Designs Without Borders: What the Riyadh Design Law Treaty Means for Indian Businesses Expanding Abroad

By Lucy Rana and Renu Bala

A treaty aimed at the paperwork, not the standards

It is worth being precise about what the Riyadh Design Law Treaty does and does not do. It does not harmonise the substantive law of what qualifies as a protectable design, nor does it create a single global design right. What it harmonises is procedure  the formalities an applicant must satisfy when seeking design protection in a member country. That may sound modest, but for businesses filing across multiple jurisdictions, procedural divergence is precisely where cost, delay and lost rights accumulate.

Adopted at a WIPO diplomatic conference in Riyadh on 22 November 2024, after nearly two decades of negotiation, the treaty standardises and streamlines these formalities. Its features include a closed list of the elements a national office may require in an application (so offices cannot demand more than the treaty permits), a grace period allowing applicants to file within a set period after first disclosing a design, mechanisms to preserve rights despite missed deadlines or procedural errors, the option to include multiple designs in a single application, and encouragement of electronic filing and the exchange of priority documents. The treaty also allows contracting parties to require applicants to disclose information on traditional cultural expressions and traditional knowledge relevant to registrability  a provision of particular interest in the Indian context.

The treaty targets the friction, not the threshold. It does not change what a design must be to qualify — it changes how burdensome it is to apply.

Why it matters as Indian design filings surge

The timing is significant for India. According to the CGPDTM Annual Report 2024-25, design applications filed in India rose to 43,005 in 2024-25, an increase of about 41.52% over the previous year one of the steepest growth rates across the IP categories. The five-year trajectory shows how rapidly design activity has expanded:

That growth reflects a maturing design-led economy in consumer products, industrial design, fashion, and increasingly in technology hardware. As Indian businesses that invest in distinctive design look to protect and commercialise it in export markets, the procedural harmonisation the treaty offers becomes directly relevant: fewer divergent formalities to navigate, more predictable timelines, and mechanisms that reduce the risk of losing rights to a missed procedural step in an unfamiliar jurisdiction. The treaty’s explicit orientation towards SMEs, start-ups and independent designers maps closely onto the profile of many Indian design applicants.

Signature is not yet binding effect

One qualification deserves emphasis. India’s signing of the Final Act signals commitment and positions the country to move towards being bound, but signing is not the same as ratification, and a treaty of this kind takes effect once the required number of parties have ratified it and the domestic steps are complete. For businesses, the practical benefits materialise as the treaty comes into force and national procedures are aligned to it. Until then, the treaty is best read as a clear statement of direction — towards simpler, more harmonised cross-border design protection rather than an immediately operative change to filing practice. The trajectory, both of Indian design filings and of the international framework, points the same way.

Frequently Asked Questions