Introduction

On 17 December 2025, the Hong Kong SAR Government (the “Government”) issued a consultation paper (the “Consultation”) on a comprehensive review of the registered designs regime in Hong Kong (the “Regime”). The proposals aim to update the Registered Designs Ordinance (Chapter 522 of the laws of Hong Kong) (“RDO”) to better reflect contemporary design practices, support innovation and strengthen Hong Kong’s role as a regional hub for intellectual property and creative industries. This article highlights key proposals and their implications.

What designs should be protected?

Under the RDO, a “design” is defined narrowly as “features of shape, configuration, pattern or ornament applied to an article by any industrial process”. This old-fashioned definition fails to reflect many forms of modern design, especially in digital, artisanal and high-tech fields.

The Consultation proposes to shift the protection of design from “features applied to an article” to the “overall appearance of a product”. This broader approach would be supported by a non-exhaustive list of visual features, potentially including colours, lines, contours, texture, and movement or animation. Such a change would bring Hong Kong in line with jurisdictions such as Australia, the European Union (“EU”), Singapore and the United Kingdom (“UK”), and would provide clearer protection for modern products and digital interfaces.

The Consultation also questions whether the requirement that a design must be applied by an “industrial process” remains relevant. With the rise of 3D printing, digital fabrication and small-batch production, many designers and small businesses no longer rely on traditional mass manufacturing. Removing this restriction would enable the law to cover products of different scales of production and those that integrate emerging technologies.

In addition, the Consultation considers replacing the term “article” with “product”, a more familiar term in business and consumer contexts, and expressly includes handicraft and handmade items in the definition. This proposal aims to bring the law closer to everyday business language and ensure that artisanal and craft-based businesses can benefit from registered design protection.

Virtual designs, spare parts and partial designs

Virtual designs such as graphical user interfaces (GUIs), icons, projected images and augmented‑reality elements are increasingly important in the digital economy. Currently, Hong Kong only protects virtual designs that are applied to a physical article, such as a screen. The Consultation explores whether protection should be extended to virtual designs that exist independently of a specific device, as is already the case in the EU, UK and Singapore.

As for spare parts, the RDO generally requires that a part be “made and sold separately” to be registrable and excludes parts whose shape is dependent on the appearance of the whole product (the “must‑match” exclusion). The Government is considering alternative approaches, such as:

1.      Introducing the concept of “complex product”, which refers to a product that is made up of multiple components that can be disassembled and reassembled, such as a car or a machine. Component parts intended to be built into a complex product could themselves be treated as “products”;

 

2.      Adding a “must fit” exclusion, where purely functional features of a product would be excluded from design protection; and

 

3.      Creating a statutory “right to repair” defence to ensure that supplying replacement parts for genuine repair does not constitute infringement.

 

Regarding partial designs, meaning components that merely form part of the design of the greater product and are not sold separately, they are currently not registrable. On the contrary, many jurisdictions allow partial designs to be protected in their own right. The Consultation asks whether Hong Kong should follow suit, giving designers the ability to protect distinctive sub-features that contribute significantly to a product’s appearance.

Novelty and overall impression

A design is currently registrable in Hong Kong if it is “new”, that is, not identical or materially similar to earlier designs disclosed anywhere in the world. The Registrar of Designs (the “Registrar”) of the Designs Registry conducts a formality examination only, while substantive checks on novelty are left to post‑registration challenges.

The Consultation considers whether to introduce an additional requirement that a design must have “individual character” or “distinctiveness”, assessed by whether it produces a different “overall impression” on an informed user, taking into account the designer’s freedom. This approach, used in the EU, UK and Australia, would raise the threshold for registration, helping to filter out trivial or similar designs and enhance the reliability of design rights.

On procedure, the Government does not currently propose moving to a full substantive examination system, which would lengthen processing time and increase costs. Instead, it seeks views on retaining the current formality‑based examination while exploring possible enhancements, such as empowering the Registrar to refuse clearly non‑novel applications.

Streamlining procedures and supporting designers

The proposals below affect how designers should plan their filing of an application:

Grace period

Currently, public disclosure of a design prior to filing for registration generally destroys its novelty, rendering it not registrable. The RDO provides a 6-month grace period, but only if the design was first shown at a qualifying “official international exhibition”, a standard seldom met in practice. The Government therefore proposes replacing this exception with a general 12-month grace period that would apply to disclosures made by the designer or a successor, for any purpose. This proposal aligns Hong Kong with international norms and provides practical flexibility for designers to conduct market testing, pre‑launch activities, or seek investment without forfeiting their right to registered design protection.

Deferred publication

Applicants may be allowed to defer publication of their registered design for a prescribed period, enabling them to better coordinate public disclosure with product launches and marketing strategies. For more complex designs involving technical inventions, it would also afford the applicant time to consider whether a patent application should also be filed, before novelty is lost by virtue of publication.

Ownership of commissioned designs

The default rule under the RDO currently vests ownership in the commissioner of the design. The Consultation proposes reversing this rule, so that the designer is the original owner unless otherwise agreed. This proposal aligns design law with copyright law and strengthens designers’ rights.

Priority claims and multiple designs

The Government is considering simplifying priority‑claim formalities, such as removing the requirement to file priority documents and allowing more flexibility in filing multiple designs in a single application.

The above changes would be supported by digital platform enhancements, making it easier and more efficient to file, manage and renew design rights online.

Conclusion

The proposed reforms aim to foster a more innovative, creative and technology-friendly environment for designers. A modern, predictable and efficient design regime will support new industrialisation, encourage investment in design-driven industries, and reinforce Hong Kong’s position as a leading centre for intellectual property trade and creative services.

 

For enquiries, please feel free to contact us at:

E: ip@onc.hk                                                                        T: (852) 2810 1212 W: www.onc.hk                                                                    F: (852) 2804 6311 19th Floor, Three Exchange Square, 8 Connaught Place, Central, Hong Kong

Important: The law and procedure on this subject are very specialised and complicated. This article is just a very general outline for reference and cannot be relied upon as legal advice in any individual case. If any advice or assistance is needed, please contact our solicitors.

Published by ONC Lawyers © 2026