Industrial Design Registration After a Trade Fair and Instagram Post

The filing date is 5 June 2025. The trade fair was about 9 months and 26 days earlier, and the Instagram post was about 9 months and 21 days earlier. Both are within the 12-month grace period for industrial designs. If the disclosures were made by Habi Design or by someone authorized by it, they are excepted from prior art and do not bar registration. The Instagram post appears to be Habi Design's own account; the trade fair display was also its own act. The examiner should withdraw the Instagram citation if Habi Design proves the source and date. The proof should include an affidavit from the person who posted the photographs, a screenshot with the account name and timestamp, the trade fair catalog or photographs, and evidence that Habi Design is the designer or successor in title. The fact that the post is still online does not change the analysis, because the relevant date is the original disclosure date, not the date the examiner sees it. The applicant should still consider whether to keep the post online, but removing it now does not create novelty.

Industrial design protects the ornamental appearance of a product, not its technical function. The detachable armrest may perform a function, but that does not automatically disqualify the chair design. The response should separate the functional locking mechanism from the visual appearance. Habi Design should argue that the claimed design is the overall chair, including the woven backrest and the visible shape of the armrest, and that the detached view is included only to show the armrest's appearance and relationship to the chair. It should not claim the locking mechanism itself. If the armrest has a distinctive ornamental shape, that shape can be protected even if the armrest also detaches. If the only novel feature is the mechanism, the design claim is weak and the company should consider a utility model or patent for the mechanism instead. The response should amend the photographs or description to emphasize the ornamental features and, if necessary, delete the detached view so the examiner does not treat the application as claiming a purely functional part.

The examiner is asking whether the application covers one design or several. Habi Design should first argue that the six photographs show one chair design: three views in natural rattan and three in black finish are color or finish variants of the same shape, and the detached armrest view is a detail view of the same article. If color is not claimed as a distinguishing feature, the finish variants should not be treated as separate designs. If the examiner maintains the objection, the applicant should select one embodiment, preferably the natural rattan chair, as the principal design and file separate applications for any embodiment that the examiner regards as distinct, such as the armrest as a separate article if it is sold separately. The applicant should ask whether the separate applications can claim the original filing date, but it should not assume they can without a priority claim. For the hotel licensing meeting, Habi Design should describe the design as pending and avoid claiming a granted enforceable right until the registration issues.