Australian registered designs protect the overall appearance of a product resulting from one or more visual features of the product.

Difficulties arise when attempting to protect visual features that may be transient, such as graphical user interfaces and icons displayed on computer screens or smartphone screens.  In such cases, it is common practice to identify the product as a display screen, or similar, to which the graphical user interface or icon is applied.   Under Australian practice, applications proceed to registration without substantive examination, and it is common for designs directed to display screens to be registered without any difficulty.

In order for a design registration to be enforceable, it is necessary for the registration to be examined and certified.  It is the practice of the Australian Designs Office to consider a product at rest when examining design registrations.  When display screens are at rest (i.e., without any power applied), there is often little if anything to differentiate the blank display screen from the prior art.

This was the finding in the recent decision of GEA Westfalia Separator Group GmbH [2025] ADO 1 (17 July 2025), in which a design directed to a display screen with graphical user interface was found to be substantially similar to prior art citations when the display screen under examination was considered at rest.

The questions ultimately to be determined in such matters are:

• what is a product?
• what are visual features?

The definition of a product includes the statement that a thing that is manufactured or hand made is a product.  Unhelpfully, this is a statement of things that are products, but does not otherwise limit or characterise the properties of a product.  Just as stating an apple is a fruit does not mean that all fruits are apples, so it follows that it is not necessarily the case that all products are things that are manufactured or hand made.

In this case, the Delegate decided that even though one might consider that a GUI has been built, such building is not sufficient for the GUI to be a product.  Nevertheless, there remains a question as to whether a graphical user interface can itself constitute a product, either by being deemed to have been manufactured or hand made, or otherwise.

Visual features are defined as including the shape, configuration, pattern and ornamentation of the product.  Notably, this is not an exhaustive definition and so could potentially include other visual features, such as flashing, strobing, and the like.

Unfortunately, the Courts are yet to consider any cases directed to graphical user interfaces, so the Designs Office’s approach will remain in the absence of any future appeals or legislative reform.  Legislative reform directed to protecting graphical user interfaces, virtual reality, and spare parts is underway, so the horizon offers hope.

If you need advice in relation to registered designs in Australia, please reach out to our team at Blackwattle IP.