Copying someone else’s design used to require the product itself, drawings or at least good photographs from several angles. Today AI models build a 3D model of an object from a single photo. The model can be placed in a game, sold as a digital asset or sent to a 3D printer. Does that infringe a registered design if no physical product was ever made?

The question was raised in a guest post by Daan Breuking on the IPKat blog of 18 October 2026, which offers an answer for the European Union. Ukrainian law, in our view, answers it differently.

What changed in the EU

Since 1 July 2026 Regulation (EU) 2026/715 on European Union designs has applied, codifying and replacing Regulation No 6/2002. Four provisions matter here.

Product. Article 4 defines a product as any industrial or handicraft item, other than a computer program, regardless of whether it is embodied in a physical object or materialises in a non-physical form, expressly including graphical user interfaces and spatial arrangements of items. A design now includes the movement, transition or any other sort of animation of a product’s features.

Scope of protection. Under Article 11 it covers any design which does not produce on the informed user a different overall impression.

Rights conferred. Article 20 expressly lets the holder prohibit creating, downloading, copying and sharing or distributing any medium or software which records the design for the purpose of enabling a product to be made — the so-called 3D printing clause.

Limitations. Article 21 exempts acts done privately and for non-commercial purposes, experimental acts, citation and teaching, referring to the holder’s product, and comment, critique or parody — the last three subject to fair trade practices and no undue prejudice to normal exploitation.

The IPKat author suggests three questions: what part of the protected appearance is reproduced; what act is done — using a product or distributing a file; and whether a limitation applies. In his view a 3D model sold as a game asset may itself be an infringing product, and a print file may fall under the 3D printing clause. He accepts that courts have not yet confirmed this.

What Ukrainian law says

The Law of Ukraine on Protection of Rights to Industrial Designs (the Law), in its current version, partly matches the EU approach. Under Article 5(7) the scope of protection includes any other design that does not produce a different overall impression on the informed user, so an accurate AI copy may well fall within it. The differences start there.

Article 1 of the Law defines a product as any industrial or handicraft item, including parts of a complex product, packaging, get-up, graphic symbols and typefaces, other than computer programs — with no reference to non-physical form. Article 20(2), third paragraph, treats as use the making of a product, its use, offering for sale including online, sale, import, export, other placing on the market and stocking for these purposes. There is no rule on files or software. Article 22(2) exempts non-commercial, scientific or experimental use and use for illustration or teaching with acknowledgement of the source.

Five open questions

1. Is a 3D model a “product”? For: the list in Article 1 is open-ended and already includes graphic symbols and typefaces, which are non-physical by nature. Against: an industrial item is traditionally a physical thing, and the EU legislator found it necessary to add “non-physical form” expressly, while the Ukrainian one did not.

2. Print files. Selling an STL file is not selling a product. Under the Law, making begins only when someone prints, and that is often a private person covered by the non-commercial exemption. A platform distributing files by the thousand is not caught by a specific provision.

3. “Non-commercial”. The EU requires private and non-commercial acts. Ukraine requires only the absence of a commercial purpose. Does free mass distribution of design copies therefore escape liability?

4. Who is liable? The user who uploaded the photo, the AI service that generated the model, or the marketplace that sells it? The Law is silent. The EU rule on media and software at least gives the holder a direct tool against intermediaries.

5. Design and copyright are different tests. As the IPKat author notes, Court of Justice case law requires recognisable reproduction of creative elements for copyright infringement, not merely a similar overall impression. An AI copy may infringe a design without infringing copyright, and vice versa — an argument for registering designs rather than relying on copyright alone.

What design owners can do now

Register the design. Registration protects against anything that does not create a different overall impression, which works best against accurate copies.

Cover both markets. If you sell in Ukraine and the EU, register in both: the EU rules on non-physical products and print files already apply, while in Ukraine infringement will mostly have to be pursued where copies are made or offered for sale. If you are unsure whether to protect the appearance or the name, see trademark or design in Ukraine.

Keep evidence. If your product turns up as a 3D model or print file, save the pages, dates, prices and seller details.

Questions and answers