House of Commons - Regulatory Reform

Select Committee on Regulatory Reform Fifth Report

Summary

We have examined the proposal for the Regulatory Reform (Registered Designs) Order 2006 in accordance with Standing Order No. 141. We recommend unanimously that a draft Order amended as described at paragraph 16 of this Report should be laid before the House.

Outline of the proposed Order

The purpose of the proposed Order is to amend the Registered Designs Act 1949 in order to remove or reduce burdens on applicants for and owners of registered designs throughout the UK. The proposed Order would:

abolish the power of the Registrar to refuse a design on the grounds that it lacks novelty or individual character and the related power to conduct 'searches' for the purpose of establishing the novelty or individuality of designs ("novelty searches");

permit applicants to include several different designs in a single application for registration ("multiple applications");

require all registered designs to be made available for public inspection ("public inspection of designs"); and

facilitate the reinstatement of lapsed design registrations ("lapsed registrations").

Summary of the Committee findings on the present proposal against the prescribed criteria[1]

The proposal for Regulatory Reform (Registered Designs) Order 2006 was laid before the House by the Cabinet Office on 13 March 2006 on behalf of the Minister for Science and Innovation, Lord Sainsbury of Turville, in the Department of Trade and Industry. We have considered the proposal against the criteria set out in Paragraph (6) of Standing Order No.141 and report the following conclusions to the House.

Criterion (a): appropriate for delegated legislation

In our view the proposal appears to be appropriate for delegated legislation.

Criterion (b): removal or reduction of burdens

With regard to criterion (b), our conclusions on the removal or reduction of burdens are as follows.

Novelty searches. Articles 3 to 10 of the proposal would remove the power of the Registrar to refuse to register designs on grounds of lack of novelty or individuality and to conduct searches for establishing novelty. We agree with the Patent Office that the effect would be to remove a burden.

Multiple applications. Articles 11 to 15 of the proposed Order would amend sections 3, 3A, 3B, 14 and 22 of the 1949 Act so as to permit a single application to include a number of designs, even if the designs relate to different product classes. We agree with the Patent Office that the effect would be to remove a burden.

Public inspection. Article 16 of the proposal would remove a restriction on the publication of certain designs and require designs of all classes of products to be published at registration (subject to a new provision to allow an application for registration to be lodged but not to take effect until the design is made available for publication, up to 12 months after the date of application). We agree with the Patent Office that the effect would be to remove a burden.

Reinstatement of lapsed registrations. Article 17 of the proposed Order would amend section 8A of the 1949 Act to provide that the Registrar may order the restoration of an applicant's rights in a design where he is satisfied that the failure to pay the renewal fee was unintentional. We agree with the Patent Office that the effect would be to remove a burden.

Criterion (c): maintenance of necessary protection

With regard to criterion (c), we are satisfied that in the case of each of the four proposals no necessary protection would be lost.

Criterion (d): adequate consultation

We consider that the proposal has been the subject of, and taken appropriate account of, adequate consultation.