Israeli design protection has a historical feature that foreign companies and international design counsel should understand: rights created under the former Patents and Designs Ordinance coexist with rights governed by the Designs Law, 5777-2017, which came into force on August 7, 2018. As a result, an Israeli dispute involving an older registered design may be governed by a different statutory framework from a dispute involving a later design application.
The distinction is not merely one of terminology. It can influence the applicable infringement test, duration and statutory regime. It also matters when reviewing a portfolio acquired from an Israeli company, considering a cease-and-desist letter based on an older registration, or determining which law governs the enforcement of rights in a product design.
Why Are There Two Design Protection Regimes in Israel?
Protection of the visual appearance of industrial products was historically regulated by the designs provisions of the Patents and Designs Ordinance, legislation originating in the British Mandate period in 1924. This framework required registration for the principal design right it established.
Following changes in product development, commerce and international design practice, Israel adopted the Designs Law, 5777-2017. After a legislative process culminating in 2017, the new law entered into force on August 7, 2018. It introduced a modern framework for registered designs and a distinct form of protection for qualifying unregistered designs.
The new law did not simply erase existing registered designs governed by the former legislation. Transitional provisions preserve the application of the older regime to rights falling within its scope. That is why legacy designs can still appear in Israeli litigation and Registry practice.
What Is Protected by Israeli Design Law?
Design rights concern the visual appearance of products rather than a technical invention. Protection can relate to shape, configuration, patterns, ornamentation, color and relevant combinations of visual features, subject to the law applicable to the design and the specific statutory requirements.
A design is therefore distinct from a patent, which addresses technical inventions, and from a trademark, which identifies the commercial origin of goods or services. The same commercial product may implicate more than one kind of intellectual property, but those rights are assessed separately.
Visual appearance dictated solely by a technical function can raise important exclusions or validity issues. Foreign counsel should distinguish a product’s aesthetic elements from the particular mechanical or functional solution embodied in it.
Legacy Registered Designs Under the Patents and Designs Ordinance
In disputes concerning registrations governed by the former Ordinance, the court must apply the relevant legacy provisions and the case law interpreting them. Section 37 of the Ordinance addressed unauthorized commercial application of a registered design or a fraudulent or obvious imitation to articles within the relevant goods class, and specified related dealing in goods bearing such designs.
In Mifromal Jerusalem Industries Ltd. v. Klil Industries Ltd., Civil Appeal 7125/98, Justice Eliezer Rivlin explained the nature of the exclusive commercial protection granted to the registered design’s visual form. The judgment illustrates why the comparison concerns the legally protected appearance rather than mere use of an abstract idea embodied in a product.
When considering older rights, the registration date, relevant article classification, images contained in the certificate, term and procedural history should be checked. The fact that an owner calls its right a “design” does not determine which statute actually governs it.
The Designs Law, 5777-2017: Registered and Unregistered Protection
The modern law introduced a framework for registered designs and also provides a limited right in qualifying unregistered designs. Unregistered protection can matter where a qualifying design has been disclosed in Israel but no registration was obtained, subject to the law’s requirements and limitations.
The remedies, protection period and infringement standard applicable to an unregistered design are not the same as those applicable to a registered design. Registration may therefore remain strategically important even though the law supplies a separate, more limited unregistered regime.
For the specific conditions and remedies, see Unregistered Design Infringement in Israel and Design Infringement Lawsuits in Israel.
Why the Historical Distinction Matters in Infringement Proceedings
The infringement analysis must start by identifying the right actually asserted. An older registration governed by the Ordinance may call for the legacy test relating to fraudulent or obvious imitation. A registered design under the 2017 law must be examined through that law’s specific provisions. An unregistered design raises additional questions relating to eligibility and the conditions of protection.
In all cases the visual representations and the accused product matter, but the relevant statutory vocabulary and legal tests should not be mixed indiscriminately. A claim that different designs should be compared solely using the law currently applicable to newly filed designs may be inaccurate in proceedings about legacy registrations.
International Design Filing and Israeli Territorial Protection
Foreign companies seeking new protection in Israel should work within the modern statutory and procedural framework. Depending on eligibility and filing strategy, they can use direct national filing before the Israel Patent Office or designate Israel in an international design application under the Hague System.
These routes concern how protection is sought. They do not change the need to satisfy Israeli substantive requirements. For a comparison of costs, priority, examination and publication, see Hague Designation of Israel versus Direct National Filing.
Practical Checks for a Foreign Portfolio Owner
A foreign owner reviewing Israeli design rights should examine the filing and registration dates, design images, proprietor’s title, the applicable law, status and renewal history. If an infringement dispute is contemplated, the alleged product should be compared carefully with the visual representations of the actual registered design or qualifying unregistered design.
Israeli design law gives the owner the right to prevent specific unauthorized conduct, rather than a general right to prohibit all products serving the same function. The design system seeks to protect genuine visual innovation without unduly preventing competition or follow-on development.
The historical and statutory distinction is discussed in Yonatan Drori and Yotam Wirz’anski-Orland, Designs and Industrial Designs Law (Perlstein Ginosar, 2019), p. 5, and remains relevant to evaluating older Israeli rights. For current registration assistance, see Design Registration and Prosecution in Israel.
