{"id":4858,"date":"2026-01-23T19:00:56","date_gmt":"2026-01-23T11:00:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.east-ip.com\/?p=4858"},"modified":"2026-03-09T19:35:07","modified_gmt":"2026-03-09T11:35:07","slug":"hong-kong-proposes-major-reforms-to-modernize-its-registered-designs-regime","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.east-ip.com\/zh\/insights\/hong-kong-proposes-major-reforms-to-modernize-its-registered-designs-regime\/","title":{"rendered":"Hong Kong Proposes Major Reforms to Modernize its Registered Designs Regime"},"content":{"rendered":"

On 17 December 2025, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) Government launched a comprehensive three-month public consultation on a sweeping review of its registered designs regime. This initiative seeks to overhaul the Registered Designs Ordinance (Cap. 522) (RDO), which has been in place since 1997, ensuring it remains a competitive and robust framework fit for the digital age. The review underscores Hong Kong\u2019s commitment to reinforcing its status as a leading regional intellectual property (IP) trading hub.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The consultation paper meticulously outlines a series of proposed reforms across nine substantive chapters, addressing everything from core definitions and the scope of protection to procedural efficiencies and international alignment. This article summarises the key proposals and issues on which the Government seeks stakeholder input by 16 March 2026<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1. Redefining the Core: “Design” and “Article”<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The current statutory definitions are viewed as outdated. A “design” is narrowly defined as “features of shape, configuration, pattern or ornament applied to an article by any industrial process”. An “article” is simply “any article of manufacture”.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Key Proposals:<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
    \n
  • Shift to “Appearance of a Product”:<\/strong>\u00a0Aligning with Australia, the EU, and the UK, the consultation considers redefining “design” as\u00a0“the appearance of a product”<\/strong>\u00a0resulting from its features. This is more intuitive and flexible.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • Expand Protectable Features:<\/strong>\u00a0The exhaustive list of four features (shape, configuration, pattern, ornament) would be expanded to include\u00a0lines, contours, colours, texture, and even movement or animation<\/strong>. This list could become illustrative (non-exhaustive) rather than restrictive.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • Remove the “Industrial Process” Requirement:<\/strong>\u00a0This requirement may stifle protection for designs applied via modern techniques like 3D printing or artisanal craftsmanship. Its removal is proposed.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • Replace “Article” with “Product”:<\/strong>\u00a0Using the term “product” better reflects modern language and could explicitly include\u00a0handicraft or handmade items<\/strong>, supporting smaller artisanal businesses.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

    2. Expanding the Scope of Protection for the Digital Age<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    The consultation recognises that in a digital economy, protection must extend beyond physical objects.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Key Proposals:<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
      \n
    • Virtual Designs:<\/strong>\u00a0The regime currently only protects designs applied to a physical article. The consultation explores granting\u00a0reasonable protection to virtual designs<\/strong>, such as Graphical User Interfaces (GUIs), icons, and 3D designs in virtual\/augmented reality. Critical questions are posed about whether protection should be tied to a physical product or depend on functionality\/human interaction.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    • Spare Parts and Component Designs:<\/strong>\u00a0The current “must match” exclusion prevents registration of spare parts (like a car body panel) whose design is dependent on the overall article’s appearance. The consultation considers replacing this with a\u00a0“must fit” exclusion<\/strong>\u00a0(protecting interoperability) and introducing a\u00a0“right to repair” defence<\/strong>\u00a0for consumers, similar to the EU and UK approaches.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    • Partial Designs:<\/strong>\u00a0Currently, a part of an article (e.g., a cup handle) is only registrable if “made and sold separately”. The consultation considers allowing registration of\u00a0partial designs<\/strong>\u00a0irrespective of separate sale, recognising the value of distinctive product parts.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

      3. Raising the Bar: Novelty and Examination<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

      A design must be “new” to be registered. The consultation examines whether the current threshold is sufficient.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Key Proposals:<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
        \n
      • Introduce an “Individual Character” Test:<\/strong>\u00a0Beyond mere novelty, the consultation considers adding a requirement that a design must produce a\u00a0different overall impression on an “informed user”<\/strong>\u00a0compared to existing designs. This would raise the quality bar for registrable designs.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      • Retain Formality Examination:<\/strong>\u00a0Hong Kong currently conducts only a formality (not substantive) examination for novelty, enabling fast, cost-effective registration. The Government proposes\u00a0retaining this system<\/strong>, noting that substantive examination would lengthen the process and increase costs significantly. It suggests considering enhancement measures, such as mandatory examination before enforcement (as in Australia), rather than a full pre-registration check.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

        4. Strengthening Rights and Balancing Interests<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

        The review aims to ensure exclusive rights are clear, enforceable, and balanced with public interest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Key Proposals:<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
          \n
        • Exclusive Rights:<\/strong>\u00a0The scope of rights may be broadened. In light of technologies like 3D printing and AI-assisted copying, the consultation asks whether rights should cover\u00a0any business\/commercial use<\/strong>\u00a0and extend to acts enabling the making of a product (e.g., sharing digital files).<\/li>\n\n\n\n
        • Exceptions to Infringement:<\/strong>\u00a0To foster innovation and fair use, the consultation considers introducing specific exceptions for acts such as\u00a0experimental use, teaching, and potentially “comment, critique or parody”<\/strong>\u00a0(as recently adopted in the EU).<\/li>\n\n\n\n
        • Ownership of Commissioned Designs:<\/strong>\u00a0In a significant pro-designer shift, the consultation proposes reversing the default ownership rule for commissioned works.\u00a0Ownership would vest in the designer by default<\/strong>, subject to contractual agreement, aligning with international norms and Hong Kong’s copyright law.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

          5. Facilitating Business Flexibility: Grace Periods and Deferred Publication<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

          The consultation proposes measures to give businesses more strategic flexibility during product development.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          Key Proposals:<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
            \n
          • Grace Period:<\/strong>\u00a0The RDO currently offers a limited 6-month grace period only for disclosures at “official international exhibitions”. The proposal is to introduce a\u00a012-month grace period for disclosures by the design owner for\u00a0any purpose<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0(e.g., market testing, fundraising), aligning with the new Riyadh Design Law Treaty (RDLT) and jurisdictions like the EU, UK, and US.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          • Deferment of Publication:<\/strong>\u00a0Upon registration, a design is immediately published. The consultation considers allowing applicants to\u00a0defer publication for a period<\/strong>\u00a0(e.g., 6-30 months, as in other jurisdictions) to align with product launch strategies or coordinate with patent applications.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

            6. Streamlining Procedures and International Alignment<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

            Several procedural enhancements are on the table to improve user-friendliness and global integration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            Key Proposals:<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
              \n
            • Priority Claims:<\/strong>\u00a0The consultation considers\u00a0dispensing with the requirement to file physical priority documents<\/strong>\u00a0and exploring the possibility of\u00a0restoring a priority right<\/strong>\u00a0if an application is unintentionally filed late.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
            • Multiple Designs and Statements of Novelty:<\/strong>\u00a0Views are sought on whether requirements for filing multiple designs in one application (i.e., that designs must relate to the same class or to the same set of articles) can be relaxed and if the\u00a0mandatory “statement of novelty” should be made optional<\/strong>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
            • Term of Protection:<\/strong>\u00a0The current maximum term of\u00a025 years (renewable every 5 years)<\/strong>\u00a0is considered appropriate and likely to be maintained.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
            • International Treaties:<\/strong>\u00a0The consultation strongly signals Hong Kong’s intention to further integrate into the global IP system by exploring the\u00a0extension of the Hague Agreement<\/strong>\u00a0(for international design registration) and\u00a0alignment with the new Riyadh Design Law Treaty (RDLT)<\/strong>\u00a0to the HKSAR. This would significantly ease the process for local designers seeking global protection and attract international filings.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

              7. Navigating Overlaps: Registered Designs, Copyright, and Unregistered Rights<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

              The complex interplay between different IP rights is addressed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

              Key Proposals:<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
                \n
              • Overlap with Copyright:<\/strong>\u00a0Hong Kong currently manages the overlap by shortening the copyright term for an artistic work once it is industrially applied. The consultation seeks views on whether this mechanism remains clear and effective.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
              • Unregistered Design Rights:<\/strong>\u00a0Following the model of the EU and UK, the consultation explores the potential benefits and drawbacks of introducing a\u00a0short-term, automatic “unregistered design right”<\/strong>\u00a0for industries with fast-moving design cycles. However, it notes concerns about increased legal uncertainty and the fact that both Australia and Singapore have previously rejected similar proposals.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

                Conclusion: A Forward-Looking Framework for an IP Hub<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

                The public consultation represents the most significant potential reform of Hong Kong’s designs law in a generation. The proposals are comprehensive and forward-looking, aiming to:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                  \n
                • Modernize definitions<\/strong>\u00a0to encompass digital and non-traditional designs.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
                • Enhance protection<\/strong>\u00a0for creators while ensuring a fair balance with competitors and the public.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
                • Streamline procedures<\/strong>\u00a0to be more business-friendly.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
                • Strengthen Hong Kong’s international alignment<\/strong>, particularly through the Hague System and RDLT.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

                  By inviting stakeholders to shape these reforms, the HKSAR Government is taking a crucial step to ensure its IP regime continues to incentivise innovation, attract investment, and solidify Hong Kong’s role as Asia’s premier regional IP trading centre. The outcome of this consultation will be pivotal in crafting a legislative package that meets the needs of a dynamic, digital-first economy.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

                  On 17 December 2025, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) Government launched a comprehensive three-month public consultation on a sweeping review of its registered designs regime.<\/p>","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":1005,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[15,22],"tags":[96,42,99],"class_list":["post-4858","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-insights","category-legislation-policy","tag-prc-trademark-law","tag-trademark-prosecution","tag-translation"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.east-ip.com\/zh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4858","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.east-ip.com\/zh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.east-ip.com\/zh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.east-ip.com\/zh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.east-ip.com\/zh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4858"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.east-ip.com\/zh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4858\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4861,"href":"https:\/\/www.east-ip.com\/zh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4858\/revisions\/4861"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.east-ip.com\/zh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1005"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.east-ip.com\/zh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4858"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.east-ip.com\/zh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4858"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.east-ip.com\/zh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4858"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}