For those wanting to have widespread protection for their designs, filing for an International design application (also known as a Hague Agreement design) can seem like a tempting option. It 
allows for an owner of a design to file a single application and get provisional protection for the design in any of the territories which are contracting parties of the Geneva act of the Hague agreement.
The world according to the Geneva act
These territories include the USA, EU, Japan and the Republic of Korea as well as the African Intellectual property office. Therefore, being able to file a single application, at a single office and in a single language may seem to many to provide obvious time and cost saving advantages over filing at multiple foreign intellectual property offices in different local languages. Surely a no brainer?
There are however some downsides to the International design application. Firstly, whilst you can designate some of the world’s biggest economies from an International design application, there are key global players which you can’t, including China, India, Brazil and Canada. Therefore, the International design application can’t be used as a “one stop shop” to global protection.
Shady requirements
Furthermore, whilst the Hague agreement does streamline the application process for multiple foreign design applications, it doesn’t unify the requirements of each of the contracting parties. This means that the international application is effectively split into national applications that each of the local intellectual property offices may examine to determine whether it fulfils the local requirements. For example, for US design patents surface shading of the drawings is required to show relief on the design article, whilst in the Republic of Korea surface shading is generally not permitted. These conflicting requirements thereby create a “catch-22” scenario whereby designating the USA and Korea in an International application will likely result in an objection from one or the other Intellectual property offices.
Even worse with regards to surface shading is that in Europe, surface shading of drawings for registered designs is permissible, but not required. A design with surface shading is limited by this shading which means that a drawing without shading will have a broader scope of protection than one with it. Therefore, for example, a US attorney filing an International design application to US requirements and designating Europe will, perhaps unwittingly, be limiting the client’s breadth of protection in Europe.
Local expertise
Filing for an international design application means bypassing local intellectual property agents which, whilst it can result in lower costs, does mean losing out on local know-how, for example the shading requirements. For attorneys, this perhaps means providing a lower quality of service for clients. Not only this but it can mean not maintaining or establishing reciprocally beneficial business relationships with foreign agents.
In conclusion, whilst Hague Agreement design applications can certainly be a straightforward and useful way of obtaining provisional design protection in a number of different countries at the same time, there are drawbacks which should be carefully considered.