🚀 New: GEM Seller Registration — register in 2 days! 📞 Call us: +91 98914 64610 — Free Consultation 5,000+ Businesses registered successfully across India 🎉 GST Filing from ₹499/month — Limited offer ⭐ Rated 4.9/5 on Google — India's trusted compliance partner 🚀 New: GEM Seller Registration — register in 2 days! 📞 Call us: +91 98914 64610 — Free Consultation 5,000+ Businesses registered successfully across India 🎉 GST Filing from ₹499/month — Limited offer ⭐ Rated 4.9/5 on Google — India's trusted compliance partner
Design Objection Reply India — Respond to Patent Office Design Objection | TaxClue
D?
⭐ 4.9/5 Rating 🏭 Designs Act, 2000 📋 Patent Office Design Wing 🏛️ Hearing Representation Included

Design Objection Reply
Defend Your Design &
Secure Registration

When the Patent Office's Design Examiner raises objections to your design application, you have a limited window to respond — or the application lapses. Objections range from novelty challenges citing prior art, to representation defects, Locarno classification issues, and statements of novelty that are too broad. TaxClue drafts point-by-point responses to every type of design examination objection, with hearing representation before the Controller included as standard.

🔍 Novelty / Prior Art 🎨 Representation Defects 📋 Classification Issues 📝 Statement of Novelty ⚙️ Functionality Objection 🏛️ Hearing Representation
🏭 DESIGN OBJECTION SPECIALISTS

Reply to Design Objection

Response drafted within ✅ 5–7 working days

🔒 Confidential · Free Assessment · Hearing Representation Included

Request Received!

Expert calls within 30 minutes to review your objection.
WhatsApp →

OR
⭐ 4.9/5 Rating
🏭 Design Objection Specialists
📋 All 6 Objection Types Covered
⏰ Deadline Always Tracked
🏛️ Controller Hearing Representation
Types of Design Objection

6 Types of Design Examination Objection — How TaxClue Responds

The Patent Office Design Examiner raises objections when the application does not satisfy the requirements of the Designs Act, 2000 or Designs Rules, 2001. Each type of objection requires a different response strategy.

🔍

Novelty Objection — Prior Art Cited

Examiner cites an earlier registered design or published document as prior art that allegedly anticipates the design

Examiner cites one or more prior designs from the Indian Design Register or foreign design registers as anticipating the claimed design
TaxClue performs a detailed visual comparison — identifying features present in the applicant's design that are absent from the cited prior art
Arguments prepared on aesthetic differences: different proportions, distinct ornamental elements, unique line composition that creates a different overall visual impression
Statement of Novelty may be refined to focus on the specific features that are clearly distinguishable from the prior art
Where prior art is distinguishable on facts, TaxClue argues non-anticipation vigorously — without unnecessarily narrowing the scope of protection
🎨

Representation Defect

Drawings or photographs are incomplete, non-compliant with Patent Office standards, or show inconsistent views

Examiner finds that one or more required views are missing — e.g. bottom view, side view, or perspective view not provided
Drawings are not in correct format: wrong line weight, shading inconsistencies, background not white, scale not consistent across views
Photographs are blurry, have distracting backgrounds, or do not clearly show the claimed design features
TaxClue prepares fully compliant corrected representations — redrawn to Patent Office technical standards — and files them with the reply
Replacement representations strategically maximise the scope of visual protection while meeting every technical requirement
📋

Locarno Classification Issue

Examiner objects that the design has been filed under an incorrect Locarno class or subclass

Locarno Classification has 32 classes and 219 subclasses — misclassification is common, especially for multi-purpose articles and novel product categories
TaxClue reviews the Locarno Classification system to identify the correct class and subclass for the specific article
Where the product spans multiple classes (e.g. a wearable tech device), TaxClue argues for the most protective classification or recommends separate applications
Correction of classification recorded with the Patent Office — no substantive loss of priority or protection if corrected promptly in response
TaxClue includes a clear justification for the correct Locarno class with reference to official WIPO Locarno Classification guidance
📝

Statement of Novelty Issues

Examiner finds the statement of novelty too broad, too vague, or inconsistent with the representations

Statement of novelty too broad: claims "the whole design as shown" without identifying the specific novel features — Examiner requires a more precise statement
Statement inconsistent with representations: claims features not visible in the drawings, or drawings show features not mentioned in the statement
Statement includes functional features: examiner objects that a claimed feature is dictated by function, not aesthetics
TaxClue drafts a revised statement of novelty that precisely identifies the aesthetic features that are new — aligned with the representations and limited to registrable subject matter
Careful drafting of the revised statement maximises protection scope while directly addressing the examiner's specific concern
Under Section 4(b) of the Designs Act, a design cannot be registered if features of shape or configuration are dictated solely by the function the article has to perform
Examiner argues that a specific feature — the shape of a handle, a vent pattern, a clip mechanism — is solely functional
TaxClue responds by demonstrating that the feature has aesthetic merit independent of function — alternative functional solutions exist that look different, proving the feature was an aesthetic choice
Where the feature is genuinely functional, TaxClue amends the statement of novelty to disclaim that feature and focus the claim on the remaining clearly aesthetic elements
Case law and WIPO guidance on the functionality exclusion cited in support of the applicant's position
🚫

Prior Disclosure / Excluded Matter

Examiner alleges the design was publicly known before the filing date, or falls within excluded subject matter under Section 4

Section 4 excludes: designs already published in India or elsewhere before the filing date; designs contrary to public order or morality; designs including official emblems or flags
Prior disclosure objection: Examiner cites a website, catalogue, trade show image, or publication showing the design before the application date
TaxClue challenges the prior disclosure evidence — establishing that it post-dates the filing, shows a different design, or is insufficient to constitute prior publication
Where prior disclosure exists due to the applicant's own acts, TaxClue advises on whether the limited exhibition exception under Rule 14 applies
For excluded matter objections (emblems, morality), TaxClue identifies modifications to the representations or statement that bring the application within acceptable scope
What We Receive & How We Respond

Anatomy of a Design Examination Objection Letter

Design objection letters from the Patent Office follow a standard format. Understanding every element before drafting a response is essential — overlooking a single ground can leave the application vulnerable even after a response is filed.

TaxClue reads the objection in full, categorises each ground, and constructs a complete point-by-point reply backed by visual analysis, corrected representations, and legal arguments where needed. Responses are always filed before the deadline — never at the last minute.

Design Objection Letter — Standard Structure

Application Reference
Design application number, applicant name, article title, Locarno class, and date of application — establishing which design the objection relates to
Grounds of Objection
Each specific ground numbered and identified — novelty, representation, classification, statement of novelty, functionality, or Section 4 exclusion
Prior Art Citations
For novelty objections: prior design registration numbers, publication titles, or website references the Examiner considers anticipatory
Specific Representation Defects
Identified views that are missing, non-compliant, or inconsistent — with specific reference to which Rule has been violated
Classification Reference
The Locarno class the Examiner considers correct — with reasons if given
Response Deadline
Period within which the applicant must file their response — typically 1 month, extendable once on request. Missing this = application deemed abandoned.

How TaxClue Builds the Response

Every design objection reply is built on visual analysis, legal arguments, and corrected representations where needed.

🔍

Visual Comparison Analysis

For prior art objections, TaxClue performs a side-by-side visual comparison of the applicant's design against each cited prior art reference — identifying every visual difference that creates a distinct overall impression on an informed user.

🎨

Corrected Representations Prepared

Where representation defects are cited, TaxClue prepares fully corrected drawings or photographs — technically compliant with Rule 14 of the Designs Rules, 2001, strategically maximising the visual scope of protection claimed.

📝

Revised Statement of Novelty

Where the statement is objected to, TaxClue drafts a precisely worded revised statement that focuses on the aesthetic features clearly distinguishable from any prior art, while avoiding unnecessarily narrow limitations.

⚖️

Legal Counter-Arguments

Cited case law and WIPO design practice guidance deployed where relevant — particularly for functionality objections, prior disclosure disputes, and borderline novelty cases. Arguments cite Indian and international design precedents.

🏛️

Hearing Representation

If the Examiner or Controller schedules a hearing after the written response, TaxClue prepares oral arguments and represents the applicant before the Controller of Designs — included in the service at no additional charge.

Process

From Objection Receipt to Registration — 5 Steps

1

Objection Reviewed

TaxClue receives and analyses the full objection letter — every ground categorised, prior art assessed, representation defects identified, deadline confirmed.

Day 1
2

Prior Art Analysis

Cited prior designs located and visually compared against the applicant's design. Distinctive features that create a different overall visual impression systematically documented.

Day 1–3
3

Response & Representations Prepared

Point-by-point written response drafted. Corrected representations prepared where needed. Revised statement of novelty drafted. Applicant reviews before finalisation.

Day 3–7
4

Filed with Patent Office

Complete response filed with the Patent Office Design Wing before the deadline — including written reply, corrected representations, and any supporting evidence.

Within deadline
5

Registration (or Hearing)

If Examiner accepts the response, design is registered and certificate issued. If Examiner maintains objections, a hearing before the Controller is scheduled — TaxClue attends and argues.

1–6 months after
Possible Outcomes

3 Outcomes After a Design Objection Reply

Best Outcome

Objection Overruled — Design Registered

The Examiner accepts the written response and finds the design registrable. Design is entered in the Register of Designs and a registration certificate is issued. Protection runs for 10 years from the original filing date.

✏️
Conditional

Amended Representations / Statement Accepted

Examiner accepts the corrected representations or revised statement of novelty — but only in the revised form. Registration proceeds on the basis of the amended application. Scope of protection may be narrower but the design is protected.

🏛️
Escalated

Hearing Ordered — Controller Decides

Where the Examiner maintains the objection after written submissions, a hearing before the Controller of Designs is scheduled. TaxClue presents oral arguments. The Controller issues a written order — appealable to the High Court if refused.

❓ Frequently Asked Questions

How long do I have to reply to a design examination objection?
+

The Designs Rules, 2001 provide that when an objection is raised by the Examiner, the applicant must respond within 1 month of the date of the objection letter. A single extension of time is available on request — but it is not automatic and should not be relied upon as a planning assumption. After two months without response, the application is treated as abandoned and cannot easily be revived. TaxClue begins work on a design objection reply the day the objection is received — the deadline is tracked from day one and the response is never filed at the last minute. Contact TaxClue immediately on receiving the objection letter and do not wait until the deadline approaches.

The examiner cited a design that looks similar to mine — how do we argue around it?
+

The test for novelty in design law is not whether the designs are identical — it is whether they create the same overall visual impression on an informed user (a person familiar with the prior designs in the relevant product sector, neither the most casual observer nor a specialist technician). TaxClue performs a systematic visual comparison: identifying every feature present in the applicant's design that is absent from the cited prior art — different proportions, distinct decorative elements, unique surface treatment, different curvature or silhouette. Even a design that shares some features with prior art can be registered if the combination and arrangement of features creates a sufficiently different overall visual impression. The strength of this argument depends on how different the designs actually are — TaxClue will give a candid assessment before drafting the response.

Can I submit new representations in my objection reply?
+

Yes — where the objection relates to defective representations (missing views, non-compliant format, inadequate quality), the applicant can and must submit corrected representations with the response. However, there is an important limitation: the amended representations must not add new features that were not disclosed in the original application — they can correct defects in how the design is shown, but cannot introduce a substantially different design. TaxClue prepares corrected representations that address every specific defect identified by the Examiner while ensuring the revised drawings remain consistent with the original application disclosure. Professional preparation of technically compliant representations is often the most important element of a successful objection response.

What happens if the Controller refuses the design after the hearing?
+

If the Controller of Designs refuses the application after a hearing, the applicant can appeal under Section 19 of the Designs Act, 2000. The appeal lies to the High Court having jurisdiction over the Patent Office office where the application was filed. The appeal must be filed within the period prescribed under the relevant limitation rules. TaxClue reviews every Controller refusal order for legal errors — including incorrect application of the novelty test, failure to consider all distinctive features, or procedural irregularities — and advises on the prospects of a successful High Court appeal. In appropriate cases, TaxClue coordinates with IP litigation counsel for the court proceedings.

⚠️ Design Objection Reply Mistakes to Avoid

These errors frequently result in design applications being refused or registered with unnecessarily narrow protection:

  • Missing the 1-month response deadline — application is abandoned; revival is difficult and not guaranteed
  • Responding only to some of the objection grounds — every ground must be addressed; unanswered grounds are treated as conceded
  • Submitting corrected representations that show a different design — Examiner will raise a new objection that the amendment introduces new subject matter
  • Unnecessarily narrowing the statement of novelty to overcome a novelty objection — limiting protection below what the design actually supports
  • Arguing against functionality objections without demonstrating that alternative functional solutions exist — the key legal test
  • Filing a response to a prior art objection without conducting a proper visual comparison — bare assertions of novelty without specific visual differences rarely satisfy the Examiner
  • Not requesting an extension when more time is genuinely needed to prepare corrected representations — file extension request immediately if needed
  • Not attending the hearing if one is scheduled — non-appearance is treated as abandonment of the application
⭐ Client Reviews

Trusted by 10,000+ Clients Across India

4.9 / 5 average rating · Google Reviews · Verified clients

★★★★★

"Our design application for a new bottle shape received a novelty objection citing a registered German design. TaxClue's visual comparison response showed 7 distinct differences in the silhouette and surface pattern. Examiner accepted — registration granted."

RK
Riya Kapoor
CEO, Botanix Wellness · Mumbai
Design Objection — Novelty Reply
★★★★★

"The examiner objected to our furniture design representations — said three views were non-compliant. TaxClue prepared professional technical drawings in 3 days, filed the response, and the design was registered two months later. Fast and thorough."

MS
Manoj Sharma
Founder, Artisan Craft Co. · Jaipur
Design Objection — Representation Defect
★★★★★

"I received a trademark objection after waiting 18 months and panicked. TaxClue responded within 6 days with a strong reply and the mark was approved. Later they handled our design objection with the same speed and expertise."

RA
Rajesh Agrawal
Proprietor, Agrawal Spices · Delhi
Trademark + Design Objections
★★★★★

"The functionality objection on our tool design was tricky — examiner said the ergonomic handle was purely functional. TaxClue argued that alternative functional designs exist that look completely different, proving our shape was an aesthetic choice. Objection overruled."

VT
Vikas Tripathi
MD, ProTool Industries · Ludhiana
Design Objection — Functionality
★★★★★

"Our FER had Section 3 objections on our software patent application. TaxClue prepared a detailed technical and legal response that distinguished our claims from prior art. Patent granted 4 months later — exceptional work by the team."

KM
Karan Mehta
Founder, SemiLogic Tech · Bangalore
Patent Objection Reply
★★★★★

"We needed to protect our new consumer electronics product design and had already received an objection. TaxClue handled the response completely — corrected drawings, revised statement, and appeared at the hearing. Registration certificate in hand."

NS
Neha Sharma
Co-Founder, NexCart Tech · Hyderabad
Design Objection + Hearing
🏆 4.9/5 on Google·10,000+ Clients·Pan-India·All IP Services
Related IP Services

Complete Design Protection with TaxClue

🏭

Design Registration

File the original application before public disclosure.

Learn More →
🔄

Design Renewal

Renew at 10 years to maintain protection for 5 more.

Learn More →
⚖️

Trademark Objection Reply

TM Registry objection — same expert team, different IP right.

Learn More →
🔍

Patent Prior Art Search

Protect the function of your product alongside its appearance.

Learn More →
Novelty · Representations · Classification · Statement of Novelty · Functionality · Hearing Included

A Design Objection Unanswered Is a Design Abandoned

The 1-month deadline is strict. Every ground must be answered. Corrected representations must meet exact Patent Office standards. TaxClue handles the complete response — visual analysis, legal arguments, corrected drawings, and hearing representation — so your design registration doesn't slip away.

🔒 Confidential · Free Assessment · 4.9★ · 1-Month Deadline Tracked · All 6 Objection Types · Hearing Representation Included

🏭 Got a design objection? We reply fast.
✅ Enquiry sent!