Article 4(1) of the Principal Regulation explains that a design Âshall be protected Â to the extent that it is new and has individual characterÂ.
The word ÂdesignÂ is defined in article 3(a) as Âthe appearance of the whole or a part of a product resulting from the features of, in particular, the lines, contours, colours, shape, texture and/or materials of the product itself and/or its ornamentationÂ.
Article 6 explains that a design has individual character Âif the overall impression it produces on the informed user differs from the overall impression produced on such a user by any design which has been made available to the public.Â
Article 10(1) states that Â[t]he scope of the protection Â shall include any design which does not produce on the informed user a different overall impression.Â
Article 10(2) states that, when Âassessing the scope of protectionÂ, Âthe degree of freedom of the designer in developing his designÂ is to be Âtaken into considerationÂ.
Recital (14) of the Regulation mentions that Âa design has individual characterÂ if Âthe overall impression produced on an informed user viewing the design clearly differs from that produced on him by the existing design corpus, taking into consideration the nature of the product to which the design is applied Â .Â
Recital (24) states that it is Âa fundamental objectiveÂ that the procedure for registering a design Âshould present the minimum cost and difficulty to applicantsÂ.
The most important things in a case about registered designs are the registered design, the accused object and the prior art, and the most important thing about each of these is what they look like.
Jacon J said in Procter & Gamble Co v Reckitt Benckiser (UK) LtdÂ  FSR 8Â Â [t]he point of protecting a design is to protect that designÂ as a design. So what matters is the overall impression created by it: will the user buy it, consider it or appreciate itÂ for its individual design?Â