Design patents, as an important form of intellectual property, are primarily used to protect the appearance of products, including innovative designs in shape, pattern, color, and their combinations. Unlike utility patents, design patents protect the aesthetic and innovative design of the visible parts of a product, rather than its technical functionality. In today’s increasingly competitive global market, product design plays an increasingly important role in market competition. Japan’s design patent application system has its unique characteristics, and understanding its application process and requirements will help companies more effectively protect their product designs and avoid unnecessary legal disputes. This article will provide a detailed analysis of the requirements, processes, case studies, and common mistakes in Japanese design patent applications, helping companies and designers successfully complete their design patent applications.

I. Basic Requirements for Design Patents

1.1 Definition of Design

According to Article 2 of the Japanese Design Act, a design refers to the shape, patterns, colors, or any combination thereof of an article. Design patents protect the external visual effect of a product, not its technical function. To be eligible for design patent protection, the design must be visible and directly perceptible to consumers. The design must be integrated into the actual production and use scenarios of the product and possess aesthetic value, meaning that designs with merely functional or internal structural features cannot obtain design patent protection.

While protecting the visual appeal of products, design patents also enhance product competitiveness in the market by restricting others from copying or imitating the design. For example, if a company launches a new electronic product with a unique design, including smooth edges and distinctive color combinations, it not only enhances consumer perception of the product but also gives the company a market advantage. Although the product’s functionality may be similar to other products in the market, its unique appearance can be protected through a design patent, preventing unauthorized copying by others. This protection can help companies stand out in fierce market competition and consolidate their market position for innovative designs.

1.2 Registration Requirements for Designs

According to the Japanese Design Act, designs must meet the conditions of novelty, distinctiveness, and industrial applicability to be eligible for registration and protection. Understanding these requirements is crucial for ensuring the registrability of a design. We will elaborate on each requirement in detail below.

Novelty: A design must possess novelty, meaning it should not have been publicly disclosed in Japan or any other country before the application is filed. Public disclosure can include exhibitions, advertisements, publications, online displays, etc. If a design is already known to the public or has appeared in the market, it no longer has novelty and does not meet the conditions for design patent application. For example, if a company designs an innovative office desk and chair set, but the design has already been displayed at an international exhibition, and the applicant fails to submit a patent application within the specified time after the exhibition, the design will lose its novelty and cannot be protected.

Distinctiveness: Distinctiveness refers to the design’s ability to be distinguished from existing designs. To obtain a design patent, the applied design must have distinctive visual features that allow consumers to clearly identify it. Distinctiveness is reflected not only in the overall design differences but also in the uniqueness of details. For example, if a furniture manufacturer designs a special chair with a unique streamlined design and color combination that makes it stand out in the market, this distinctiveness can help the company apply for and obtain a design patent.

Industrial Applicability: Industrial applicability means that the design must be capable of industrial production and mass reproduction. If a design is limited to handicrafts or artworks, or cannot be reproduced through industrial means, it will not meet the industrial applicability requirement for design patents. Industrial applicability also requires the design to have practical commercial value and utility. For example, a stationery company designs a new type of notebook cover that is unique but can be manufactured through large-scale production processes, meeting the industrial applicability requirement.

1.3 Exceptions to Registrability

Even if a design possesses novelty, distinctiveness, and industrial applicability, there are specific circumstances under which designs cannot obtain design patents. According to the relevant provisions of the Japanese Design Act, the following design situations will be excluded:

Designs Contrary to Public Order and Morality: Any design that violates public order or social morality cannot obtain a design patent. For example, designs involving violence, discrimination, obscenity, or insults do not meet the standards for patent protection. Even if such designs possess novelty and distinctiveness, they will still be rejected due to their negative impact on society. For instance, logos and patterns containing hate speech or illegal content do not comply with Japanese law and cannot be patented.

Functional Designs: If a design is primarily for achieving the product’s functionality rather than for aesthetic or visual effect considerations, it cannot obtain a design patent. For example, the shape of a screw designed mainly to enhance its installation performance rather than visual appeal. This type of design arises from the functional needs of the product rather than innovative aesthetics in appearance, and therefore falls outside the scope of design patent protection. Japanese design patents emphasize the aesthetic value of designs rather than the practicality of products.

Other Legal Restrictions: According to the Japanese Design Act, there are some special cases where designs may not be eligible for registration. For example, designs similar to existing national flags, national emblems, badges, or public signs cannot obtain design patents. Additionally, designs involving national security or public interest will also be excluded. These legal restrictions aim to protect national interests and social public order, ensuring that the application and use of designs do not negatively impact society.

For example, a furniture company designed a modern-style sofa with a unique streamlined design and innovative material combination that made it widely popular in the market. The company decided to apply for a design patent for this product to ensure the design would not be imitated by competitors. During the application process, the company ensured that the design had never been publicly displayed, and its distinctive appearance features and industrial applicability were fully demonstrated. Eventually, the company successfully obtained the design patent, protecting its market innovation.

However, in another similar case, a company applied for a design patent for an office chair, but the design had already been displayed at a previous exhibition, and the shape of the chair back was similar to multiple products in the market, lacking sufficient distinctiveness. Although the company attempted to modify the design and resubmit the application, it ultimately failed to obtain the patent due to prior public disclosure and insufficient distinctiveness.

Therefore, the core requirements for design patents include novelty, distinctiveness, and industrial applicability. These requirements ensure the uniqueness and innovation of the design, allowing it to obtain legal protection. However, even if a design meets these conditions, designs that violate public order, overly rely on functionality, or involve other legal restrictions still cannot be registered. By understanding these rules, applicants can better avoid risks and ensure their designs can successfully pass the design patent examination.

The Japanese design patent application system aims to encourage innovation and protect creativity. By applying for patents, designers and companies can ensure that their designs are not infringed upon by others, gaining long-term market competitive advantages.

II. Design Patent Application Process

The application process for Japanese design patents has strict procedural requirements, and applicants must follow these specified steps to ensure the application proceeds smoothly. The main steps of this process include the preparation stage, application submission, preliminary examination, and substantive examination. The requirements and considerations for each stage are very important, as any errors or omissions at any stage could lead to application failure.

2.1 Preparation Stage

The first step in applying for a design patent is to prepare all the necessary documents and materials. The preparation work at this stage is crucial, as any errors, omissions, or unclear information in the materials may lead to delays in the review process or even direct rejection of the application.

First, the applicant must prepare detailed design drawings. The drawings are the core of patent protection, as the scope of protection for design patents is based on the submitted drawings. The drawings must be comprehensive and clear, showing all angles of the product so that examiners can fully understand the appearance of the product. Typically, at least six views from different angles are required, including front view, rear view, left view, right view, top view, and bottom view. Each view must be precise, with no blurry or unclear parts, ensuring that every detail of the product’s appearance is shown. If the design is highly complex, the applicant can also add perspective views, cross-sectional views, etc., to help showcase the entire design. In general, it is recommended that applicants seek assistance from professional designers or patent agencies to draw the drawings to ensure clarity and compliance.

Secondly, the applicant needs to submit a concise and clear design description. This description must accurately describe the main features and innovations of the design and list the specific range of goods or services to which the design applies. The description should not be too lengthy but should capture the unique aspects of the design, helping examiners quickly understand the innovative value of the design. The content of this part will directly affect whether the examiner can correctly identify the uniqueness of the design, so it must be very precise. The description should include, but is not limited to, innovations in the shape, pattern, color, and their combination methods of the design. Any omission or incorrect description of the core value of the design may lead to misunderstandings about the design’s innovativeness or distinctiveness, thus affecting the approval rate of the application.

During the preparation stage, the applicant also needs to ensure compliance with all other relevant provisions of the Design Act, including providing basic information about the company, the creation time of the design, the display situation of the design, etc. If the design has been displayed at an exhibition or an application has been submitted in other countries, the applicant must ensure that the novelty of the design still meets the requirements and provide relevant supporting documents explaining the time and place of the display.

2.2 Submitting the Application

Once all preparatory work is completed, the applicant can submit a design patent application to the Japan Patent Office (JPO). When submitting the application, the applicant can choose between online submission or postal submission. Generally, online submission is the most convenient method. Through the JPO’s online patent application system, applicants can upload all application documents and pay the corresponding application fees. The advantages of online submission include obtaining an application number instantly and being able to check the progress of the application review in real-time through the system.

After submitting the application, the Patent Office will assign a unique application number to the applicant. This number serves as the identifier for the design patent application, allowing the applicant to check the status and progress of the application at any time. At this stage, applicants should pay particular attention to the accuracy of the information provided in the application form. The content of the application form includes the applicant’s name, address, contact information, design name, design drawings, and classification of goods or services. If the information in the application form is inaccurate or incomplete, it may lead to delays in the application process or even affect the final review result.

Furthermore, application fees must be paid at the time of submission. The JPO requires applicants to pay the corresponding fees when submitting their application, which include a basic application fee and additional fees for each application category. If the applicant fails to pay the fees on time, the application cannot be accepted, potentially causing delays or invalidation of the application. Therefore, applicants should ensure they understand and prepare the required application fees before submission.

Typically, the review cycle for Japanese design patents is 6 to 12 months, depending on the complexity of the application and the workload of the examiners. The duration of the review is closely related to factors such as the novelty, distinctiveness, and category selection of the design. If the design involves a high level of innovation, the review cycle may be shorter; while complex designs or applications involving multiple categories may require a longer review time.

2.3 Preliminary Examination

After submission, patent examiners will first conduct a preliminary examination of the application materials. The main purpose of the preliminary examination is to check the completeness of the application documents and whether the format complies with regulations. The examination at this stage is mainly a formal review; examiners will not evaluate the substantive content of the design but will check whether the application materials meet the basic requirements for design patent applications.

During the preliminary examination, examiners will check various aspects of the application documents, including whether the application form is filled out correctly, whether the design drawings are clear and complete, and whether the design description is accurate and clear. If the application documents do not comply with regulations or contain errors, the Patent Office will issue a notice of correction to the applicant, requiring them to supplement or modify the documents within a specified time. Usually, applicants have the opportunity to make amendments or supplements based on the correction notice to ensure that the application can smoothly enter the substantive examination stage.

It should be noted that corrections must be completed within the time limit specified by the Patent Office. If the applicant fails to make corrections within the specified time, the application may be rejected. Therefore, it is recommended that applicants respond promptly upon receiving a correction notice, ensuring that all documents and materials are submitted on time to avoid application failure due to time constraints.

Substantive Examination of Design Patents

3.1 Content of Substantive Examination

After passing the preliminary examination, the design patent application will enter the substantive examination stage. Substantive examination is the most critical step in the entire patent application process. At this stage, examiners will conduct a detailed evaluation of the actual content of the design to determine whether it complies with the various provisions of the Japanese Design Act.

The main content of substantive examination includes the assessment of novelty, distinctiveness, and industrial applicability. Examiners will evaluate the uniqueness and innovativeness of the design to determine whether it meets the conditions for a design patent application.

Novelty Examination: Novelty is one of the most important requirements in design patent applications. Examiners will check whether the applied design is entirely new and whether it has been publicly displayed before the application submission. Public disclosure can include publications, exhibitions, advertisements, online displays, etc. If the examiner discovers that the applied design has been publicly disclosed in any form, the design will lose its novelty and cannot obtain patent protection.

Distinctiveness Examination: Distinctiveness refers to whether the applied design has sufficient uniqueness to distinguish it from existing designs. Examiners will determine whether the design possesses distinctiveness at this stage. If the design is too similar to existing products, the applicant may need to provide additional evidence to prove that the design has unique innovative points. For example, an electronics company designed a new type of speaker, and although its shape was similar to existing speaker products, it ultimately obtained a design patent due to the uniqueness of its appearance pattern and color combination.

Industrial Applicability Examination: Industrial applicability means that the design must be capable of industrial production and have practical application value. If the design is too complex or cannot be produced through industrial means, the application may be rejected. Therefore, examiners will assess whether the design can be mass-produced and actually used in the commercial market.

3.2 Case Analysis: Distinctiveness of Design

Distinctiveness is a core concept in design patent applications. The following case analysis further illustrates the importance of distinctiveness in patent examination.

A home appliance company launched a new rice cooker and applied for a design patent for the product. However, during the examination process, the patent examiner found that there were multiple rice cookers on the market with appearances very similar to this design. Although the company’s design had some innovations in details, the overall shape did not significantly differ from existing designs. Therefore, the examiner ultimately determined that the design lacked sufficient distinctiveness and rejected the patent application.

To salvage the failed application, the company made design modifications, highlighting the unique color combination and material selection of the rice cooker, and provided evidence of market use to prove that the design had formed a strong brand recognition effect among consumers. Through these modifications and evidence, the examiner finally recognized the distinctiveness of the design and approved the patent application.

This case reminds applicants that when designing for a design patent, they must ensure that the design has significant innovation. Even if some designs have innovative details, if the overall appearance is similar to existing products, the application may still be rejected. Distinctiveness is reflected not only in differences in shape, color, and pattern but also in the overall visual effect and market response of the design. Therefore, when applying for a design patent, applicants should pay special attention to how distinctiveness is expressed. Firstly, every detail of the design should have a certain originality, such as the edge treatment of the product, decorative patterns, or color combinations in the details. Secondly, distinctiveness is not just about parts of the design but requires the entire design to have obvious innovation visually. Generally, if a design is similar in overall style to existing products in the market and only differs in local details, it may be difficult to pass the distinctiveness examination.

Common Error Alerts

During the process of design patent application, many applicants often make common mistakes due to lack of understanding of relevant legal provisions and application procedures, leading to delays or rejections of applications. These errors often occur in aspects such as drawing submission, description inconsistency, and novelty examination. The following will analyze these common errors in detail and provide coping suggestions to help applicants reduce errors in the design patent application process and smoothly pass the examination.

4.1 Incomplete or Unclear Drawings

Drawings are one of the most important parts of a design patent application. The scope of protection for a design patent is mainly based on the drawings submitted by the applicant, and examiners will judge whether the design has distinctiveness and novelty through the drawings. If the applicant submits incomplete or unclear drawings, it will directly affect the patent examination results. Common errors include drawings that do not comply with regulations, insufficient image resolution, and failure to provide multi-angle views.

For example, a company applied for a design patent for a new type of household appliance, but only provided a front view of the product when submitting the application, without showing views from other angles. Due to the lack of overall display of the product, the examiner could not judge the full picture of the design, leading to the rejection of the application. In such cases, even if the product has innovation in design, it may miss out on patent protection due to incomplete drawings.

To avoid such errors, applicants should ensure that the submitted drawings meet the requirements of Japanese patent law. Generally, at least front view, rear view, top view, bottom view, left view, and right view should be provided. If necessary, perspective views or exploded views can be added to ensure that all details of the design can be accurately grasped by the examiner. In addition, the resolution of the drawings should be high enough to avoid blurring. Before submission, applicants can ask professional designers or patent agencies to review the drawings to ensure their quality meets the requirements.

4.2 Description Not Complying with Legal Requirements

Another common error is that the design description in the application document is inconsistent with the drawings, or the description is not clear and detailed enough. The description part of a design patent should clearly explain the innovative points of the design, ensuring that examiners can accurately understand the unique aspects of the design. If the description is too vague or inconsistent with the drawings, examiners may misunderstand the essence of the design, thus affecting the approval of the application.

For example, a furniture manufacturer applied for a design patent for a chair, emphasizing the “innovative curve design” in the application description, but the drawings did not clearly show this part of the design, resulting in inconsistency between the description and the drawings. The examiner could not understand the innovative point of the design during the review, ultimately leading to the rejection of the application.

To avoid such errors, applicants should carefully check the description and drawings in the application documents to ensure they match each other and accurately express the innovative features of the design. The description should be as specific as possible, avoiding the use of vague language. For example, the innovative points of the design can be highlighted through descriptions of specific details such as the shape, color, and material of the design. At the same time, applicants can also explain the practical value and market application scenarios of the design in the description to enhance the persuasiveness of the design.

4.3 Inappropriate Selection of Application Category

When applying for a design patent, choosing the appropriate product or service category is equally important. If the applied design does not match the designated product or service category, the examiner may consider the design inconsistent with the actual business scope and reject the application. Correct category selection not only ensures proper protection for the design but also increases the success rate of the application.

In practice, a common error is applicants selecting inappropriate categories. For example, a home furnishing company applied for a design patent for a decorative lighting fixture but chose a category related to electronic products. This category selection error led the examiner to conclude that the design did not meet industrial applicability, ultimately resulting in the application’s rejection.

To avoid such issues, applicants should reasonably select product or service categories applicable to their design according to the Nice Classification. If the design involves multiple fields, applicants may consider cross-category applications to ensure protection across various domains. Additionally, applicants can consult professional patent agencies for advice on category selection to improve the approval rate of their applications.

4.4 Lack of Novelty

Novelty is one of the core criteria in design patent examination. If the applied design has already been publicly displayed, whether in Japan or other countries, the design will lose its novelty and cannot obtain patent protection. Many applicants overlook the novelty requirement when submitting design patent applications, resulting in designs too similar to existing market products and ultimately leading to rejection.

For instance, an electronics company applied for a design patent for their newly designed phone case, but the examiner found several visually similar phone cases in the market. The examiner concluded that the design lacked novelty and rejected the application. The company failed to conduct a thorough design search before submitting the application, resulting in insufficient novelty and losing the opportunity for patent protection.

To avoid novelty issues, applicants should conduct comprehensive market research and design searches before submitting patent applications to ensure the design has sufficient originality in the market. If the design has already been publicly displayed or used, applicants need to submit the patent application within the specified time after disclosure to maintain novelty.

4.5 Overlooking the Risks of Public Disclosure

According to Article 13 of the Japanese Design Act, once a design is publicly displayed, the applicant must submit an application within a certain period. If the applicant fails to submit the application within the specified time limit, the design will be considered public and lose its novelty. This regulation is often overlooked by companies, especially after publicly displaying designs at international exhibitions or trade shows, leading to missed opportunities for design protection due to failure to apply for patents in time.

For example, a furniture company showcased its latest office desk and chair designs at an international exhibition but failed to submit a design patent application within six months after the exhibition. As a result, the design was considered public and ultimately could not obtain patent protection. The company missed the critical time point for protecting its design, leading to imitation by competitors in the market and loss of competitive advantage.

To avoid this error, companies should prioritize submitting patent applications before deciding to publicly display designs, or submit applications within the specified period after display to ensure patent protection for the designs. Applicants can ensure the timeliness of patent applications through internal patent management systems or by collaborating with patent agencies to avoid losing novelty due to timing issues.

Analysis of Design Patent Cases

In design patent applications, successful and failed cases can provide valuable experience and lessons for applicants. The following section will analyze key issues and solutions in design patent applications through several real cases, helping applicants better understand and address potential challenges in the application process.

5.1 Case Study One: Household Appliance Design Patent Application

An appliance company developed a new coffee machine with a market-attractive appearance, particularly impressing consumers with its streamlined body and unique color combination. The company decided to apply for a design patent for this coffee machine. When submitting the application, the company provided complete multi-view drawings, including front, rear, left, right, top, and bottom views, showcasing the product’s overall appearance. To ensure the design’s distinctiveness, the company also detailed the design’s innovative points, especially how the combination of color and material distinguished it from existing coffee machines in the market.

During the novelty examination, the examiner found that there were already several coffee machines in the market with shapes similar to the company’s design. However, the company’s design had innovative elements in color and material, which added distinctiveness to its design. Eventually, the examiner determined that the design had sufficient distinctiveness and novelty, approving the patent application.

This case demonstrates that even if a design may have some similarities in shape to existing products, it can still obtain a design patent if it can demonstrate originality in color, material, or detail design. For applicants, when submitting applications, they should highlight the unique aspects of the design as much as possible to ensure its distinctiveness meets the requirements of patent examination.

Key points of case analysis:

Product category: Household appliance (coffee machine)

Key issue: Design similar in shape to existing products

Solution: Demonstrating design uniqueness through color and material innovation

Final result: Successfully obtained design patent

5.2 Case Study Two: Failed Furniture Design Patent Application

A furniture manufacturer applied for a design patent for an office chair design, but during the examination process, the examiner found that the design had almost no significant differences from several office chairs already on the market. Although the company provided multi-view drawings and design descriptions, the examiner considered the overall shape and structure of the chair too similar to existing products, failing to demonstrate sufficient distinctiveness. The company subsequently submitted market usage evidence, attempting to prove that its design had formed brand recognition in the market, but the examiner still deemed the design lacking in distinctiveness and ultimately rejected the patent application.

This case reminds applicants that distinctiveness is a core criterion in design patent applications. If a design is too similar to existing products, especially with no significant differences in shape and structure, the application will face a high risk of rejection. Even if a company tries to prove the uniqueness of the design through market evidence, it is difficult to compensate for the lack of distinctiveness. Therefore, applicants should pay particular attention to the unique aspects of their design during the design process, ensuring it can form a clear distinction from existing products in the market.

Key points of case analysis:

Product category: Furniture (office chair)

Key issue: Design similar to existing products, lacking distinctiveness

Solution: Attempted to prove design uniqueness through market usage evidence, but unsuccessful

Final result: Patent application rejected

5.3 Case Study Three: Protection of Electronic Product Design

An electronic product company designed a new phone case with a futuristic appearance, including unique geometric patterns and texture designs. When submitting the design patent application, the company provided complete drawings, ensuring every detail of the design was fully displayed. Although the phone case design was functionally similar to existing products in the market, its appearance design had significant innovation in patterns and textures, with no similar products in the market.

During the substantive examination process, the examiner conducted a detailed evaluation of the design, confirming that it met the standards for patent protection in terms of novelty and distinctiveness. Due to the clear drawings and comprehensive display of details, the company ultimately successfully obtained the design patent.

This case demonstrates the importance of submitting complete drawings. By providing comprehensive views, the applicant ensured that every part of the design received effective protection, and by showcasing the innovativeness of design details, the applicant successfully obtained patent protection. For electronic product designs, unique pattern and texture designs can effectively enhance the distinctiveness of the design, helping companies gain competitive advantages in the market.

Key points of case analysis:

Product category: Electronic product (phone case)

Key issue: How to ensure design distinctiveness and novelty

Solution: Demonstrating distinctiveness through innovative pattern and texture design

Final result: Successfully obtained design patent

5.4 Case Study Four: Home Decoration Design Patent Application

A home decoration company designed a new lighting fixture with a unique shape and innovative material application, bringing a new design concept to the market. When applying for a design patent for the lighting fixture, the company submitted multi-view drawings and detailed descriptions of the innovative aspects of the fixture’s shape, material, and color. During the examination process, the examiner noticed that there were already several lighting products with similar shapes in the market, but due to the company’s design using a unique combination of materials, it had distinctiveness in the market.

Furthermore, the company provided evidence of production processes and industrial applicability, demonstrating that the design was not only aesthetically pleasing but also capable of industrial production. Eventually, the examiner determined that the design met the requirements for distinctiveness and industrial applicability, approving the patent application.

Key points of case analysis:

Product category: Home decoration (lighting fixture)

Key issue: How to demonstrate distinctiveness in a market with similar shapes

Solution: Enhancing distinctiveness through material innovation and proving industrial applicability

Final result: Successfully obtained design patent

5.5 Case Study Five: Challenges and Success in Vehicle Design Patent

An automobile manufacturer designed the appearance of a new electric vehicle, with its streamlined body and futuristic design making it highly attractive in the market. The company decided to apply for a design patent for this electric vehicle. When submitting the application, the company provided views of the vehicle body from various angles, detailing the body line design and unique lighting layout. Although the basic structure of the vehicle was similar to existing electric vehicles in the market, in terms of appearance design, the vehicle adopted a completely new front face design and unique profile, giving it sufficient distinctiveness in the eyes of the examiner.

However, the examiner raised questions about novelty, believing that the design might have been displayed at some international exhibitions. In response, the company provided specific timing evidence of the exhibition, stating that the application was submitted within six months after the exhibition display, complying with the novelty protection period stipulated by the Japanese Design Act. Eventually, the examiner approved the patent application.

Key points of case analysis:

Product category: Vehicle (electric car)

Key issue: How to ensure novelty and distinctiveness

Solution: Ensuring the design meets patent standards through unique design and novelty evidence

Final result: Successfully obtained design patent

Through the analysis of these design patent application cases, it can be seen that distinctiveness, novelty, and industrial applicability are key criteria in the examination of design patent applications. Applicants should fully consider these factors during the design stage and provide detailed drawings and design descriptions when submitting applications. Additionally, market usage evidence and proof of production processes are important means to enhance the approval rate of applications. By avoiding common errors and focusing on design details, applicants can effectively improve the success rate of design patent applications.

Conclusion

Design patents play a crucial role in protecting the aesthetic innovation of products, helping enterprises maintain a leading position in market competition. The Japanese design patent application process is strict and complex, requiring applicants to follow relevant laws and regulations during the preparation stage, application submission, and examination process to ensure the novelty, distinctiveness, and industrial applicability of the design.

Through this article’s detailed analysis of design patent application requirements, processes, and common errors, applicants can better understand the application process for design patents and avoid common mistakes in applications. At the same time, through the analysis of successful and failed cases, applicants can learn from experiences and lessons to improve the approval rate of applications. In conclusion, design patents are not only a legal means to protect design innovation but also an important way for enterprises to protect market share and establish brand influence.