Is the IP System Truly Accessible? A Quiet Question We Rarely Ask

Under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), accessibility is defined as a precondition for persons with disabilities to live independently and participate fully in society (Article 9). States are required to ensure access to information, communications, and public services on an equal basis with others. Similarly, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union recognises both non-discrimination on the grounds of disability (Article 21) and the right of persons with disabilities to benefit from measures ensuring independence, social and occupational integration, and participation in community life (Article 26). Accessibility, therefore, is not merely about physical access. It encompasses:

• access to information,
• access to communication systems,
• access to administrative procedures,
• and access to public institutions.

It requires not only the absence of discrimination but the removal of barriers, including digital and structural ones. Intellectual property offices are public administrative bodies. They regulate access to legal protection that directly affects market participation, innovation, and creative expression. Yet discussions about accessibility rarely extend into the IP sphere. Is the question whether the IP system itself is accessible? Formally, the answer seems obvious. Anyone can file a trademark or patent application. Procedures are public. Online portals are open 24/7. Deadlines apply equally to everyone. Yet equal rules do not automatically produce equal access.

Accessibility Is Not the Same as Openness

Over the past decade, IP offices have rapidly digitalised their procedures. E-filing is the norm. Hearings are virtual. Evidence is uploaded electronically. AI tools assist with classification and search. Efficiency has improved significantly. But digitalisation can quietly introduce new barriers. A platform may technically comply with accessibility standards and still be difficult to navigate using assistive technology. A multi-layered opposition form may be overwhelming for someone relying on screen readers. Instructions that appear clear visually may be confusing when processed through accessibility software. These are not dramatic failures. They are subtle frictions and subtle frictions accumulate. IP systems were designed primarily for administrative efficiency and legal certainty. Accessibility was not historically a core design principle. As a result, inclusion often feels like an add-on rather than a starting point.

Structural Neutrality Can Be Misleading

Intellectual property law prides itself on neutrality. The same deadlines apply to all applicants. The same evidentiary standards apply to everyone. The same formal requirements govern representation of signs. This seems fair. But disability law has long recognised that identical treatment does not always produce fair outcomes. If procedural structures are built around a default user who navigates interfaces visually, processes information quickly, and interacts with complex forms without assistance, the system may unintentionally privilege that profile. No one is excluded on paper. Yet participation may be harder in practice. This is not about accusing IP offices of discrimination. It is about recognising that structural neutrality can mask structural design choices.

Beyond Technical Compliance

Most IP offices now publish accessibility statements. For instance, the EUIPO provides a public accessibility declaration outlining its compliance with EU digital accessibility standards[1], and many national offices refer to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) when describing their online services[2]. It is now common to see references to screen reader compatibility, alternative text for images, keyboard navigation support, and periodic technical audits of digital platforms. In other words, compliance with digital accessibility directives is routinely confirmed which is a progress. However, accessibility is not only a technical question of screen-reader compatibility or colour contrast ratios. It is also about usability, clarity, cognitive load, and procedural flexibility. An opposition deadline is neutral. But is there guidance for applicants who may require assistive support? An online hearing is efficient. But are interpretation tools and captioning systematically integrated? AI-based classification tools are innovative. But have they been tested for accessibility from the user side? Inclusion requires more than meeting minimum technical standards. It requires asking, repeatedly: Who might struggle with this design?

Substantive Questions We Avoid

Accessibility also touches the substance of IP law. Trademark doctrine, for example, has historically been centred on visual perception. Even though EU law no longer requires strict graphical representation, clarity and precision remain essential. Non-visual or tactile identifiers still sit somewhat uncomfortably within a system built around visual distinctiveness. As markets become more attentive to inclusive design, including tactile packaging, audio branding, and accessibility-oriented communication, the IP framework must be ready to accommodate these forms without hesitation or doctrinal rigidity. Accessibility is not only about who files applications. It is also about what kinds of communication the law recognises.

A Quiet but Necessary Shift

Accessibility should not be treated as a compliance checkbox or a periodic audit requirement. It should be part of institutional culture. When procedures are redesigned, when digital tools are introduced, when AI systems are deployed, accessibility should be part of the initial question, not an afterthought. IP law is often described as a driver of innovation and creativity. If that is true, it must also ensure that the path to protection is genuinely navigable for all participants. Inclusion does not begin with representation statistics.
It begins with design and design, in administrative systems, is never neutral.

[1] https://www.euipo.europa.eu/en/about-us/the-office/who-we-are/transparency-portal

[2] WIPO declares the commitment on the following link: https://www.wipo.int/en/web/accessibility ; USPTO declares it as follows: https://www.uspto.gov/using-usptogov/accessibility-uspto-website