I. Background

On May 5, 2022, the Hague Agreement officially came into effect in China. This development enables applicants to designate multiple member countries, including China, through a single application under the Hague International Registration System, as an alternative to filing directly with the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) under the Paris Convention.

As enterprises increasingly pursue global market strategies, choosing the most suitable route for design patent applications in China has become a critical decision.

From a procedural perspective, the Hague Agreement emphasizes centralized filing, uniformity, and cost efficiency. On the other hand, the Paris Convention route, involving direct filings with CNIPA, focuses on tailoring applications to meet China’s localized examination standards. Given the highly localized nature of design patent examination in China, the practical implications of these two routes differ significantly.

This article compares the advantages and risks of these two routes in the context of China’s examination practices and provides strategic recommendations for applicants.

II. Advantages of Designating China via the Hague Agreement

From the perspective of WIPO’s official positioning, the Hague Agreement offers several clear advantages:

1. Centralized Procedures

Applicants can avoid filing separate applications with individual national offices. Instead, they can submit a single application through the Hague System, using a unified language and fee structure, enabling simultaneous filings in multiple countries.

2. Time and Cost Efficiency

For applicants seeking protection in five or more countries, the Hague route significantly reduces initial administrative costs. This is particularly suitable for simple design schemes involving multiple jurisdictions.

On a macro level, the Hague Agreement provides a certain level of appeal for "internationalized design portfolios."

III.Practical Risks and Disadvantages of the Hague Route in China

Despite its procedural convenience, the Hague route often reveals significant disadvantages during the Chinese examination phase due to local examination guidelines and strict formal requirements. The primary risks include:

1. Strict Requirements for Drawings

For three-dimensional products, applicants must submit seven orthographic views (front, rear, left, right, top, bottom, and at least one perspective view). Additionally, shadow lines and broken lines are not permitted in China’s design patent drawings. For graphical user interfaces (GUIs) and two-dimensional designs, there are also minimum requirements for the number of views.

Drawings submitted under the Hague Agreement are often prepared for "multi-country compatibility" and may not fully comply with China’s specific drawing standards.

2. Detailed Requirements for Brief Descriptions

In China, a design application must include a "Brief Description" that goes beyond the title and purpose of the design. It must clearly specify:

• The design’s key features;
• Whether the key features pertain to shape, pattern, color, or their combination;
• For GUI designs, the interaction method with the user.

These details are often overlooked in Hague applications, where the descriptions tend to be more generalized, leading to deficiencies under China’s examination standards.

3. Strict Examination of Multiple Designs (Unity Requirement)

China allows multiple designs in a single application only under the following circumstances:

• Similar designs;
• Designs forming a set of products;
• Component designs of an assembled product.

CNIPA applies strict standards when examining unity. Hague applications, which often bundle multiple designs, frequently encounter unity rejections, requiring deletions, divisional applications, or even outright refusals.

4. Limited Scope for Amendments, Leading to Final Rejections

China has stringent rules regarding amendments that exceed the original disclosure. If a Hague application designating China lacks necessary views, fails to meet requirements, or improperly expresses partial designs, it is difficult to remedy these issues during the examination phase. Supplemental drawings or modifications often result in rejections due to exceeding the original disclosure, with some cases even leading to final refusals.

5. Special Requirements for Partial Designs with High Uncertainty

China imposes specific requirements for partial designs, which are difficult to fully align with Hague-standard documentation. For example:

• The title must specify the protected part;
• Views must use solid and broken lines to distinguish protected and unprotected areas;
• The brief description must explain both the overall product’s purpose and the partial design’s purpose;
• Partial designs must form a "closed unit" and cannot solely protect patterns or colors.

6. Increased Office Actions (OAs) and Prolonged Examination Timelines

The highly localized and detailed examination standards in China often conflict with Hague Agreement filings, leading to frequent Office Actions (OAs). Given the limited scope for amendments, cases often require multiple rounds of examination, significantly extending the overall examination and grant timeline.

IV. Advantages of Direct Filing in China via the Paris Convention

Compared to the Hague route, the Paris Convention direct filing route offers several distinct advantages:

1. Tailored Applications to Meet Chinese Standards: Direct filing allows applicants to prepare application documents fully aligned with China’s Patent Law and Examination Guidelines from the outset. This includes the number of views, drawing styles, the use of broken lines, and the description of design features, minimizing formal deficiencies.

2. Flexible Strategies for Multiple Designs: For applications involving multiple designs, the direct filing route enables greater flexibility in structuring applications to meet China’s standards for similar designs, sets of products, or assembled products, avoiding unity issues.

3. Higher Grant Stability: Preparing compliant documents from the beginning enhances the predictability and stability of the grant process, which is particularly important for subsequent commercial use and enforcement.

4. Faster Grant Timelines: Direct filing typically results in fewer Office Actions (OAs), shorter examination periods, and faster grants, making it a more efficient option in practice.

V. Conclusion and Recommendations

Based on a comparison of the system design and China’s examination practices:

In most cases, the Paris Convention direct filing route should be prioritized for applications in China.

The Hague route is applicable in limited scenarios and is recommended only under the following conditions:

The design is extremely simple;

The application documents inherently comply with China’s requirements for drawings, descriptions, and unity;

No substantive amendments are expected during the examination phase;

The applicant seeks protection in five or more countries.

Strategic Recommendations

1. Conservative Strategy:

For complex designs, multiple design schemes, sets of products, or partial designs, the Paris Convention direct filing route is recommended. Localized preparation significantly reduces examination risks.

2. Efficiency-Oriented Strategy:

The Hague route can serve as a supplementary tool for multi-country filings. However, for applications involving China, it is advisable to prepare separate documents that meet local requirements. If necessary, applicants should consider withdrawing the Chinese designation from the international registration and filing directly in China to ensure grant predictability and stability.