This is going to transform the system entirely,” said Bisson. “Not only geographically speaking but also in the way it operates. Why? Because most of these forthcoming jurisdictions – and this is definitely true of Japan, China and United States – have a novelty examination system under their design law. So it means applicants are going to need to comply with more requirements. They will need to provide more information in their Hague application.”

“Those of you who currently use the system will have noticed we launched last year a new e-filing interface. It contains embedded intelligence, so in the future as these countries join and we require more and more information from you, the e-filing interface will ask you for that information,” said Bisson.

He said with all this change going on, “we need to let things stabilise a little bit as more countries join so that we can all see how aligned practices are between the various offices”. That will also make the system more complex, he said: “Applicants in future may need to be more savvy when making a Hague application. The old days of just going tick, tick, tick, I want all of these countries is probably gone. And that’s not a bad thing.”

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Lawyers at Lavoix provide an overview of the UPC’s approach to inventive step and whether the forum is promoting its own approach rather than following the EPO
Andrew Blattman, who helped IPH gain significant ground in Asia and Canada, will leave in the second half of 2026
The court ordering a complainant to rank its arguments in order of potential success and a win for Edwards Lifesciences were among the top developments in recent weeks
Frederick Lee has rejoined Boies Schiller Flexner, bolstering the firm’s capabilities across AI, media, and entertainment
Nirav Desai and Sasha S Rao at Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox explore how companies’ efforts to manage tariffs by altering corporate structures can undermine their ability to assert their patents and recover damages
Monika Żuraw, founder of Żuraw & Partners, discusses why IP should be part of the foundation of a business, and taking on projects that others walk away from
Lawyers say attention will turn to the UK government’s AI consultation after judgment fails to match pre-trial hype
Susan Keston and Rachel Fetches at HGF explain why the CoA’s decision to grant the UPC’s first permanent injunction demonstrates the court’s readiness to diverge from national court judgments
IP, M&A, life sciences and competition partners advised on deal that brings together brands such as ‘Huggies’ and ‘Kleenex’ with ‘Band-Aid’ and ‘Tylenol’
Stability AI, represented by Bird & Bird, is not liable for secondary copyright infringement, though Fieldfisher client Getty succeeds in some trademark claims
Gift this article