• Parts of designs which contribute significantly to the appearance of the product and as such may be considered the relevant state of the art should be classified. For example – a picture of a car applied on a bottle. Both should be classified – bottle and car.
• Where the application is for part of a design (possibly with the remainder represented using broken lines or indicated by some other means such as highlighting or text) both the whole article and the part should be classified. This would enable a system to search for designs or visual feature elements across all classes.
• A text search should also be possible, i.e. full text search in claims, word disclaimers as well as words incorporated in a design.

The Pilot Group included delegates from Canada, Czech Republic, United Kingdom, Russia, Benelux Organization for Intellectual Property, and OHIM. It would be good to see Japan and China involved, in view of the number of designs they generate. There were some user organisations there too, but, given the emphasis on defining the system for users, I am surprised that the NGOs were primarily trade mark organisations, and that the professional searchers' bodies, PIUG and PATMG, weren't there, nor any patent group. Since the only aim of classification in Europe these days is searching, what on earth is the logic in leaving them out? I sometimes get the impression that the powers that be in the EU see designs as a kind of petty trade mark (or perhaps it is allergic to anything involving the word "patent") and when it comes to consultation, the attitude seems to be - "round up the usual suspects." If the Group is serious about making a system for users, erhaps the next sessions will be a bit more inclusive, and better trailed in advance.