Design Protection in Israel: A Discussion on the Boundaries of Protection

The question of the scope of protection in these contexts arises from time to time, whether at the stage of developing a design protection strategy, or at more advanced stages, such as responding to examination reports issued by the Israel Patent Office or defending a registered design in infringement proceedings.

In this article, I analyze the approach taken by legislation and case law regarding the boundaries of design protection in Israel, with the aim of establishing a clearer framework for this issue.

What Does the Designs Law Say?

The Israeli Designs Law stipulates in Section 3 that a design must be “new” and possess “individual character” in order to be registered. Section 6 of the Law explains that a design will be considered new if, prior to the “relevant date,” the design has not been made available to the public in Israel or abroad. This rule applies to an identical design or to a design that differs from it only in immaterial details.

The issue of individual character is defined in Section 7 of the Law, which provides that a design must possess “individual character” in order to be registered. A design will be considered to possess individual character if the overall impression it produces on the informed user differs from the overall impression produced by another design that was made available to the public before the relevant date. For this purpose, designs relating to all types of products will be taken into consideration.

For the sake of clarity, I will briefly explain that the “relevant date” is the earliest date on which the first application for protection of a design was filed, in Israel or abroad, subject to the conditions set forth in the Law. With respect to a design for which no application for design registration has been filed, but which meets the statutory requirements for protection as an unregistered design, the “relevant date” will be the date on which the design owner, or a person acting on their behalf, first made the design available to the public in Israel (where eligibility for protection as an unregistered design under the Law is subject to several additional conditions that will not be discussed herein).

Furthermore, designs in Israel (as well as internationally) are registered in relation to specific classes and subclasses established under the Locarno Agreement, which includes approximately 32 classes (31 of which have been adopted in Israel). For example, Class 6 relates to furniture, with Subclass 06-02 covering beds. Another example is Class 8, which relates to tools and hardware, with Subclass 08-02 covering hammers and similar tools and instruments, and so forth.

The purpose of defining these classes is to provide a list of products that links each design to a particular product category and to the specific product for which protection is granted.

The Boundaries of Design Protection in Case Law

This introduction is important for understanding the following review concerning the boundaries of protection, which were recently addressed in various Registrar’s decisions, and which provide insight into the manner in which designs are protected in Israel.

In this article, I will focus on the Registrar’s decision dated February 23, 2026, issued by Dr. Roya Israeli, an Intellectual Property adjudicator, concerning Design Applications Nos. 72243 and 72241. The decision extensively discussed the issues of novelty and individual character. In addition, the issue of the scope of protection in relation to the classes in which the designs were registered was also raised.

I do not intend to address the specific decision rendered in relation to these designs, but rather to focus solely on the fundamental issues arising from it.

Novelty and Individual Character of a Design

Design registration is intended to provide creators with protection for a new appearance of a product. The purpose of such protection is to promote both private and public interest in the development of new and original designs, where the appearance of the product is what attracts the consumer’s attention.

The law effectively grants the designer or product owner protection for a limited period of time by providing an exclusive right to use the design, provided that the design is new and possesses individual character. During this period, no third party may copy the design (In Israel, under the new legislation, protection extends for a period of up to 25 years from the filing date, assuming that the design is registered and renewed).

Novelty

Accordingly, the first question that must be examined is: when will a design be considered novel under case law?

The answer is that the novelty test under the Israeli design law is conducted by comparing the design with prior designs (which were made available to the public before the relevant date). This is an objective and technical test, which examines whether an identical or similar design existed prior thereto. In other words, a design will lack novelty where it differs from a prior design only in non-material details and where the prior design has already been disclosed to the public.

In this regard, the law itself is silent as to the manner in which novelty should be assessed. However, according to the legislative explanatory notes, as cited in the decision, novelty is examined in relation to all types of products and is not limited solely to the type of product for which the design application was filed.

Furthermore, the Israel Patent Authority’s examination guidelines provide that non-material features include, for example, minor changes in shades of color, details that are difficult to perceive, such as a small modification to the cap of a pen, and similar variations. These features will be assessed according to the nature of the product and the design.

Conversely, determination of what constitutes a material feature depends on the type of product and the relevant field and may vary when comparing different products.

 Individual Character

With respect to the requirement of “individual character”, the decision determined that, unlike the novelty requirement, the individual character requirement examines the overall impression produced by the design rather than the individual differences between the designs. Here too, designs relating to all types of products are taken into account, and not only designs relating to the specific product for which registration is sought. In practice, the Patent Office examines whether, from the perspective of the informed user (a person interested in the product and familiar with the range of designs existing in the relevant field), there are identical designs or designs that differ only in immaterial details from the design for which protection is sought. If such designs are found to exist, they negate the individual character of the design and prevent it from being registered.

Where, then, does the difficulty arise? On the one hand, the informed user (the potential consumer) is expected to assess whether identical designs, or designs that do not differ from the design in material details, exist in relation to products with which they are familiar in the relevant field. On the other hand, the law expressly provides that the examination of individual character must be conducted in relation to products of all types. For example, a person familiar with products in the field of weapons, and with the shapes of various weapons in that field (Class 22-01) and their designs, will not necessarily be familiar with designs of toy weapons (Class 21-01). Nevertheless, it is possible that a toy in the shape of a weapon, or one producing the same overall impression, already existed and was previously disclosed in the toy field, thereby negating the individual character of the actual weapon, or vice versa.

The said case law addresses this issue and clarifies that, although there is a certain tension with regard to the “informed user” test, since such user may not be familiar with products from other fields, from the perspective of the purpose of design law, which seeks to protect only designs that are unique and were not previously known to the public domain, there is an obligation to also consider designs from other fields.

This is where the boundaries of protection become apparent. In practice, the protection obtained, if the design is registered, is granted for the particular product category for which the design was registered. However, when examining individual character, designs from all types of products are considered. Accordingly, the rights of the design owner and the ability to enforce protection are narrower than the manner in which the design’s eligibility for registration is examined.

Registration of a Simple Geometric Shape

Another issue addressed in the decision concerned the ability to register a design where its shape is extremely basic. The question examined was whether protection for a simple geometric shape may be obtained for a design, even where such shape is not necessarily customary in the relevant field.

In this context, it was stated that where the shape of the design is extremely basic, an examination against other products in different product categories will result in a finding that the design lacks novelty. The reason is that simple geometric shapes must remain within the public domain, and it should not be possible for a simple geometric shape of a product, such as a rectangle or square, to restrict others from using similar designs for products of the same category or other categories. This is due to the examination approach, which requires novelty and individual character to be assessed in relation to all types of products.

For example, in the decisions concerning Design Applications Nos. 72243 and 72241, which are relevant to this discussion, the designs concerned surfaces intended to carry an active substance for medical use, having simple geometric rectangular structures. It was determined that such shape is used across various fields and product categories and therefore lacks novelty.

Conclusions

The conclusion arising from the above is that, in order to obtain design protection in Israel, it must be taken into account that the threshold for design registration is broader and the examination process is more comprehensive than the scope of protection and the ability to enforce rights in the event of infringement.

Nevertheless, design law ensures that a design will be registered only if it is found to possess individual character in view of all types of designs and products. In this manner, the Patent Office effectively performs an initial examination function, thereby preventing the registration of identical designs, or designs differing only in immaterial details, even where registration is sought under a different product category from a design that was previously disclosed or registered.

It should further be noted that, if an identical design to an existing or registered design is registered, or a design that differs from it only in immaterial details, it may be possible to seek cancellation of the design registration under the law, on the grounds that the design was not eligible for protection in the first place.

* Erin Sherf is an attorney at law and leads the Trademarks and Designs Practice at Cohn, de Vries, Stadler & Co. (Herzog Patents).

The information provided above does not constitute legal advice or a substitute for legal advice, and all information contained in this article is provided for general informational purposes only. Nothing contained herein should be regarded as a replacement for advice provided by a qualified attorney, and readers should seek the advice of legal counsel specializing in the relevant field before taking any legal action of any kind. Any person relying on the information provided above in any manner does so solely at their own risk, and any responsibility for any direct or indirect consequences arising from such reliance shall rest exclusively with the user.