Somewhere between the first sketch and the first production run there is a question that most co-development projects skip: if we develop this chair together, who is allowed to sell it afterwards, and to whom? Brands usually ask it for the first time at a trade fair, standing in front of a competitor’s stand, looking at something that resembles their bestseller a little too closely. It is a much cheaper conversation to have before any drawing changes hands.
What follows is how design ownership actually works in foldable outdoor furniture, and what to get in writing before development starts. It is general commercial guidance, not legal advice.
Three kinds of protection, and what each one actually covers
Buyers often use “patent” as a catch-all. In this category three separate instruments do three separate jobs, and confusing them is how brands end up believing they are protected when they are not.
Design patents and registered designs
These protect appearance: silhouette, proportions, the distinctive visual features that make a product recognisable from across a showroom. They are the workhorse of the furniture industry, because in most chairs and tables the thing worth owning is the look. A quick-open retro frame like the Quick-Open Retro 3-in-1 Chair or the distinctive geometry of an X-Frame Moon Chair is protectable as an appearance long before anyone argues about mechanisms. Registered designs are comparatively quick to obtain, which is precisely why they are underused.
Utility patents and utility models
These protect how something works: a fold geometry, a locking joint, a connector system, the way a frame collapses in a particular sequence. If the innovation in your product is functional rather than visual, this is the instrument that matters. A folding mechanism that reduces the packed height of a table such as the Retro Folding Coffee Table is a mechanism claim, not an appearance claim, and a registered design will not cover it. Utility protection takes longer to obtain than a design registration, and is examined more strictly.
Trade marks
These protect the brand name and the logo. They do not protect the shape of the product. A trade mark stops a competitor calling their chair by your name; it does nothing at all to stop them making the same chair under a different name. Brands that have registered only their word mark are far more exposed than they think.
A registration only works where you filed it
Territoriality is the part that catches people out. Registrations are national or regional; there is no world patent. A Chinese design registration will not stop a competitor selling in Germany, and an EU registered design will not stop anyone producing in Asia. The two instruments do different work in different places.
Filing strategy should follow two things: the markets where you actually sell, and often the country of manufacture as well. The first stops competitors reaching your customers. The second gives you leverage where the goods are made, which is where a copy is easiest to stop. Filing everywhere you might one day sell is rarely proportionate; filing only at home and hoping is worse. Timing matters too: many jurisdictions require the design to be unpublished at the filing date, and a photograph posted after a trade fair can compromise a filing not yet made.
What to agree before development starts
Every point below is easy to agree at the quotation stage and hard to agree once tooling has been cut.
| What to agree | Why it matters | What goes wrong if you skip it |
|---|---|---|
| Ownership of new IP | States who owns designs created during the project, and separates work built on the factory’s existing platform from genuinely new work commissioned by you. | Both sides believe they own the same drawing. Neither can file cleanly, and neither wants to litigate. |
| Exclusivity: scope and term | Defines exactly what is exclusive to you: the specific design, the tooling, the mould, or the whole category. Add a term in years and a list of territories. | “It’s exclusive” turns out to mean exclusive in your country only, or exclusive for one season, or exclusive to your channel but not your competitor’s. |
| Tooling ownership | Records who paid for the mould, who physically holds it, who maintains it, and what happens to it if the relationship ends. | You paid for tooling you cannot move, or you move tooling the factory considers partly its own. Transitions stall for months. |
| NDA and design non-compete | Covers drawings, samples and specifications, and explicitly bans showing the design at trade fairs or listing it in the factory’s own catalogue. | A generic confidentiality clause protects the file but not the showroom. Your design becomes a booth exhibit before your launch. |
| Surplus and B-grade goods | Sets what may be done with overrun units and rejected pieces: destroyed, de-branded, returned, or sold only with written approval. | The most common leak in the industry. Your product appears on a marketplace at a price you never set, in a grade you never approved. |
| Who files, and where | Names the party responsible for registrations, who pays, and which markets are covered. | Everyone assumes the other side filed. Nobody did, and the design is published by the time anyone checks. |
Platform versus bespoke: the honest part
Here is the nuance a factory owes a client, even when it is not what the client wants to hear. An ODM’s existing platform designs are the ODM’s own intellectual property. They were developed at the factory’s expense, they are often already registered, and they are supplied to more than one customer. A brand that customises an existing model, changing the fabric, the colour, the armrest profile or the branding, should not expect to own the underlying model.
What a brand can reasonably own is the bespoke layer: new geometry commissioned and paid for, a distinct silhouette developed for its range, tooling created specifically for it. The practical step is to write down, before development, which elements are platform and which are bespoke. When a project starts from a proven base such as the Double-8 Folding Chair and moves outward from there, that line is easy to draw at the start and almost impossible to draw once the sample is approved. Nearly every serious dispute we have seen in this category traces back to that line never being drawn.
The same clarity helps in the other direction. If you are browsing a supplier’s camping chairs range and intend to build on one of those models, ask directly which registrations already cover it, and whether the factory will grant exclusivity on the modified version. A straight answer costs nothing and tells you a great deal about the counterparty.
Why a factory with its own patents is a different counterparty
There is a practical reason to look at a supplier’s own portfolio before signing anything. A factory that files and defends its own designs has an established practice for it: someone who documents development, someone who handles filings, someone who knows what a registration does and does not cover. That competence is directly useful when your project needs the same work done.
The commercial incentive matters just as much. A manufacturer holding registered designs of its own has reason to respect registrations rather than copy them, because it relies on the same system to protect its own catalogue. At ONWAY SPORTS we hold 50+ registered R&D and design patents and have received 6 Good Design (G-Mark) awards, which is the practical background behind how we handle ownership questions on client projects. It is not a guarantee, and no brand should treat any supplier’s portfolio as a substitute for its own filings; it is simply evidence of the posture a counterparty takes towards design ownership.
Please take proper advice
Everything above is general commercial guidance based on how ODM projects in outdoor furniture typically work. It is not legal advice, and it does not account for the law in your markets, which varies considerably in what is registrable, how long protection lasts and what remedies exist. Before you file anything or sign a development agreement, take qualified IP counsel in the countries where you sell and where your goods are made.
If you are scoping a co-development project and want to know upfront which elements would be platform and which would be bespoke, send us your drawing or spec and we will tell you plainly where the line falls before anyone starts work.
Frequently asked questions
If we pay for the development, do we automatically own the design?
Not automatically. Paying for development work does not by itself transfer ownership in most jurisdictions, and it certainly does not transfer ownership of a factory's pre-existing platform design that your product is built on. Ownership needs to be stated in writing before work starts, separating the platform elements from the bespoke elements you commissioned, and naming who is entitled to file registrations in which countries.
Does a Chinese design patent protect us in Europe or the US?
No. Design rights are territorial, and there is no worldwide registration. A Chinese registration gives you leverage where the goods are manufactured, which is useful, but it will not stop a competitor selling in Germany or the United States. Most brands file in their main sales markets and often in the country of manufacture as well, then review the list as the range expands.
What is the most common way a design leaks from a factory?
Surplus and B-grade goods. Overrun units and rejected pieces have real value, and unless your agreement says exactly what happens to them, they can end up on marketplaces at prices and quality grades you never approved. Write down whether they are destroyed, de-branded, returned to you, or sold only with written approval. The second most common leak is a design appearing on the factory's own trade fair stand.
Can we ask a factory for exclusivity on a model from its existing catalogue?
You can ask, and the answer is often yes for a modified version rather than the base model. What matters is defining the scope precisely: is the exclusivity on the specific design, the tooling, the mould, or the whole category, for how many years, and in which territories. Vague exclusivity language is the single most frequent source of disputes we see in this category.