Video and 3D EU Designs Four Months In: Small Numbers, Clear Patterns
Since 1 July 2026, when the final phase of the EU design reform began to apply, applicants at the EUIPO gained two new ways to show what they want to protect: an MP4 video for designs that move, and a 3D model file (OBJ or STL) for the shape of a product. Four months later, the first numbers are in, and they tell a story of cautious, uneven adoption.
The headline figures
World Trademark Review reported at the end of October that EU design filings using video or 3D are building up since the reform. A closer look at published registrations comes from UK firm GJE, which analysed EU designs filed from 1 July onwards and published as of 26 October. Out of 24,922 such designs, it counted 59 with an animated representation and 33 with a 3D one. Together, that is roughly 0.4 per cent. Static images still account for almost everything.
The EUIPO's own early figures pointed the same way. Over the first two weeks of July, 37 applications came in with video and 20 with 3D files, compared with 4,329 relying on static views. The office published its first video registration, a moving interface from a mobile phone game, and its first 3D registration, a dice tray with a built-in phone holder, in late July.
Who is using the new formats
GJE found that the video and 3D designs came from just 37 applicants, almost all of them European. The likely reason is practical. No other major design office accepts video or 3D files as the representation of a design, so an EU filing in these formats cannot serve as the base for a priority claim elsewhere, and a foreign filing cannot easily be carried into one. Using them means building a separate, EU-only filing.
Video is dominated by digital products. Of the 59 animated designs GJE identified, 46 sit in Locarno class 14-04, which covers graphical user interfaces and icons: game screens, software interfaces and animated logos. The more interesting cases are physical products whose appeal lies in movement, such as a lamp with a swirling light pattern, a building facade with moving panels and a raincoat that converts into a jumpsuit with zips.
3D files are spread more widely, across seats, jewellery, scent bottles, furniture, exercise equipment and packaging. GJE points to an important limit: a 3D file captures shape only, not colour or surface texture. That makes it a good fit for products where form and proportion are the main value, and a weaker fit where finish matters.
Strategy questions
For design owners, the new formats are a tool rather than a default. Points worth weighing include:
- Scope. A video defines the design by what it shows, including the sequence. Protection may be narrower or harder to compare than a clean set of static views, and courts have yet to test how infringement is judged against a moving representation.
- Portfolio fit. Because other offices will not accept the same file, owners need a parallel set of static drawings for filings outside the EU.
- Clarity. Video and 3D can remove ambiguity about how a product looks from every angle, which may reduce objections and help in disputes.
Commentators such as Minx Law have urged owners to revisit their design portfolios now that the reform is fully in force, since the reform changed how designs can be filed and shown.
Indonesian angle. Indonesian game studios, app developers and furniture makers selling into Europe can now protect animated interfaces and 3D product shapes more directly in the EU. Indonesia's design law still works with static drawings and photos, so Indonesian applicants should prepare two sets of representations: static views for DJKI and for any foreign filing, and, where it adds value, a video or 3D file for a separate EU filing.
Sources
Do you or your clients need trademark, patent, annuity or industrial design work in Indonesia? We handle filings, prosecution and renewals, with updates in English. Email us for a quote.
Contact UsIf you enjoyed this article on our portal, you can buy me a coffee via the PayPal link below.
PayPal
