Authored By: Reem Adnan Albar
Introduction:
In 2025, as reported by the Saudi Authority for Intellectual Property, there are 42596 annual registrations for Trademark Protection, while only 1299 registrations are made each year for Design Protection, whether by companies or individuals. This leaves a significant gap of 41297 per year for those who have not applied for Design Protection registration.[1]
Given that the number of design applicants is quite small compared to the actual number of designers in the country, encouraging more designers to file for their design rights is important. This is a considerable issue; raising awareness about the importance of protecting their designs could motivate more designers to register their work.
Whether someone holds a trademark, patent, or design protection certificate, actually registering a design can make a real difference for the designer. For instance, if designer (X) creates a piece of furniture, like a sofa, and later another company (Y) makes the same item with identical features but registers the design rights, company (Y) becomes the rights holder. Since the design sells well, designer (X) faces a problem: he cannot produce the furniture again unless he gets permission from company (Y). What matters is not who created the design first, but who applied for protection.
The outcome of not protecting their designs is frustrating, as another real example from Saudi Arabia involves a bottled water company that designed a bottle and used a name identical to a food company that had been in business for over 30 years. This caused confusion among customers. The bottled water company registered the design protection first; if the food company had acted sooner, it would have been the rights holder. This decision forced the food company to reduce its number of branches and close most of them.
This article argues the absence of a sold fundamental for industrial design protection, as shown above by the imbalance between trademark registration and design registration, the vagueness exposed in case law, and the barriers faced by individual designers. It contends that while the Riyadh Design Law Treaty offers a promising solution, its success depends on robust enforcement, public awareness, and structural reforms that address the practical and financial obstacles to registration. By examining case law and comparing the approaches of South Korea and the United Kingdom, this article will demonstrate that Saudi Arabia must do more than pass new laws—it must fundamentally change how designers understand and access protection.
Legal Framework:
According to the “Law of Patents, Layout Designs of Integrated Circuits, Plant Varieties, and Industrial Designs” issued by Royal Decree No. M/ 27, industrial designs are protected, whether they are 2-dimensional or 3-dimensional. This includes, for example, fashion designs, graphic designs, jewellery designs, and furniture designs, and the protection lasts for 15 years with a certificate.[2]
Currently, this law is the only active one in Saudi Arabia. However, Saudi Arabia is also a party to the international “Hague Agreement: Geneva for Industrial Designs 1999”.
For some positive developments, the government has introduced the “Riyadh Design Treaty Law”, which was issued in the last months of 2024. This law contains 34 articles and 18 regulations, aiming to make design protection easier and less expensive, and allowing designers to protect their designs both locally and internationally.[3]
Case Law Analysis:
In case 850, the plaintiff owned a certified design for hot containers for chocolates in Saudi Arabia and sued the defendant for violating the law and sought compensation for using his containers for commercial purposes. The defendant argued in court that he had proof of importing the containers from another country before the plaintiff registered the design. As a result, the committee rejected the plaintiff’s claim because one of the registration conditions was not met: the product was not new.[4]
Although the defendant had evidence of using the containers before the plaintiff applied for registration and received certification, the law remains unclear. It allows a designer to have protection within the country, but if another company or trader imports the same product from abroad, it creates confusion for the designer. At the time of registration, the authority did not verify whether the design was new, so it is unclear how the design was accepted even though similar products were being imported.
To address this issue, the Authority should consider, when someone or a company applies for design protection, whether the design is already registered or even in use without registration in the country. This would help confirm the newness of the design, rather than only checking for admission requirements. In the future, if this case were argued with similar situations, it would be solved and manageable from the very start because the design gets protected locally and internationally according to the Riyadh Design Treaty law.
Comparative Perspectives:
In South Korea, there is a separate regulation for designs called the “Design Protection Act”. This law is very detailed. While Korean law allows multiple designs to be registered in one application under the same category, Saudi law only permits one design per application, even though applicants are asked to submit seven designs and only one is selected for protection.[5]
To register a design in Korea, an application must be filed with the Korean Intellectual Property Office. The application should include information about the applicant, the design, the product category, and whether it is an independent or related design. A drawing or photograph of the design is required, and multiple designs can be included in a single application if they are in the same product category.
In Korea, design rights are granted upon registration and last for 20 years from the filing date. The owner has exclusive rights to the design, but these are limited by prior rights and exceptions for research, transit, and existing designs. Design rights can be transferred, licensed, or pledged, but these actions must be registered and may need co-owner consent.
The Hague Agreement allows international design registration applications to be filed through the Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO). Applicants must meet certain requirements, such as being a Korean national, resident, or having an address in Korea. The process involves submitting a written application, necessary documents, and transmittal fees to KIPO, which then forwards the application to the International Bureau.
The United Kingdom has a different approach to design protection: if a design is registered, it is protected for 25 years, with renewals every 5 years. Even if a design is not registered, it still has protection rights for up to 15 years against direct copying.
This highlights a possible reason why designers in Saudi Arabia are not registering: they may not have the time, many are individuals who cannot afford the cost of protection, or their designs are trendy and may soon become outdated. As a result, waiting for a certificate and becoming a rights holder may not seem worthwhile. This situation should prompt the Saudi Authority for Intellectual Property to reconsider its regulations and possibly develop a design law that offers protection certificates for a shorter term.
Regarding registration, the UK has also faced challenges, as small businesses often do not register for design protection. Many rely on unregistered protection, and they may lack the time or resources to complete the registration process.[6]
Conclusion:
This article has examined the significant gap between trademark and design registrations in Saudi Arabia—42,596 versus 1,299 annually—and argued that this disparity reflects fundamental weaknesses in the Kingdom’s industrial design protection framework. The current legal system, governed by Royal Decree No. M/27, has proven inadequate: its vague requirement of “newness” led to conflicting outcomes in Case 850, its procedures are burdensome and costly for individual designers, and its failure to verify whether designs are already in use or imported undermines the value of issued certificates. The real-world consequences are severe, as illustrated by the bottled water company case, where a thirty-year-old food business was forced to close branches due to a competitor’s prior registration. While the newly adopted Riyadh Design Law Treaty represents a promising step toward reform, its success depends on effective implementation. Comparative analysis of South Korea and the United Kingdom reveals that robust design protection requires accessible procedures, shorter-term options for fast-moving industries, and pragmatic alternatives like unregistered rights.
This research sought to determine why Saudi designers fail to register and whether the legal framework adequately addresses their needs. The findings reveal that the primary barriers are procedural complexity, financial cost, limited awareness, and legal uncertainty. Designers do not register because they cannot afford the fees, lack time to navigate bureaucracy, or mistrust a system that issued protection in Case 850 only to have it rendered meaningless by prior importation. While the Riyadh Treaty addresses some barriers by simplifying procedures and reducing costs, it does not solve all of them. It does not address unregistered protection for short-lived designs nor clarify enforcement mechanisms. Therefore, Saudi designers are deterred by practical, financial, and legal obstacles that the current framework has not yet fully resolved.
These findings carry significant implications. For designers, creative work is vulnerable unless registered promptly—being first to create is irrelevant; only the first to register holds rights. For businesses, failure to secure protection can result in lost market share and even forced closure. For the Saudi Authority for Intellectual Property, the findings highlight the need to improve examination procedures and educate the design community. For the broader economy, weak protection may stifle innovation and undermine Vision 2030 goals.
Based on this analysis, several recommendations are proposed. The Authority must implement the Riyadh Treaty effectively by developing clear guidelines, training examiners, and establishing accessible electronic filing. It must verify “newness” at application by searching both registered designs and existing products, including imports, to prevent situations like Case 850. Introducing tiered fees would make registration accessible to individuals and small businesses. The Authority should consider introducing an unregistered design right similar to the UK model, offering shorter-term protection for designs with short commercial lifespans. Policymakers should review the 15-year term and consider shorter, affordable options. Allowing multiple designs in a single application, following South Korea’s model, would reduce costs. Establishing specialized intellectual property courts would ensure enforcement is swift and accessible.
Industrial design is a driver of economic growth and cultural identity. As Saudi Arabia transforms under Vision 2030, protecting designers’ intellectual property must be a national priority. The Riyadh Design Law Treaty is a historic step forward, but its impact will be measured by implementation, not passage. Without concerted efforts to educate, reduce barriers, and enforce rights effectively, the gap between trademark and design registrations will persist, and Saudi designers will continue to lose their rights to those simply faster at completing paperwork. The Kingdom has taken the first step—now it must complete the journey.
Reference(S):
- Designs overview (2026) Saudi Authority for Intellectual Property. Available at: https://www.saip.gov.sa/en/services/designs.
- ‘Intellectual Property Laws and Regulations in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’ (2022). Riyadh: Saudi Authority for Intellectual Property.
- Summary of the Riyadh Design Law Treaty (2024) (no date) treaties. Available at: https:www.wipo.int/en/web/treaties/ip/rdlt/summary_rdlt.
- Daudpota, F. (2025) Saudi Arabia: Recent Jurisprudence on Patents and Industrial Design Rights, papers.ssrn.com. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5477166.
- Design Protection Act (2020a) Ministry of Intellectual Property Trademarks & Designs > Laws & Regulations. Available at: https://www.kipo.go.kr/en/HtmlApp?c=93007&catmenu=ek04_05_01.
- Macdonald, Mrs.D. (2012) Safeguarding design assets: A UK perspective, WIPO. Available at: https://www.wipo.int/en/web/wipo-magazine/articles/safeguarding-design-assets-a-uk-perspective-38001.
[1] Designs overview (2026) Saudi Authority for Intellectual Property. Available at: https://www.saip.gov.sa/en/services/designs.
[2] ‘Intellectual Property Laws and Regulations in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’ (2022). Riyadh: Saudi Authority for Intellectual Property .
[3] Summary of the Riyadh Design Law Treaty (2024) (no date) treaties. Available at: https:www.wipo.int/en/web/treaties/ip/rdlt/summary_rdlt.
[4] Daudpota, F. (2025) Saudi Arabia: Recent Jurisprudence on Patents and Industrial Design Rights, papers.ssrn.com. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5477166.
[5] Design Protection Act (2020a) Ministry of Intellectual Property Trademarks & Designs > Laws & Regulations. Available at: https://www.kipo.go.kr/en/HtmlApp?c=93007&catmenu=ek04_05_01.
[6] Macdonald, Mrs.D. (2012) Safeguarding design assets: A UK perspective, WIPO. Available at: https://www.wipo.int/en/web/wipo-magazine/articles/safeguarding-design-assets-a-uk-perspective-38001.
