A few months ago, we published our Infographic Guide, which explored the UKIPO consultation on proposed reforms, many of which were expected to take effect from 2027. As part of that discussion, we specifically considered the challenges surrounding graphical user interfaces (GUIs) and animated designs.

Our guide explained that through the consultation the IPO was exploring a number of possible reform options. The consultation acknowledged the growing commercial importance of GUIs and animation in modern products and services, and positioned reform in this area as essential to ensuring that the UK design system remains competitive, relevant and fit for the digital age.

The infographic guide looked at what might change, set out the issues under consideration, and encouraged stakeholders to engage with the consultation process before it closed in November 2025.

Against that backdrop, Designs Practice Notice DPN 01/26 (published in April 2026) can be seen as the practical outcome of some of the issues identified in that consultation. While the guide framed the problem and policy debate, the DPN delivers the solution at the level of examination practice, by providing clear and immediate guidance on how the UKIPO will examine applications covering GUIs, icons and animated designs.

The DPN explains that, as part of the UKIPO’s wider digital transformation programme, the IPO is considering the introduction of animated file formats; however, this will not be introduced in the short term. This would make it easier to file applications for GUIs and animated designs and help clarify what is required for a filing to be considered sufficient.

The revised DPN has therefore been issued to clarify the IPO’s current examination practice in this area and to assist designers in better protecting their digital designs. Designers and their representatives should note that the DPN sets out general guiding principles only, and that each application will continue to be assessed on its own merits.

Icons, Animated Designs, GUIs and Webpages

The DPN confirms that, while computer programs themselves are excluded from design protection under the Registered Designs Act 1949, the visual appearance of digital content is not. As a result, the appearance and layout of icons, GUIs, animated designs and web pages may be protected as registered designs, provided they meet the statutory requirements.

The guidance explains that digital designs may be static (such as a webpage or GUI layout) or dynamic (such as animated icons or screensavers), and that these designs may be represented using screenshots or line drawings showing the configuration of the graphic elements.

Central to UK design registration is the requirement that the filed representations convey a single, clear and unambiguous overall impression. While this is relatively straightforward for physical products, it can be more challenging for animated designs, which must currently be represented using static images. Applicants must therefore take care to ensure that their representations depict one design only and comply with section 1(2) of the RDA.

Static Graphic Symbols and Icons

The DPN confirms that static graphic symbols and icons fall within the definition of a registrable design and may therefore be protected under UK design law. The guidance includes practical examples illustrating what is likely to be accepted as a single design, as well as scenarios that may give rise to issues during examination.

Where an applicant files a single image as one representation, the examiner will not usually question the applicant’s intention. In the absence of additional information, the examiner will assume that protection is sought for a single design, such as the appearance of two icons displayed side‑by‑side. Applicants should therefore carefully consider the scope of protection they intend to claim before filing.

The guidance also makes clear that, where an application does not clearly indicate that a design is animated, an objection may be raised on the basis that the representations amount to more than one design.

Animated / Moving Graphic Symbols / Icons

The DPN confirms that graphic symbols and icons incorporating animation or movement will generally be acceptable, provided that the overall impression can be identified easily and unambiguously from the filed representations.

Applicants are advised to use separate views, up to 12, to show each step in the animation, and to make clear in the indication of product that the design relates to an animation. The guidance encourages applicants to include as many views as necessary to illustrate how the animation progresses through its various stages.

The use of disclaimers is also recommended particularly to explain the nature of the transitions between representations. The DPN includes examples showing that, where the animated nature of a design is not clear from the images alone, additional written explanations may be required. For example, an acceptable disclaimer might describe the design as “an animation which flicks instantaneously between one still to the next.”

Where an objection is raised, it may be possible to overcome this by filing additional representations that more clearly depict the animation sequence. However, disclaimers that require a high degree of interpretation may themselves give rise to objection, underlining the importance of clear and careful presentation at the filing stage.

GUIs

Any claimed design for a GUI must convey a clear and unambiguous overall impression and relate to a single, unitary design. Importantly, design protection covers the appearance of the GUI only, not its underlying functionality.

Applicants are encouraged to ensure that the scope of protection sought is appropriate, including use of colour, representations and, where relevant, disclaimers.

The guidance includes an example of three separate GUI views that would be considered unacceptable. Although the screens are visually related and would be encountered sequentially by a user, the overall impression is not unitary. In that example, the content of each screen varies depending on user input (a survey question followed by results), leading the examiner to conclude that the representations relate to three distinct GUIs. The DPN therefore advises that protection for this type of interface should be sought through separate applications.

By contrast, another example shows two separate views of a GUI featuring a simple pop‑up that appears when a tab is hovered over. This configuration will be acceptable, provided the images are filed as separate representations and the applicant makes clear that the design relates to a GUI with a pop‑up. The use of a disclaimer to explain the transition may also be helpful.

Where protection is sought for more complex pop‑up arrangements, the examiner will assess whether the changes in visual appearance mean that the representations no longer relate to a single design. If they do, an objection will be raised on the basis that the application contains more than one design.

Disclaimers and Re-dating

Where a disclaimer is included, the scope of protection will be limited to the overall impression created by the combination of the filed representations and the disclaimer itself.

The guidance cautions that applications requiring a high degree of interpretation may fail to meet the requirement for a clear and unambiguous overall impression. In particular, where a lengthy or complex disclaimer is needed to explain how a design transitions from one stage to another, this may give rise to an objection.

The DPN notes that, where a disclaimer is filed to overcome an objection, the examiner will assess whether it materially alters the design. If it does, the application may be re‑dated to the date of the amendment. Applicants are therefore advised to ensure, from the outset, that sufficient representations and appropriate disclaimers are filed to minimise the risk of objection or loss of priority.

GUIs and Copyright Protection

GUIs benefit from only limited protection under UK copyright law. A GUI is not protected as a computer program because it does not enable the reproduction of the program itself. Instead, it is merely the means by which users interact with the program’s functionality. A GUI may attract copyright protection only where it qualifies as the author’s own intellectual creation.

The BSA case (Bezpečnostní softwarová asociace – Svaz softwarové ochrany v Ministerstvo kultury (Case C‑393/09) EU:C:2010:816) and Exclusion from Computer Program Protection

In the BSA case, the CJEU confirmed that a GUI is not protected as a computer program under the Software Directive. The Court held that a GUI functions as an interaction layer between the user and the software, but does not amount to a form of expression of the program itself. As it does not enable the reproduction of the program, it falls outside the scope of copyright protection for computer programs.

Although a GUI is excluded from protection as software, it may still be protected under copyright law if the GUI reflects the author’s own intellectual creation, demonstrated through free and creative choices.

Originality will not be established where the expression of the GUI’s components is dictated by technical function. When assessing originality, the court will consider the overall arrangement and configuration of the GUI’s components to determine whether they reflect genuine creative choice rather than technical necessity.

The Court of Appeal’s decision in THJ Systems Ltd v Sheridan [2023] EWCA Civ 1354 confirmed that originality requires the author to have exercised creative choices so as to stamp the work with their personal touch. This threshold is not satisfied where the design is constrained by technical considerations or rules that leave no real scope for creative freedom. In THJ Systems, although the developer’s visual creativity was limited, choices had nevertheless been made about layout, commands, fonts and colours. As a result, the work attracted copyright protection, but only of a narrow scope, meaning that infringement would arise only in cases of close copying.

The SAS case (SAS Institute Inc v World Programming Ltd [2013] EWHC 69 (Ch)) and Functionality

The SAS case reinforced the principle that copyright does not protect functionality. The CJEU held that the functionality of a computer program, as well as the programming language and the format of data files it uses, do not constitute a form of expression and are therefore excluded from copyright protection.

Copyright protects the expression of ideas, not the ideas themselves. Functionality falls on the ideas side of this distinction and is excluded from protection under both the Software Directive and the Information Society Directive. As a result, reproducing features that emulate the functions or operational behaviour of another program does not amount to copying protected expression. These exclusions cannot be circumvented by characterising functionality, interfaces or overall program behaviour as a form of expressive content.

Comparison of Copyright and Registered Design Protection

Copyright protection for GUIs is limited to the specific arrangement or configuration that represents the author’s own intellectual creation. In assessing originality, the court will consider the overall arrangement of all the components forming part of the GUI to determine whether they reflect free and creative choices. Components differentiated only by technical function cannot satisfy the originality threshold.

By contrast, registered design protection focuses on the overall visual impression produced on the informed user. Registration confers an exclusive right not only in the design itself, but also in any design that does not produce a different overall impression. However, as ever with registered designs the extent of the monopoly is constrained by the prior art.

Both regimes exclude features dictated solely by technical function. Under copyright law, such features cannot meet the originality requirement, and under design law, protection does not subsist in features of appearance that are solely dictated by the product’s technical function.

Conclusion

The updated UKIPO guidance provides clarity on how graphical user interfaces, icons and animated designs can be protected under UK design law, while also signalling the direction of travel as the IPO’s digital transformation continues. The practice set out above is adopted with immediate effect. Applicants can draw real guidance from the practical examples set out in the DPN, which illustrate how simple transitions and pop‑ups may be protected through carefully prepared static representations, supported by appropriate descriptions or disclaimers.

That said, the guidance underlines the need for a careful and strategic approach at the filing stage. More complex animations or multi‑state GUIs may attract objections where the visual changes are considered to give rise to more than one design. Early decisions on how best to present and define the scope of UK design protection will therefore be critical. Rights holders should review their filing strategies now to ensure that valuable GUI and animated design features are protected clearly, effectively and without unnecessary risk of objection.

Copyright law may still play a role where a GUI reflects the author’s own intellectual creation, but its protection is narrow, making registered designs likely to be the more robust and predictable tool for protecting the visual appearance of GUIs in practice.

If you would like support with filing a design application at the UKIPO, please contact the Edwin Coe IP team.

Please note that this blog is provided for general information only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content of this blog. Please also see a copy of our terms of use here in respect of our website which apply also to all of our blogs.