Women in design.
Date: 2023-05-22
Institutions: European Union Intellectual Property Office
Subjects: designs and models, female work, gender equality, labour market

WOMEN IN DESIGN 

Women in design 

April 2023 

 
 
 
 
 
 
WOMEN IN DESIGN 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

WOMEN IN DESIGN 

PDF TB-04-23-384-EN-N   ISBN 978-92-9156-336-4 doi: 10.2814/152884 

© European Union Intellectual Property Office, 2023 

Reuse is allowed provided the source is acknowledge and changes are mentioned (CC BY 4.0) 

 2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WOMEN IN DESIGN 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

Acknowledgements 

This  paper  was  prepared  by  Carolina  Arias  Burgos  and  Michał  Kazimierczak,  Economists  in  the 

Observatory Department at the EUIPO, and Nathan Wajsman, Chief Economist, EUIPO. 

The authors are grateful for comments on a previous version of this paper from Mariana Karepova, 

President of the Austrian Patent Office; Raphaela Tiefenbacher, Head of Strategy at the Austrian 

Patent  Office;  Renate  Spring,  Chief  Economist  at  the  Austrian  Patent  Office;  Andrea  Gallelli  and 

Aura Leulescu from Eurostat, Unit F.1: Social indicators: Methodology and development; Relations 

with users; and Marina Pérez Julián from Eurostat, Unit F.3: Labour market and Lifelong Learning. 

 3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WOMEN IN DESIGN 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

Foreword 

In recent years, the issue of gender equality has become increasingly important in all walks of life, 

including in the field of intellectual property. The desire to remove barriers to women’s participation 

in  IP  is  based  both  on  a  moral  and  an  economic  imperative.  The  moral  imperative  is  simply  that 

gender equality is an essential element of human rights, something which has value in and of itself. 

The economic imperative is that a society that discriminates against women is not making optimal 

use of the talents and abilities of half of its population, thereby missing out on economic development, 

growth and well-being. 

Accordingly, WIPO has chosen the theme ‘Women and IP: Accelerating innovation and creativity’ 

for the World Intellectual Property Day, 26 April 2023. 

In  March  2023,  36  of  the  world’s  leading  IP  offices,  including  the  EUIPO,  published  a  joint 

statement (1), which states, in part, the following: 

We commit to working together to support and empower women and girls to inclusively 

access  the  innovation  and  creative  economy  to achieve  their  professional  aspirations 

through the use of IP system. 

In addition, we commit to encouraging women and girls within our communities, including 

from any indigenous and local communities, to become familiar with, and make effective 

use of the IP system, including as appropriate any tools for the protection of traditional 

knowledge, traditional cultural expressions, and genetic resources, for their own benefit 

and the benefit of their communities. 

To understand the extent of women’s participation in IP and possible barriers to their participation, 

various IP offices have carried out studies during the past few years, including  the USPTO (2), the 

(1) Available at: https://euipo.europa.eu/ohimportal/en/web/guest/-/news/international-women-s-day-joint-statement-1. 
(2) See Economic Note 102, available at: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/oce-ip-econ-note-102.pdf. 

 4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WOMEN IN DESIGN 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

EPO (3)  and  the  UKIPO (4).  Most  of  the  studies  carried  out  to  date  have  focused  on  inventors  and 

patents. This study, focusing on women designers and their participation in the RCD system, aims 

to make a useful contribution to this body of knowledge. 

Christian Archambeau 

Executive Director, EUIPO 

(3) See ‘Women’s participation in inventive activity’, available at: 
https://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponet.nsf/0/7A4224E289AA190BC12588EF0035BD67/$File/womens_parti
cipation_in_inventive_activity_2022_en.pdf. 
(4) See ‘Gender profiles in worldwide patenting’, available at: 
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/846363/Gender-
profiles-in-worldwide-patenting-2019.pdf. 

 5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WOMEN IN DESIGN 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

Table of Contents 

Acknowledgements ..................................................................................... 3 

Foreword ...................................................................................................... 4 

Table of Contents ........................................................................................ 6 

Executive Summary ..................................................................................... 7 

1 

Introduction .........................................................................................12 

2  Registered Community Designs (RCD) ..............................................14 

3  Contribution of design-intensive industries to the EU economy .....15 

4  Women designers in the labour market .............................................18 

4.1  Gender employment gap ....................................................................... 19 

4.2  Gender pay gap ...................................................................................... 26 

5  Gender gap in registration of Registered Community Designs 

(RCDs) ..................................................................................................35 

6  Conclusions and suggestions for further research ..........................44 

References ..................................................................................................45 

List of Tables and Figures .........................................................................46 

Acronyms and Abbreviations ....................................................................48 

Appendix I: International Standard Classification of Occupations 

(ISCO-08). .............................................................................................49 

Appendix II: Methodology for the estimation of Gender Pay Gap 

(GPG) ....................................................................................................57 

Appendix III: Determination of the gender of designers in Registered 

Community Design (RCD) filings. ......................................................63 

Appendix IV: Locarno classification .........................................................65 

 6 

 
 
 
 
 
WOMEN IN DESIGN 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

Executive Summary 

Gender equality is one of the fundamental  aims of the European Union (EU). Achieving this goal 

requires data and information to analyse the situation of women and men in all policy domains. To 

contribute to the current state of play on gender analysis, the European Union Intellectual Property 

Office (EUIPO) has analysed the gender gap (5) in designs from different perspectives. 

The starting point is to analyse the participation of women designers in the labour market, measuring 

the  gender  employment  gap  complemented  by  differences  in  personal,  job  and  employer 

characteristics between women and men in the design field. Moving to decomposing the gender pay 

gap  (GPG)  of  designers  allows  to  better  understand  and  identify  which  factors  play  a  role  in  the 

differences in earnings bringing to light the unmet objective of ‘equal pay for equal work’. 

The  gender  employment  gap  between  designers,  or  the  under-representation  of  women  in  the 

creation of designs, is reflected in a lower participation of women registering designs at the EUIPO. 

Detailed information from the Registered Community  Design (RCD) filings (6) is being used for the 

first  time  to  analyse  the  participation  of  women  in  the  creation  of  Community  designs,  and  the 

characteristics of designs registered by women. 

This  report  uses  a  large  dataset  to  demonstrate  the  presence  of  a  gender  gap  in  the  designer 

occupation (in the EU (7) and in 2021, 24 % of designers were women) and a similar gender gap in 

the  registration  of  European  designs  (26 %  of  designs  registered  with  the  EUIPO  by  EU-based 

owners had at least one woman designer in the same year), the RCD gender gap (8). Both of these 

gender gaps have been narrowing in the last decade but the movement towards gender parity is 

(5) ‘Gender gap is the gap in any area between women and men in terms  of their levels of participation, access, rights, 
remuneration or benefits’, European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE). 
(6) The gender analysis of RCD designers is based on 670 000 designs and 210 000 designers with information about the 
name of the designer in the EUIPO databases (43 % of the RCD registrations). 
(7) The gender employment gap between women and men designers is estimated based on the Labour Force Survey (LFS) 
microdata for 23 EU member states (data not available for Bulgaria, Germany, Malta and Slovenia). Detailed data for the 
calculation of gender employment gap in designer occupations covers the period 2011-2021. 
(8)  This  is  in  contrast  with  findings  from  the  United  States  Copyright  Office  (2022)  ‘the  share  of  women’s  authors  in 
registration is substantially smaller than women’s participation rate in corresponding occupations. This suggests a gender 
disparity  exists  in  the  usage  of  the  copyright  system’.  Different  findings  are  revealed  by  the  United  States  Patent  and 
Trademark Office, USPTO (2019): ‘Across nearly all science occupations, women participate at a much higher rate than 
they invent patented technology. It is only in engineering that women’s workforce participation rate resembles the overall 
women inventor rate’. 

 7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WOMEN IN DESIGN 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

slow. The average annual growth rate of women designers in the period 2011-2021 was 5 % and 

the  average  annual  growth  rate  registered  in  the  same  period (9)  of  RCD  filings  with  at  least  one 

women designer was 2.5 % and 1 % for RCD filings without women. Therefore, at this pace it would 

take 51 years to achieve gender parity in the registration of RCDs (10). 

The gender employment gap in the occupation of designers is the consequence of a gender-based 

sectoral  and  occupational  segregation,  or  the concentration  of  one gender  in certain sectors  and 

occupations, which may explain the difference in earnings between women and men, since women 

tend  to  be  concentrated  in  low-paying  occupations.  Women  designers  represent  almost  40 %  of 

designers  in  the  public  administration,  arts,  entertainment  and  human  health  and  social  work 

activities.  The  gender  employment  gap  between  designers  is  explained  by  a  very  low  share  of 

women  working  as  electrotechnology  engineers  and  software  and  applications  developers  and 

analysts.  The  participation  of  women  in  physical  and  earth  science  professionals  and  architects, 

planners, surveyors and designers is even higher, reaching over 50 % in these occupations in seven 

EU Member States. 

The average gross hourly earnings (11) of designers (12) are 50 % above the average earnings of all 

employees for both women and men but the analysis has also confirmed a gender pay gap (GPG) 

within  the  design-related  occupations:  in  2018,  women  designers  earned  12.8 %  less  than  men 

designers, on average, in 14 EU Member States. Different personal, job and employer characteristics 

of women and men designers can only partially explain this gap: women designers are expected to 

earn on average 4.8 % less than men, according to their average characteristics in the labour market 

(less remunerative than those for men), so that the unexplained GPG for designers is still 8 %. The 

variables that further explain the lower earnings of women designers are: the country of the employer 

(1.8 %); the fact that women are on average younger than men (1.6 %); the different occupations of 

designers  (1.2 %);  their  higher  share  of  temporary  contracts  (0.4 %);  and  the  higher  presence  of 

women in public controlled enterprises, which on average pay lower salaries to designers (0.3 %). 

On the other hand, as usual in this type of analysis, education records a negative gap, illustrating 

(9) The average annual rate of RCD participation of women in the complete period 2005-2022 is identical. 
(10) The World Intellectual Property Organisation, WIPO (2016), estimated that starting from a 15 % women inventors rate 
in 2015, the gender balance in Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) will take no less than 64 years. 
(11) For simplicity, along this report by average earnings is meant average gross hourly earnings. 
(12) The analysis of gender pay gap is based on 14 Member States for which detailed microdata from the Structural Earnings 
Survey (SES) is available for research purposes: Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Greece, France, 
Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Latvia, Malta, Poland and Slovakia. 

 8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
WOMEN IN DESIGN 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

the fact that in average women engaged in the labour market tend to have higher education levels 

than men and consequently women designers would be expected to earn more (1.2 %) than men. 

This  negative  gap  partially  offset  the  explained  gap  of  the  rest  of  the  variables  included  in  the 

analysis. 

Another interesting finding is the broader gender gap in the registration of RCD filings from EU-based 

enterprises (an average of 21 % of designs with at least one woman designer in the period 2003-

2022) compared with non-EU-based owners of RCDs (31 % designs with women participation on 

average in the same period), with designs filed by Korean enterprises exceeding 50 % of RCDs with 

participation of women designers, and with 40 % of designs from Chinese based enterprises with 

participation of women designers. 

Finally, three Locarno classes (13) have a share of filings with at least one woman designer above 

35 %:  Class  28: Pharmaceutical  and  cosmetics  products,  toilet  articles  and  apparatus;  Class 11: 

Articles of adornment and Class 05 Textile piece goods, artificial and natural sheet material. At the 

other extreme, the minimum share of RCD filings with women designers is below 10 % in the Locarno 

Class 17:  Musical  instruments,  and  three  classes  have  a  share  below  15 %:  Class  22:  Arms, 

pyrotechnic  articles,  articles  for  hunting,  fishing  and  pest  killing;  Class 25:  Building  units  and 

construction elements; and Class 08: Tools and hardware. 

The different situation of women designers in the EU Member States is summarised in Table 1, with 

the employment gender gap (share of women designers), the gender pay gap between designers 

before and after correction from different characteristics of women and men designers (unadjusted 

and  adjusted  GPG),  and  the  share  of  RCDs  with  at  least  one  woman  designer  or  gender  gap  in 

registration of RCDs. 

The table shows that RCDs filed by companies from Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Ireland, 

Greece, France, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia, Finland Sweden, 

have shares of woman designers above the EU average of 20.9 %. 

(13) Locarno is the international classification used for the purposes of the registration of industrial designs to indicate the 
product(s) which the design is intended to be applied to or incorporated in. 

 9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WOMEN IN DESIGN 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

Table 1: Share of women designers, unadjusted and adjusted gender pay gap (GPG) and Registered 

Community Design (RCD) with at least one women designer. 

% women  Designers 

EU 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

23.7 

20.4 

20.6 

Czech Rep. 

18.7 

Germany 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Greece 

Spain  

Finland 

France 

Croatia 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Latvia 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Sweden 

Slovenia 

Slovakia 

Unadjusted 
GPG 

Adjusted 
GPG 

12.8 

8.0 

28.1 

18.9 

10.2 

20.9 

23.0 

28.0 

14.4 

5.8 

15.0 

15.0 

11.1 

9.1 

9.5 

21.1 

9.0 

27.1 

7.9 

12.1 

5.5 

18.9 

24.5 

15.9 

23.3 

29.5 

27.3 

26.0 

21.1 

26.1 

26.7 

18.0 

24.7 

25.2 

28.2 

18.7 

33.0 

17.1 

21.7 

27.6 

22.9 

27.5 

RCD* 

20.9 

17.9 

29.2 

5.4 

17.7 

22.4 

21.7 

25.4 

25.9 

15.4 

21.5 

22.3 

16.0 

14.0 

26.1 

16.3 

28.4 

40.0 

39.1 

27.4 

17.8 

26.5 

18.1 

22.7 

21.2 

12.6 

18.0 

12.8 

11.5 

Source:  Authors’ calculations based  on  EU-LFS/SES microdata  for research 
purposes with available and reliable data and RCD database. 
Note:  reference  periods  are:  designers  (2011-2021);  GPG  (2018)  and  RCD 
gender gap (2003-2022). 
* % of RCD filings with at least one woman designer. 

 10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WOMEN IN DESIGN 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

Figure 1 compares the participation of women in the design occupation and their participation in the 

RCD system in 22 Member States (14). Half of the Member States are on, or close to, the diagonal, 

meaning  that  the  participation  of  women  in  the  design  occupation  is  parallel  to  their  use  of  the 

European  registration  system.  Latvia  stands  out  with  close  to  35 %  of  women  designers  in  both 

indicators. On the other extreme, three countries show a disparity in the participation of women in 

designer  occupation  and  in  the  RCD system:  Spain,  Croatia,  and Italy  have  shares  of  women  as 

designers in RCDs ten percentage points lower than their participation in the labour market. 

Therefore,  women  designers  are  underrepresented  among  designers  filing  RCDs.  They  also 

participate less frequently than men designers and receive a lower remuneration for their work. While 

progress is being made, the pace of change is slow. 

Figure 1:  Share  of  women  designers  and  RCD  filings  with  at  least  one  women  designer  in  EU 

Member States.  

Source:  Authors’  calculations  based  on  EU-LFS  microdata  for  research  purposes 
with available and reliable data and RCD database. 

(14) Employment gender gap between designers is missing for Bulgaria, Germany, Malta and Slovenia and the RCD gender 
gap is missing  for  Cyprus  and  Malta.  The  EU  average  ratios  in  this  comparison  refers  to  the  common  Member  States 
(EU22) which is 1 percentage point below the EU27 average. 

 11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WOMEN IN DESIGN 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

1 

Introduction 

Innovation  and  creativity  are  key  drivers  of  progress  and  serve  to  foster  economic  growth  and 

employment. However, numerous studies have shown that some groups remain under-represented 

in these areas. 

Promoting gender equality is a key principle of the EU (15), which has made significant progress over 

the last decades with more women in the labour market and progress in securing better education 

and  training.  However,  gender  gaps  remain,  with  women  being  over-represented  in  lower  paid 

sectors and under-represented in decision-making positions and research. The European Institute 

for  Gender  Equality  (EIGE)  provides  a  solid  body  of  publications  on  gender  analysis (16),  which  is 

essential to provide the data and information to integrate the gender perspective into policies. The 

gender gap in research and innovation (17) is also reflected in the intellectual property (IP) system, 

with fewer women than men participating in many areas of the IP system and practice (18). 

This  gender  gap  in  woman  innovators,  entrepreneurs  and  creators  is  being  documented  in  an 

increasing  number  of  publications.  The  World  Intellectual  Property  Organization  (WIPO) (19),  the 

United  States  Patent  and  Trademark  Office  (USPTO) ( 20 ),  the  Organisation  for  Economic  Co-

operation  and  Development  (OECD) ( 21),  the  European  Patent  Office  (EPO) ( 22)  and  the  United 

Kingdom  Intellectual  Property  Office  (UKIPO) (23),  amongst  other  organisations,  have  released  a 

variety of studies on the topic. The growing interest in the situation of women in IP has also led to a 

large number of initiatives and actions. A few examples of the initiatives in which the European Union 

Intellectual  Property  Office  (EUIPO)  currently  participates  are:  Girls  Go  Circular ( 24 ),  under  the 

(15) Gender Equality Strategy 2020-2025. 
https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/gender-equality/gender-
equality-strategy_en 
(16) https://eige.europa.eu/publications?a%5B%5D=616&a%5B%5D=616. 
(17) Women accounted for just 33 % of European researchers in 2018. 
https://eige.europa.eu/publications/gender-research-0. 
(18) Only 16.5 % of inventors named in international patent filings in 2020 were women. 
https://www.wipo.int/women-and-ip/en/news/2021/news_0002.html. 
(19) https://www.wipo.int/women-and-ip/en/. 
(20) https://www.uspto.gov/ip-policy/economic-research/publications/reports/progress-potential. 
(21) https://www.oecd.org/gender/. 
(22) https://www.epo.org/news-events/in-focus/women-inventors.html. 
(23) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/gender-profiles-in-worldwide-patenting-an-analysis-of-female-
inventorship-2019-edition. 
(24) https://eit-girlsgocircular.eu/. 

 12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WOMEN IN DESIGN 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

coordination of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT); and the Women and Girls 

in  STEM  (science,  technology,  engineering  and  mathematics)  Forum ( 25 )  organised  in  close 

cooperation with the European Commission’s DG EAC (Directorate-General Education, Youth, Sport 

and Culture). 

The purpose of this study on gender disparities among designers is to add to this body of knowledge 

by  examining  the  role  of  women  designers  in  Registered  Community  Design  (RCD)  filings  at  the 

EUIPO. It supplements the studies referenced above, which mostly focus on patents. 

The present study has a twofold scope: the situation of women designers (26) in the labour market 

and the IP gender gap based on the registration of RCD filings by women. 

Section 2  summarises  the  registered  Community  design  (RCD)  system,  and  section 3  presents 

some findings on the industries that use more RCD than the EU average, based on previous joint 

research  from  the  European  Patent  Office  (EPO)  and  the  European  Intellectual  Property  Office 

(EUIPO) (27). Sections 4 and 5 focus on the gender differences among designers in the labour market 

and  in  the  registration  of  RCD  filings.  Section 4  analyses  two  types  of  gender  gaps:  the  Gender 

Employment Gap explained by the share and characteristics of women working as designers, and 

the Gender Pay Gap (GPG). This section is based on Eurostat’s microdata of official statistics and 

analyses  gender  gaps  based  on  different  characteristics  of  workers  and  enterprises.  Section 5 

presents the results of an analysis of the EUIPO’s RCD database, to understand the role of women 

designers in RCD filings during the last two decades. For this analysis, the RCD database was used 

to derive the share of filings in which (one of) the designer(s) is a woman and the characteristics of 

designs  registered  by  women.  Finally,  section 6  presents  some  conclusions  and  suggestions  for 

further research for a deeper knowledge of women in designs. 

(25) https://eit.europa.eu/news-events/events/women-and-girls-stem-forum. 
(26)  Designer  occupation  is  defined  in  ISCO-08  (International  Standard  Classification  of  Occupations)  based  on  tasks 
performed and included in sub-major groups 21 and 25. More details on ISCO-08 can be found in Appendix I. 
(27) EPO/EUIPO (2022). 

 13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WOMEN IN DESIGN 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

2  Registered Community Designs (RCD) 

A design is the appearance of a product or part of a product. Designs can be protected at national 

level  or  at  EU  level.  The  Registered  Community  Design  (RCD)  is  the  design  registered  at  the 

EUIPO (28)  and  provides  uniform  protection  throughout  the  EU  with  a  single  filing.  An  RCD  is  a 

registered right created under the design regulation (29)  (30). 

The  core  function  of  the  design  right  is  to  protect  the  visual  appearance  of  a  product,  not  a 

technological  development.  Article 3  of  the  design  regulation  clarifies  some  definitions:  ‘design 

means the appearance of the whole or a part of a product resulting from the features of, in particular, 

the  lines,  contours,  colours,  shape,  texture  and/or  materials  of  the  product  itself  and/or  its 

ornamentation’; ‘product means any industrial or handicraft item, including, inter alia, parts intended 

to  be  assembled  into  a  complex  product,  packaging,  get-up,  graphic  symbols  and  typographic 

typefaces, but excluding computer programs’. 

The design regulation requires that the design is new (no identical design has been disclosed before) 

and possesses individual character (the overall impression differs from that conveyed by any other 

previous  designs).  To  indicate  the  product(s)  which  the  design  is  intended  to  be  applied  to  or 

incorporated in, the Locarno Classification (31) is used. 

Any individual or company can apply for an RCD, a right that is renewable for up to 25 years. 

(28) RCDs can also be filed through the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO). The 
analysis of RCD registrations by women designers in this report is based on the EUIPO database and refers only to RCDs 
filed at the EUIPO, which represent 92 % of all RCDs. 
(29) https://euipo.europa.eu/ohimportal/en/web/guest/community-design-legal-texts. 
(30) Currently, the design regulation is in the process of legislative reform, with the goal of adapting EU design law to the 
new technology-based environment and the adaptation to the digital age of the definition of design. 
(31) https://www.wipo.int/classifications/locarno/en/ – the list of Locarno classification headings is included in Appendix IV. 

 14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WOMEN IN DESIGN 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

3  Contribution of design-intensive industries to the 

EU economy 

The economic case for design registration builds primarily on the idea of promoting innovation. The 

production of new designs is a creative activity, requiring significant investments of time, skills and 

labour. If no exclusive rights were available, any party could replicate a design and use it to directly 

compete  with  the  original  creator.  Providing  a  legal  mechanism  to  protect  new  designs  should 

ultimately enhance investments in design production and creative work. 

In  EPO/EUIPO  (2022),  design-intensive  industries  are  defined  as  those  industries  that  have 

registered  more  RCDs  than  the  EU (32)  average  industry,  considering  designs  registered  between 

2013 and 2017. Enterprises that have successfully filed RCDs between 2013 and 2017 are found in 

487 out of 615 NACE (33) classes but only 177 of these classes were selected as design-intensive 

(industries  with  more  than  1.66  designs  per  1 000  employees).  Design-intensive  industries  are 

mostly found in the manufacturing sector of the economy (34). 

Between 2017 and 2019, 27 million people were employed in the design-intensive industries within 

the  EU,  representing  13 %  of  total  employment  in  the  EU  and  generating  15.5 %  of  EU  GDP, 

reflecting  the  higher  productivity  (value  added  per  employed  person)  associated  with  these 

industries (35). 

The contribution of design-intensive industries to international trade is even more remarkable with a 

trade surplus of more than EUR 200 billion with non-EU countries and even greater figures in intra-

EU trade, representing 50 % of the trade of goods and services among EU Member States between 

2017 and 2019 (36). 

(32) The EU acronym refers to the current 27 Member States (MS) of the European Union, unless otherwise indicated. 
(33) NACE stands for ‘Nomenclature statistique des activités économiques dans la Communauté européene’ and it is the 
official classification of economic activities used in the EU official statistics. 
(34) A list of design-intensive industries is available in the EPO/EUIPO (2022). 
( 35 )  Contribution  of  design-intensive  industries  to  employment,  GDP  and  international  trade  are  estimated  by  the 
EPO/EUIPO based on Eurostat’s data of Structural Business Survey, National Accounts and international trade in goods 
and services. 
(36) The EPO/EUIPO (2022). 

 15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WOMEN IN DESIGN 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

The single market  offers  the  possibility  of  locating  production  and innovative  activities in  different 

Member States and RCDs registered at the EUIPO protect designs in all Member States. The report 

on the contribution of IPR-intensive industries to the EU economy revealed that many of the more 

recent EU Member States have relatively high proportions of employment and GDP in IPR-intensive 

industries.  Therefore,  Bulgaria,  the  Czech  Republic,  Germany,  Estonia,  Italy,  Lithuania,  Hungary, 

Poland,  Portugal,  Slovenia  and  Slovakia  all  have  shares  of  employment  and GDP  in  the  design-

intensive industries above the EU average. The Czech Republic and Slovakia are the two Member 

States with the highest contribution of design-intensive industries to employment and GDP (37). 

Nevertheless, the economic contribution of IPR-intensive industries in each Member State does not 

necessarily  reflect  the  degree  to  which  a  country’s  economy  is  innovative  but  the  location  of 

enterprises that benefit from IP protection. For example, a country may be a good location for design-

intensive  industries  due  to  low  costs,  a  favourable  business  climate  or  the  availability  of  natural 

resources. That country may then have a high share of employment in design-intensive industries 

although enterprises from those industries have their head offices and carry out their research and 

development (as opposed to production) elsewhere. When RCD filings are analysed by country of 

origin,  the  highest  number  of  filings  correspond  to  the  largest  Member  States  (Germany,  Italy, 

France, Poland and Spain) and in relative terms (number of design filings per employee) the ranking 

is led by Denmark followed by Austria and Malta (38). 

The importance of EU-wide IPRs such as RCDs in supporting economic integration among Member 

States  is  reflected  in  the  creation  of  jobs  by  foreign  affiliated  enterprises (39)  from  other  EU28 (40) 

Member States. Between 2017 and 2019, 25 % of jobs created in design-intensive industries were 

in foreign-controlled enterprises from other countries, of which 14 % were in enterprises based in 

other EU Member States. Six countries show percentages above 40 % of employment from other 

Member State enterprises in design-intensive industries: Hungary, Romania, the Czech Republic, 

Luxembourg, Slovakia and Estonia (41). With the exception of Luxembourg, a founding member of the 

EU, these are all countries that joined in 2004 or 2007. 

(37) ibid. 
(38) ibid. 
(39) Foreign Affiliate is defined as an enterprise resident in one country but controlled by an institutional unit not resident in 
the country. 
(40) Results of foreign affiliates include the United Kingdom among EU Member States. 
(41) The EPO/EUIPO (2022). 

 16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WOMEN IN DESIGN 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

This reflects the successful implementation of the single market in the Central and Eastern European 

countries that joined the EU in the 2004 and subsequent enlargements, specifically in the industries 

that register European designs. 

 17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
WOMEN IN DESIGN 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

4  Women designers in the labour market 

The presence of women in the labour market has progressed in recent decades but there are still 

differences between the participation of women and men in the labour market in every country in the 

world, even though gender equality is one of the EU fundamental rights (42). 

The gender employment gap is an indicator of systematically lower employment rates for women 

than for men. In the EU in 2022, the employment rate for women was approximately 69 %, versus 

80 % for men (43). Sub-section 4.1 analyses the presence of women working as designers and their 

characteristics and compares it with the general situation of women in the EU labour market. 

The gender pay gap is an indicator of average earnings being higher for men than for women. On 

average, women earned 14 % less than men (44) in 2018, and, after correcting for some differences 

in their average characteristics, this gap was still 11 %. Sub-section 4.2 analyses earnings of women 

and  men  designers  and  partially  explains  the  gender  pay  gap  due  to  different  characteristics  of 

workers and employers. 

The employment and pay gender gaps are estimated based on Eurostat’s microdata for research 

purposes from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) (45) and the Structure of Earnings Survey (SES) (46). 

These two official statistics are surveys addressed to individuals. Their main purpose is to classify 

the  population  with  regard  to  their  situation  in  the  labour  market  (LFS)  and  to  estimate  average 

earnings of employees (SES) depending on personal characteristics, type of contract and enterprise 

characteristics. Both surveys use official classifications to group employed persons, including those 

specialised  in  creating  designs.  The  official  classification  of  occupations,  International  Standard 

Classification  of  Occupations  (ISCO-08)  details  the  tasks  that  are  typically  performed  by  each 

occupation to help classify workers in a homogeneous and coherent way. 

(42) Article 23 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (equality between women and men):‘Equality between 
women and men must be ensured in all areas, including employment, work and pay. The principle of equality shall not 
prevent the maintenance or adoption of measures providing for specific advantages in favour of the under-represented 
sex’. 
(43) https://eige.europa.eu/gender-mainstreaming/policy-areas/employment. 
(44) Eurostat, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/LFSI_EMP_A__custom_5582085/default/table?lang=en. 
(45) More details about the LFS can be found on the Eurostat web page https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-
explained/index.php?title=EU_labour_force_survey. 
(46) More details about the SES can be found on the Eurostat web page https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-
explained/index.php?title=Glossary:Structure_of_earnings_survey_(SES). 

 18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WOMEN IN DESIGN 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

A designer is a person who imagines or plans how something new will look and how it could be made 

(in the case of a physical product). The main task of a designer is to create products or parts of a 

product (47).  Some  examples of  different fields where  designers  work  typically  include (but are not 

limited to): architecture, costume, fashion, engineering, furniture, industrial, jewellery, game, urban, 

packaging, web design, etc. 

ISCO-08 (48) sub-major group 21 (Science and Engineering Professionals) includes six minor groups 

of which four (211, 214, 215 and 216) (49) are defined by tasks typically performed by designers. Sub-

major  group 25  (Information  and  Communications  Technology  Professionals)  includes  two  minor 

groups  of  which  only  one  (251) (50)  performs  tasks  leading  to  the  creation  of  designs.  Competent 

performance in most occupations in this sub-major group requires skills at the fourth ISCO skill level, 

comprising education that begins at the age of 17 or 18, lasts for 3, 4 or more years, and leads to a 

university  or  postgraduate university  degree,  or the  equivalent.  Tasks  defining  occupations  in  the 

selected  minor  groups  include  conducting  research  in  different  fields  and  designing  products, 

processes and systems. 

In  this  section,  the  profession  of  designer  is  defined  by  occupations  included  in  ISCO-08  minor 

groups 211, 214, 215, 216 and 251. This definition of the occupation of designer is quite broad to 

ensure a good coverage of different types of designs, at the cost of including some workers whose 

main task could be different from the creation of designs. 

4.1 

Gender employment gap 

Women’s participation in the labour market has increased in recent years, although their participation 

rates are still lower than those for men. This is reflected in a share of woman in employment below 

50 % (51). The percentage of women among all workers and designers in all Member States shows 

how far the EU countries have to go to achieve equal participation of women and men in the labour 

market  in  general,  and  specifically  in  the  design  profession.  Additionally,  some  personal 

(47) Some examples of designs can be found on the EUIPO web page: 
https://euipo.europa.eu/ohimportal/en/web/guest/design-definition. 
(48) Appendix I presents ISCO-08 definitions of occupations included in 21 and 25 sub-major groups. 
(49) 211 ‘Physical and Earth Science Professionals’; 214 ‘Engineering Professionals (excluding Electrotechnology)’; 
215 ‘Electrotechnology Engineers’; 216 ‘Architects, Planners, Surveyors and Designers’. 
(50) 251 ‘Software and Applications Developers and Analysts’. 
(51) At the EU level women represented 50 % of the population aged between 15 and 64 years (ranging from 47 % to 
52 % at Member State level) and 46 % of total employed persons in 2021 (ranging from 42 % to 50 % by Member State). 

 19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WOMEN IN DESIGN 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

characteristics  of  women  and  men  designers  are  compared  with  regards  to  their  average  age, 

working experience and level of education as well as their job characteristics, such as temporary or 

part-time  contracts,  most  frequent  industries,  occupations  or  professional  status  (employees  and 

self-employed). 

Based on LFS microdata (52), women represented 46 % of all workers in 23 EU Member States in 

2021, with an increase in the last 10 years of 1 percentage point (53). The lower participation of women 

is not the only gender difference (segregation effect) in the labour market, there is also a gender-

based  segregation  in  employment,  meaning  that  women  are  over/under-represented  in  some 

sectors, occupations, or tend to have different types of contracts from men. 

Gender  sectoral  segregation (54)  is  reflected  in women  representing  more than  70 %  of  workers  in 

human  health  and  social  work  activities  and  in  education,  and  90 %  of  domestic  workers.  The 

greatest under-representation of women in the labour market occurs in construction and mining and 

quarrying industries, with only 10 % of employees in those sectors being women. 

In  EU23  in  2021,  women  tended  to  participate  in  the  labour  market  as  employees  (48 %  of  all 

employees  were  women)  rather  than  as  self-employed  (32 %);  women  signed  more  temporary 

contracts than men (16 % of women had a temporary contract compared with 14 % of men) and they 

were over-represented in part-time contracts (25 % of women worked part-time compared with only 

9 % of men, so that 71 % of part-time workers were women). 

Women designers represented 24 % of all designers working in EU23 in 2021. 6 % of working men 

were designers while only 2 % of women workers were classified in these occupations. This figure 

confirms the higher employment gender gap in designs that occurs in general in technology-oriented 

fields and research. 

Designers were concentrated in manufacturing, information and communication and professional, 

scientific and technical activities, with 69 % of women and 72 % of men designers employed in these 

(52) Eurostat LFS microdata for research purposes including occupations at 3-digit ISCO level between 2011 and 2021, 
except for Bulgaria, Slovenia (2-digit level) and Malta (1-digit level), No data was provided for Germany. For comparison 
purposes,  the  employment  gender  gaps  for  designers  and  all  occupations  are  estimated  in  section 4.1,  based  on  the 
remaining  23 EU  Member  States.  For  the  reasons  explained  in  Appendix II,  results  are  slightly  different  from  those 
published by Eurostat. 
(53) There is a break in the LFS series in 2021 when calculated from microdata for research purposes. 
(54) For more details on sectoral and occupational segregation see Eurostat (2021), page 24. 

 20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WOMEN IN DESIGN 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

industries. Women  designers  represented  almost  40 %  of  designers  in  public  administration,  arts 

and  entertainment  and  human  health  and  social  work  activities.  However,  less  than  10 %  of 

designers in mining and quarrying industries were women. 

Table 3 illustrates the gender occupational segregation among designers, with few women working 

as electrotechnology engineers (215) and software and applications developers and analysts (251) 

and  more  than  40 %  of  women  designers  in  physical  and  earth  science  professionals  (211)  and 

architects, planners, surveyors and designers (216). As a result, the most common occupation of 

women designers  is  architects,  planners,  surveyors  and  designers (36 %)  with  only 15 %  of men 

designers in these occupations. 

Figure 2 shows the trend of the employment gender gap between designers. The share of women 

designers has grown by 2 percentage points in the last decade, from 22 % in 2011 to 24 % in 2021. 

However, there was a noticeable decrease in the last 2 years, from the peak of 26 % in 2019. As 

mentioned above, comparisons with 2021 should be taken with caution due to a break in the series 

of LFS microdata. 

Figure 2: Share of women designers in EU23, 2011-2021 

Source: Authors’ calculations based on EU-LFS microdata for research purposes with 

available and reliable data. EU23 refers to EU27, excluding Bulgaria, Germany, Malta 
and Slovenia. 

 21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WOMEN IN DESIGN 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

Designers have fewer temporary contracts than the average worker: 12 % of women designers and 

8 % of men designers had a temporary contract in the EU23 in 2021, resulting in 33 % of designers 

with temporary contracts being women. 

Designers with part-time contracts represented only 13 % of women and 5 % of men. This gender 

difference is quite significant but far from the gender gap in all occupations, with 24 % of women and 

8 % of men working part-time. 

In contrast to the general tendency of women to work as employees (48 % of all employees were 

women and only 32 % of self-employed persons), the share of self-employed women designers was 

almost the same as employees. 

Table 2: Share of women by type of contract in EU23: all occupations and designers, 2021 

% women 

All occupations  Designers 

Employed persons 

Temporary contract 

Part-time contract 

Employees 

Self-employed 

45.9 

51.1 

71.1 

48.3 

32.3 

24.1 

32.6 

44.4 

24.0 

24.5 

Source:  Authors’  calculations  based  on  EU-LFS  microdata  for  research 
purposes with available and reliable data. 

As shown in Table 2, the participation of women in occupations related to designs was lower than 

the average participation of women in the labour market. They work as much as employees than 

self-employed in contrast with the usual higher participation of women as employees. Women had 

more temporary contracts than men, and the gender gap in part-time contracts was smaller among 

designers than in all occupations. 

Designers were, on average, younger than the average workers, with noticeable gender differences. 

Women designers were, on average, 39.3 years old, 2 years younger than men designers who had 

 22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WOMEN IN DESIGN 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

an average age of 41.3 years, whereas the overall average age of employed women was 46.4 years 

compared with 46.7 years for men. 

Despite  the  small  difference  of  2 months  in  the  average  age  of  employed  women  and  men,  the 

average  working  experience  of  women  in  the  current  job  was  8 months  shorter  than  for  men 

(10.5 years  average working  experience  for  women  and  11 years  and  2 months  average  working 

experience for men). The average working experience was shorter for designers: women designers 

had an average working experience of 8 years and 5 months and men designers had worked in their 

current job an average of 9 years and 7 months. In other words, women designers had 14 months 

shorter  working  experience than men  designers, a  smaller  gender  difference than  in  the  average 

age of designers (2 years). 

Summarising, women were less represented in designer positions, with an employment rate of just 

over half that of men designers. Nevertheless, there were smaller gender differences with regards 

to  part-time  contracts,  and  women  designers  were  more  willing  to  work  as  self-employed.  A 

distinguishing characteristic of designers is their average age: both women and men designers are 

younger  and  have  less  working  experience  than  the  average  worker;  and  within  the  design 

profession, women designers are younger and have shorter working experience in their current job 

compared to their male colleagues. 

Gender employment gaps among designers differ among the EU Member States, ranging from 20 % 

women designers in Slovakia, the Netherlands and the Czech Republic to 35 % in Latvia. 

 23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WOMEN IN DESIGN 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

Figure 3: Share of women designers in selected EU Member States, 2021 

Source: Authors’ calculations based on EU-LFS microdata for research purposes with 

available and reliable data. 

Table 3  shows  the  percentages  of  women  in  the  five  ISCO-08  minor  groups  of  the  designer 

occupation, as well as in all occupations, and for all designers. The low participation of women in 

designs is explained by the very low share of women working as electrotechnology engineers (215) 

and software applications developers and analysts (251). However, the participation of women in 

physical and earth science professionals (211) and architects, planners, surveyors and designers 

(216) was higher, even exceeding 50 % in seven Member States. 

 24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WOMEN IN DESIGN 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

Table 3: Share of women designers in EU Member States, 2021 

% women 

All 

occupations 

Designers 

EU23 

Austria 

Belgium 

Cyprus 

Czech Rep. 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Greece 

Spain 

Finland 

France 

Croatia 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Latvia 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Sweden 

Slovakia 

46.0 

46.8 

46.9 

46.9 

44.0 

46.9 

49.3 

42.2 

46.1 

47.9 

48.9 

45.9 

46.7 

46.4 

42.2 

49.8 

46.1 

50.1 

47.1 

45.3 

49.5 

41.7 

46.9 

46.9 

24.1 

21.4 

21.8 

31.2 

20.6 

23.7 

31.0 

25.8 

26.9 

25.7 

24.0 

23.6 

22.4 
22.6 

25.8 

27.1 

23.1 

34.6 

20.2 

22.5 

28.4 

22.8 

28.7 

20.1 

Physical 

Engineers 

Electrotech 

Architect 

Software 

211 

41.0 

39.7 

3.3 

76.3 

51.2 

50.2 

64.0 

39.5 

37.8 

33.2 

50.8 

79.7 

37.0 

32.5 

39.3 

42.9 

5.8 

65.4 

24.9 

48.4 

43.2 

44.3 

39.3 

46.7 

214 

21.9 

16.3 

16.2 

14.4 

22.1 

18.8 

32.2 

27.8 

22.1 

22.8 

22.8 

20.5 

24.7 

21.1 

19.0 

24.0 

13.3 

32.2 

13.2 

21.6 

32.6 

19.5 

32.0 

20.3 

215 

10.3 

11.3 

10.7 

4.2 

7.3 

8.9 

11.6 

9.2 

15.8 

13.4 

8.3 

5.1 

10.8 

11.2 

10.1 

12.8 

13.0 

3.2 

7.4 

6.2 

3.5 

13.4 

10.6 

13.9 

216 

42.9 

42.3 

45.4 

66.6 

38.9 

49.5 

56.6 

40.6 

38.1 

40.3 

43.8 

30.3 

39.3 

34.7 

40.4 

65.0 

53.0 

68.8 

39.6 

52.5 

44.3 

34.9 

55.6 

32.5 

251 

17.4 

14.2 

15.7 

18.4 

12.7 

18.4 

24.3 

19.6 

20.0 

27.6 

14.6 

24.1 

14.1 

21.6 

18.3 

19.9 

22.4 

19.7 

15.5 

13.8 

21.4 

29.2 

21.2 

11.6 

Source: Authors’ calculations based on EU-LFS microdata for research purposes with available and reliable data. 
Note:  211 Physical  and  earth  science  professionals;  214 Engineering  professionals  (excluding  electrotechnology); 
215 Electrotechnology engineers; 216 Architects, planners, surveyors and designers; and 251 Software and applications 
developers and analysts. 

This subsection has shown that there was a higher gender employment gap among designers (lower 

share of women among designers  compared to the average participation of women in the labour 

 25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
WOMEN IN DESIGN 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

market). Compared to the general labour market, women designers were less over-represented in 

part-time contracts, with significant gender differences in average age and occupations. 

Average earnings of women and men designers are analysed in sub-section 4.2, based on detailed 

data for employees (55). 

4.2 

Gender pay gap 

The presence of more women in some sectors or occupations is known as sectoral or occupational 

gender-based  segregation  and  has  been  analysed  in  sub-section 4.1.  The  average  earnings  of 

women and men designers are compared in this sub-section to estimate the gender pay gap, some 

of  which  can  be partially  explained by  different  characteristics  of  workers  and their  contracts  and 

employers. 

As explained in sub-section 4.1, 24.1 % of employees working as designers in the EU in 2021 were 

women. 

The Gender Pay Gap (GPG) is defined as the difference between the mean gross hourly earnings (56) 

of men and women as a percentage of the mean gross hourly earnings for men and can be estimated 

based  on  the  Structural  Earnings  Survey  (SES) (57).  The  estimation  of  GPG  for  2018  replicates 

Eurostat estimations (58) as closely as possible (59). 

(55) Not including self-employment, since self-employed workers by definition do not receive a salary. 
(56) For simplicity, throughout this report, mean or average gross hourly earnings are also referred to as average earnings. 
(57) Although Eurostat provides microdata for research purposes for 24 Member States (excluding Germany, Ireland and 
Austria) it includes enough detail to calculate GPG between designers only in 14 EU  Member States: Bulgaria, Cyprus, 
the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Greece, France, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Latvia, Malta, Poland and Slovakia. 
Reference is made to EU14 for the GPG between designers as well as for all employees for comparison purposes. 
(58) Eurostat (2021) ‘Gender pay gaps in the European Union, a statistical analysis’ Revision 1. 
(59) Eurostat estimation of GPG uses SES data excluding NACE sections A ‘Agriculture, forestry and fishing’, O ‘Public 
administration,  and  defence;  compulsory  social security’  and  T ‘Activities  of  households as  employers;  undifferentiated 
goods  –  and  services  –  producing  activities  of  households  for  own  use’;  enterprises  with  less  than  10  employees, 
apprentices,  and  occupations  ISCO  0 (Armed  forces)  and  6 (Skilled  agricultural,  Forestry  and  Fishery  workers).  In  the 
calculation  of  GPG  in  this  report,  all  enterprises  were  included,  regardless  of  their  size  (enterprises  with  less  than  10 
employees are also included) and activity as well as all employees. 

 26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WOMEN IN DESIGN 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

The GPG, calculated for EU14 (60) in 2018, as the difference between average gross earnings per 

hour (61) received by men and women (all employees (62)) was 13.3 %, meaning that men earned on 

average EUR 14.6 per hour and women earned EUR 12.7 per hour, or 13.3 % less than men. 

Eurostat’s SES microdata for research purposes includes ISCO occupations at least at the 2-digit 

level. Consistent with previous analysis of the gender employment gap in sub-section 4.1, designers 

are defined as workers in occupations included in ISCO minor groups 211, 214, 215, 216 and 251 

and then only 14 Member States with occupation details at 3-digit level were included. 

The employment gender gap in the occupation of designers is partly the consequence of gender-

based occupational segregation, or concentration of one gender in certain occupations, which may 

explain the difference in earnings between women and men, since women tend to be concentrated 

in low-paying occupations. The earnings of designers were 50 % above the average earnings of all 

employees for both women and men but the analysis has also confirmed a gender pay gap (GPG) 

between designers: women designers earn 12.8 % less than men designers, on average. 

Nevertheless, the gender discrimination as such in the sense of ‘unequal pay for equal work’ is not 

captured  by  the  unadjusted  GPG.  In  fact,  sub-section 4.1  demonstrated  that  women  and  men 

designers have different characteristics: women designers are younger, more often work part-time 

and  are  over-represented  in  some  occupations  and  sectors,  and  this  could  partially  explain  their 

lower hourly earnings. Women designers are also more represented among physical earth science 

professionals and architects, planners, surveyors and designers (occupations with average hourly 

earnings 22 % and 34 % lower than the average hourly earnings for all designers) and much less in 

electrotechnology  engineers  and  software  and  applications  developers  and  analysts  (hourly 

earnings slightly above the average earnings for designers). 

For the correct calculation of  the gender pay gap, differences in average earnings of women and 

men explained by differences in personal, job and enterprises characteristics should be considered. 

(60) As a reference, GPG calculated for all employees in the 24 Member States that provide SES microdata is 12.6 %. The 
detailed analysis of GPG for all occupations that follows, is almost identical when 24 Member States are included. 
(61)  The  average  gross  earnings  per  hour  is  calculated  based  on  the  actual  remuneration  in  cash  paid  before  any  tax 
deduction and social security contributions and the number of hours actually paid. 
(62) The SES refers to wages received by employees and does not include self-employed persons. 

 27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WOMEN IN DESIGN 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

To carry out this analysis, the logarithm of hourly earnings by women and men is regressed on the 

following explanatory variables. 

PERSONAL AND JOB CHARACTERISTICS: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

age (63) (six intervals); 

education (four levels); 

occupation (ISCO-08 at 3-digit level: 125 occupations); 

working time (full time or part time contract); 

employment contract (indefinite or temporary duration contract and apprentices). 

ENTERPRISE CHARACTERISTICS: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

principal economic activity of employer (NACE Rev 2 at division level: 39 activities); 

geographical location of the enterprise (14 countries); 

enterprise control (public, private, and shared); 

enterprise size (five levels defined by employment). 

Two regressions are run (for women and men), and the adjusted GPG based on the Blinder-Oaxaca 

decomposition (64) can be interpreted as the part of the unadjusted GPG that remains after correcting 

for different characteristics of women and men in the labour market. 

The calculation of adjusted GPG is a way to filter out sectoral and occupational segregation effects 

from the unadjusted GPG, as (partially) measured through the SES variables mentioned above. 

The  adjusted  GPG  is  then  calculated  for  all  employees  and  for  designers,  including  all  available 

information  from  the  SES.  For  all  employees,  the  mentioned  characteristics  of  workers  and 

enterprises explains only 2.3 percentage points (women are expected to learn 2.3 % less than men 

according to their characteristics) so that there is still 11 % of difference between hourly earnings of 

(63) Eurostat uses age in years and squared age in their calculation of adjusted GPG but this variable in microdata for 
research  purposes  is  only  available  codified  in  six  intervals.  Due  to  this  limitation,  squared  age  is  not  included  as  an 
explanatory variable. The working experience variable was missed in many countries and, therefore, it was not included in 
the analysis. 
(64) The technical details are provided in Appendix II. 

 28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WOMEN IN DESIGN 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

men and women that is not explained by known differences in average personal, job and enterprise 

characteristics. 

Nevertheless, there are two possible sources of the unexplained or adjusted GPG: the difference 

between earnings of women and men with the same average characteristics that reflects ‘unequal 

pay for equal work’ and differences explained by missing detailed information on economic activity 

or  occupations  in  which  women  can  be  under/over-represented  and  cannot  be  captured  by  SES 

microdata (65). 

Figure 4: Unadjusted and adjusted GPG in EU14: all employees and designers, 2018 

Source:  Authors’  calculations  based  on  EU-SES  microdata  for  research  purposes  with 
available and reliable data. 

The  variable  that  contributes  the  most  to  explain  the  unadjusted  GPG  (4.7 %)  is  the  economic 

activity: women work more often in activities that pay a lower salary. The higher share of women 

working part time explains 0.5 % of the GPG. However, women are expected to earn more (1.6 %) 

than men  due to  their  higher  average  education level  and because women  tend to work  more in 

better-paying occupations (women are expected to earn 1.4 % more than men based on this factor). 

Women are also expected to earn 0.3 % more than men because they are concentrated in medium 

(65) An example of a missing variable in the SES that could partially explain different earnings is the total working experience 
(this variable is defined in the survey as the months of experience in the current position). 

 29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WOMEN IN DESIGN 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

age  groups  (40-59  years)  and they  are  also  expected  to  earn  0.2 %  more  than  men  due  to  their 

higher  participation  in  medium  sized  enterprises.  The  remaining  variables  have  less  explanatory 

power,  except  the  country  of  location  of  the  statistical  unit,  which  explains  0.8 %  of  the  GPG  (in 

particular, the lower participation of Italian women stands out among the 14 Member States included 

in the analysis). 

As shown in figure 5, several variables make a negative contribution to the unadjusted GPG and 

they cancel out the contribution of differences in the economic activity of employers, their occupation 

and the part-time contracts, so that all variables included in the regressions explain 2.3 % and the 

unexplained or adjusted GPG is still 11 %. 

The  same  analysis  was  carried  out  for  women  and  men  designers,  considering  now  only  five 

ISCO/08  minor  groups  defining  designers ( 66 ).  The  explained  part  of  the  unadjusted  GPG  in 

occupations  related  to  designs  represents  4.8 percentage  points  (p.p.):  women  designers  are 

expected to earn, on average, 4.8 % less than men, according to their average characteristics on 

the labour market (less remunerative than those for men), so that the adjusted GPG for designers is 

8.0 %, 3 p.p. lower than the adjusted GPG for all occupations. 

The explained part of the GPG may be caused by gender biased preferences in occupations, sectors 

or educational fields, stereotypes or even  discrimination elements if there are barriers to entering 

specific economic activities or occupations. 

There  are  interesting  differences  in  the  most  important  explanatory  variables  of  GPG  among 

designers  compared  with  those  explaining  GPG  among  all  employees.  The  variables  that  best 

explain the lower earnings of women designers are: the presence of younger women compared with 

men  (1.6 %);  the  different  occupations  within  designers  ISCO-08  codes (67)  (1.2 %);  the  economic 

activity of the employer (0.5 %); and their higher share of temporary and part time contracts (0.4 % 

and  0.2 %  respectively).  However,  as  was  the  case  for  all  occupations,  women  designers  are 

expected to earn more (1.2 %) than men due to their higher education level, although this is the only 

variable that contributes negatively to the GPG of designers. The lower average earnings of women 

(66) Designers include ISCO-08 minor groups 211, 214, 215, 216 and 251. 
(67) In the EU14 Member States and in 2018 women designers were over-represented in occupations 211 ‘Physical and 
earth science professionals’ and 216 ‘Architects, planners, surveyors and designers’ which were the design occupations 
with lower average earnings in all Member States and accounting for 40 % of women designers and less than 20 % of men 
designers. 

 30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WOMEN IN DESIGN 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

designers are also explained by the country of location of the local unit, they are expected to earn 

1.8 % less than men due to their lower relative participation in countries with a lower GPG, such as 

Italy. 

Figure 5: GPG explained by personal, job and enterprise characteristics in EU14: all employees and 

designers, 2018 

Source:  Authors’  calculations  based  on  EU-SES  microdata  for  research  purposes  with 
available and reliable data. 

The GPG for designers ranges from 28 % in Bulgaria to less than 10 % in Italy and Luxembourg. 

Nevertheless,  the  nine  characteristics  included  in  the  analyses  contribute  to  explain  a  significant 

share of these gender differences. 

In relative terms, Lithuania and Denmark stand out due to the high share of gender differences in 

earnings explained by the different characteristics of women and men designers. 

 31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WOMEN IN DESIGN 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

Figure 6: GPG for designers in 12 Member States, 2018 

Source: Authors’ calculations based on EU-SES microdata for research purposes with 
available and reliable data. 

Table 4 shows the detailed results of GPG at Member State level including the explanatory capacity 

of nine variables related to the designer, job and enterprise. Results for Cyprus and Malta are used 

in  the  total  EU14  but  are  not  presented  independently  due  to  their  lower  reliability  reflecting  the 

smaller samples in the SES for those two countries. 

Occupation and age are the two variables that  best explain the gender differences in earnings of 

designers. By contrast, as in the EU GPG, the average higher level of education of women designers 

has a negative explanation to gender differences in 9 out of 12 countries. 

 32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WOMEN IN DESIGN 

Table 4: GPG for designers explained by personal, job and enterprise characteristics in the EU and Member States, 2018 

Unadjusted 
GPG 

Total 
explained 

Personal and job characteristics 

Enterprise characteristics 

Unexplained
/Adjusted 
GPG 

Age 

Occupation 

Education 

Employment 
contract 

Working 
time 

Geographical 
location 

Economic 
activity 

Enterprise 
size 

Enterprise 
control 

Explained GPG 

1.8 

EU14 

Bulgaria 

12.8 

28.1 

Czech Rep. 

18.9 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Greece 

France 

Italy 

Lithuania 

10.2 

20.9 

23.0 

11.1 

9.5 

21.1 

Luxembourg 

9.0 

Latvia 

Poland 

Slovakia 

27.1 

24.5 

12.8 

4.8 

0.1 

4.5 

4.3 

6.0 

8.0 

2.0 

1.6 

9.1 

3.4 

8.3 

8.6 

1.3 

1.6 

-1.6 

0.0 

1.9 

1.0 

2.6 

3.4 

0.5 

0.4 

2.9 

1.3 

1.2 

-0.4 

1.2 

-1.5 

1.9 

1.6 

4.7 

3.0 

0.1 

1.8 

8.6 

1.6 

2.6 

3.8 

1.8 

-1.2 

0.2 

0.1 

-1.1 

-1.2 

-1.1 

-1.1 

-0.6 

-0.1 

-0.5 

0.0 

-0.4 

-0.6 

0.4 

0.1 

0.4 

0.2 

0.0 

0.0 

0.3 

0.7 

0.0 

0.6 

0.3 

0.8 

0.4 

0.2 

0.0 

0.2 

0.1 

0.1 

0.4 

-1.1 

0.4 

-0.2 

-1.2 

-0.1 

0.1 

0.1 

0.5 

0.3 

2.0 

0.5 

2.2 

2.3 

0.3 

-1.4 

1.1 

0.1 

3.9 

1.9 

-0.8 

0.0 

0.9 

-0.9 

-0.3 

-0.6 

-0.3 

0.0 

0.3 

-0.8 

0.0 

-1.4 

0.5 

-1.1 

0.3 

1.8 

0.7 

1.3 

-0.2 

1.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

1.5 

0.3 

2.0 

8.0 

28.0 

14.4 

5.8 

15.0 

15.0 

9.1 

7.9 

12.1 

5.5 

18.9 

15.9 

11.5 

Source: Authors’ calculations based on EU-SES microdata for research purposes with available and reliable data. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WOMEN IN DESIGN 

This  confirms that the  unadjusted GPG  is  not  appropriate  when  comparing  gender  inequalities in 

design occupations and that the variables that explain those differences should be considered in any 

policy aiming to close the gender gap between designers. 

The different variables explaining GPG among countries are shown in figure 7. The GPG between 

designers  is  mainly  explained  by  different  occupations  of  women  and  men  in  Estonia,  Greece 

Lithuania,  and  Poland  while  age  explains  a  significant  part  of  the  GPG  in  Denmark,  France  and 

Luxembourg. 

Figure 7: GPG between designers explained by personal, job and enterprise characteristics in 12 EU 

Member States, 2018 

Source:  Authors’  calculations  based  on  EU-SES  microdata  for  research  purposes  with 
available and reliable data. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WOMEN IN DESIGN 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

5  Gender gap in registration of Registered 

Community Designs (RCDs) 

Section 4  has  examined  the  gender  employment  gap  (i.e.  under-representation  of  women  in  the 

designer  occupation)  and  the  gender  pay  gap  (i.e.  lower  earnings  of  women compared  with men 

designers). In this section, the focus is on the gender of RCD designers, specifically on the use of 

the RCD registration system by women designers. 

The gender analysis of RCD designers is based on 670 000 designs and 210 000 designers in the 

EUIPO databases. The information about the name of the designer is not compulsory. It is included 

in 43 % of the RCD registrations but only in one third of the designs filed by EU-based owners. Due 

to this bias in the response rate of the field containing the name of the designer, the results presented 

in  this  section  are  based  on  a  weighted  sample  that  balances  out  the  registration  of  designs  by 

country of the owner and by Locarno classes (68). 

The World Gender Name Dictionary (WGND) (69) developed by WIPO provides the dataset that allows 

to disambiguate the gender based on the first name of the designer and the country of the owner of 

the RCD (70). The method applied by the EUIPO in this study has been able to indicate the designer’s 

gender in 94 % of the designs with information on designers available. More details on the process 

of disambiguating the gender of RCD designers are included in Appendix III. 

Analysis of the RCD register with indicated gender for the designer(s) (71), shows that 19.5 % of the 

RCD  designers  are  women  and  the  average  share  of  designs  with  at  least  one  woman  designer 

between 2003 and 2022 is 24.7 %. Due to the presence of designs with more than one designer and 

at the same time designers with several designs, and the fact that the observation unit is the design 

(68) Locarno is the international classification used for the purposes of the registration of industrial designs to indicate the 
product(s)  that  the  design  is  intended  to  be  applied  or  incorporated  in.  Locarno classification headings  are  included  in 
appendix IV. 
(69) https://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/ip_innovation_economics/gender_innovation_gap/gender_dictionary.html. 
(70) There is no information about the country of origin of the designer and it is not possible to figure it out based on the 
available information at the EUIPO. The gender of the designers is then assigned based on the first name and the country 
of origin of the owner of the design. 
(71) More than 30 % of the RCDs filings include more than one designer. 

 35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WOMEN IN DESIGN 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

filing, the analysis that follows is based on the share of RCDs with at least one woman designer, as 

the indicator for gender gap in RCD filings. 

Figure 8 shows the evolution of the share of RCD filings with at least one woman designer from 2005 

until 2022 based on 3-year averages (72) to avoid excessive volatility of the series. 

The trend of RCDs with participation of women is positive, starting the series with 18 % of designs 

with at least one woman designer and reaching 30 % at the end of the series, a 12 percentage point 

increase in 17 years. 

Figure 8: Share of RCD filings with at least one woman designer, 2005-2022 

Source: Authors’ calculations based on RCD database. 

An interesting finding is the different gender gap in registration of RCDs by region of origin of the 

design  owner:  the  average  participation  of  women  designers  among  EU-based  owners  between 

2003 and 2022 is 21 %, while for non-EU owners it is 10 percentage points higher (73). As shown in 

(72)  The  3-year  moving  average  is  assigned  to  the  last  year  of  the  period,  for  example,  the  value  assigned  to  2005 
correspond to the average for the period 2003-2005. 
(73) For countries using non-Latin alphabets, RCD designers’ names used for the gender disambiguation were available in 
their transliterated Latin version. Since various transliteration schemes were probably used by the filers, the error rate may 
be higher for countries where names written in the original alphabet were not available. This could affect the statistics for 

 36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WOMEN IN DESIGN 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

figure 9, the lead of the non-EU owners when compared with EU owners of RCDs as regards the 

participation of women designers has grown significantly. In 2005, the share of designs with at least 

one  woman  designer  in non-EU  based  RCD  filings  was 22 %  and 17 % in EU-based  designs. In 

2022, the difference between non-EU and EU owners more than doubled, reaching 37 % for non-

EU-based RCDs and 26 % in EU-based designs. This is explained by the strong increase of this 

ratio in non-EU-based RCDs (15 p.p. increase in 17 years) compared to a more modest reduction of 

the RCD gender gap in the EU (9 p.p. in the same period). 

At the end of the period analysed, the share of RCD filings from EU-based owners with at least one 

woman  designer  is  close  to  the  share  of  women  working  as  designers,  as  explained  in  sub-

section 4.1. The average annual growth rate registered between 2003 and 2022 of RCD filings with 

at least one women designer was 2.5 % (compared to 1 % for RCD filings without women), so that 

at this pace it would take 51 years to achieve gender parity in EU-based RCD filings (74). 

Figure 9: Share of RCD filings with at least one woman designer in EU- and non-EU-based owners, 

2005-2022 

Source: Authors’ calculations based on RCD database. 

Korea, China or Japan, which should therefore be treated as approximations, with  a higher degree of uncertainty than 
statistics for the EU countries. 
(74) In WIPO (2016), an estimation based on listed inventors in the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) indicated that it will 
take no less than 64 years to reach a balanced gender distribution of inventors. As explained above, the share of RCD 
filings with at least one woman designer does not correspond with the share of designers in RCD filings but the former is 
considered a more appropriate indicator for gender gap in registration of RCD due to the nature of the available data. 

 37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WOMEN IN DESIGN 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

The  impressive  growth  rate  of  the  non-EU  based  RCD  filings  with  at  least  one  woman  designer 

occurred in the context of an overall growth rate of RCD filings from non-EU countries that was more 

than double the growth rate of EU-based filings. As a result, the number of RCD filings with at least 

one  women  designer from  non-EU-based  entities  surpassed  the  number  of  such  filings  from  EU-

based applicants in 2020. 

The six non-EU countries with the highest participation in RCD filings had a different behaviour in 

the period analysed. In 2005, RCDs registered by owners from China represented less than 1 % of 

all RCDs, while in 2022, China was first in the ranking, with 24 % of all RCDs registered that year. 

The United States was in fourth position in 2022 with a stable share of around 10 % of all RCDs, 

while the United Kingdom fell to 9th position (from 4th position in 2005). The different participation 

of these countries in the registration of the European designs has consequences for the RCD gender 

gap due to the different RCD gender gaps in each country, as shown in figure 10. 

The growth of RCD filings with at least one woman designer in non-EU countries is led by Korean, 

Chinese and US companies. Chinese filings had an average share of 40 % in the last decade. The 

participation  of  women  designers  in  RCD  filings  from  Chinese  owners  registered  an  impressive 

increase  from  24 %  in  2009  to  36 %  in  2011 (75).  In  contrast,  RCD  filings  from  the  United  States 

registered a sharp decrease in participation of women designers from a peak of 37 % in 2008 to a 

minimum  of  26 %  in 2013.  The recovering rates in the  United  States resulted  in a share of  RCD 

filings with at least one woman designer very close to the levels of China since 2020 and close to 

40 %. 

The highest share of RCD filings with at least one woman designer is registered in Korea (reaching 

more than 50 % in 12 out of 18 years). The share of RCDs with representation of women designers 

based in the United Kingdom and Japan is very similar to that for EU-based RCD owners, with a 

stable average close to 20 % in the period analysed. Finally, the participation of women designers 

in  RCD  filings  from  Switzerland  was  close  to  those  in  the  EU  until  2016,  when  it  registered  an 

increase  to  above  30 %,  reached  levels  close  to  40 %  between  2019  and  2021,  and  a  sharp 

decrease in 2022, but it is still above the EU average. 

(75) Please see footnote 71 for discussion of the possible biases affecting statistics for non-EU countries. 

 38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WOMEN IN DESIGN 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

Figure 10: Share of RCD filings with at least one woman designer, EU and six non-EU countries, 

2005-2022 

Source: Authors’ calculations based on RCD database. 
Note: CH = Switzerland; CN = China; EU = European Union; JP = Japan; KR = Korea; 
UK = United Kingdom; US = United States 

RCD filings from EU-based owners represented almost 70 % in 2005 and decreased to less than 

60 % in 2022. Regarding the RCD filings with at least one woman designer, EU-based owners had 

a share slightly above 70 % in 2005 and this decreased to 45 % in 2022, explained by the higher 

increase of women participation in RCDs in non-EU countries. 

 39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WOMEN IN DESIGN 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

Figure 11: Share of RCD filings with at least one woman designer in EU Member States (76) (average 

2003-2022) 

Source: Authors’ calculations based on RCD database. 
Note: The figures for Cyprus and Malta are not published separately due to their volatility, 
explained  by  the  smaller  samples  for  those  countries,  but  RCD  filings  from  these  two 
Member States are included in the EU totals. 

As shown in figures 10 and 11, compared with large non-EU countries, no EU Member State is close 

to  the  participation  of  women  designers  in  China,  Korea  or  the  US,  except  for  Latvia  and 

Luxembourg. 

Among the largest EU Member States, Spain, Italy and Poland show greater RCD gender gaps than 

the EU average (lower share of RCD filings with at least one woman designer). These three countries 

represent 40 % of all registered designs among EU Member States but only 32 % of designs with 

women  designers.  Germany  and  France  show  shares  of  RCD  filings  with  at  least  one  woman 

designer above the EU average with one third of all RCD filings and 36 % of all RCDs with women 

designers respectively. 

(76) Countries with above EU average of designs with women designers and above average EPO women inventor rates 
are Latvia, Portugal, Lithuania, Estonia, Greece, France, Belgium, and Ireland. 

 40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WOMEN IN DESIGN 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

The comparison of the participation of women in the designer occupation (from sub-section 4.1) and 

in the RCD system in 22 Member States (77) is shown in figure 12. Half of the Member States are on, 

or close to, the bisector (78) (or diagonal), meaning that the participation of women in the designer 

occupation is roughly equal to their use of the European registration system. Latvia stands out with 

close to 35 % of women designers in both indicators. At the other extreme, three countries show a 

disparity in the participation of women in the RCD system: Croatia, Spain and Italy have significantly 

lower shares of women as designers in RCDs than their participation in the labour market. 

Figure 12: Share of women designers and share of RCD filings with at least one woman designer in 

22 EU Member States 

Source: Authors’ calculations based on EU-LFS microdata for research purposes with 
available and reliable data and RCD database. 

The  participation  of  women  designers  in  RCDs  differs  depending  on  the  type  of  designs.  This  is 

reflected in figure 13, which shows the share of RCD filings with at least one woman designer by 

Locarno class (79). 

(77) The employment gender gap between designers is missing for Bulgaria, Germany, Malta and Slovenia and the RCD 
gender gap is missing for Cyprus and Malta. The EU average ratios in this comparison refers to the common  Member 
States (EU22) which is 1 percentage point below EU27 average. 
(78) The bisector is a line that divides something into two equal parts so that points in this line have the same value in both 
axis and then have equal shares of women designers and RCD filings with at least one woman designer. 
(79) Locarno classes headings are reproduced in Appendix IV. 

 41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WOMEN IN DESIGN 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

Figure 13: Share of RCD filings with at least one woman designer in EU27 by Locarno class (average 

2003-2022) 

Source: Authors’ calculations based on RCD database. 

Three  Locarno  classes  have  a  share  of  filings  with  at  least  one  woman  designer  above  35 %: 

28: Pharmaceutical and cosmetics products, toilet articles and apparatus; 11: Articles of adornment 

05: Textile  piece  goods,  artificial  and  natural  sheet  material.  Two  classes  are  very  close  to  35%: 

32: Graphic  symbols  and 

logos,  surfaces  patterns,  ornamentation;  and  14: Recording, 

telecommunication or data processing equipment. At the other extreme, the minimum share of RCD 

filings with women designers is below 10 % in the Locarno Class 17: Musical instruments, and three 

classes have a share below 15 %: 22: Arms, pyrotechnic articles, articles for hunting, fishing and 

pest killing; 25: Building units and construction elements; and 08: Tools and hardware. 

68 % of all RCD filings have only one designer per design, while the remaining 32 % have multiple 

designers or teams of designers. Women designers are more likely to work individually (80) than men 

designers,  with  43 %  of  women  designers  working  only  individually,  compared  to  38 %  of  men 

designers. More than half of the designers work exclusively in teams (52 % of women designers and 

(80) This finding is coherent with the higher presence of women designers as self-employed as shown in section 4.1. 

 42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WOMEN IN DESIGN 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

56 % of men designers). There is a small share of designers working both in teams and individually 

(5 % and 7 % of women and men designers respectively) (81). 

Regarding the presence of women designers in teams, it is noticeable that, although the percentage 

of teams with at least one woman designer increases with the size of the team, there are still 30 % 

of  teams  with  10  members  without  a  women  and  12 %  of  teams  with  more  than  10  members 

composed only of men. 

Figure 14: Share of RCD filings with at least one woman designer by size of team (EU only, average 

2003-2022) 

Source: Authors’ calculations based on RCD database. 

Finally, 37 % of designers have registered only one design, with lower average numbers of designs 

per woman designer than man (5.2 and 5.7 respectively). This explains the lower share of women 

designers compared to the share of designs with at least one woman designer. 

(81) It should be noted, however, that this discussion is based on the information in the RCD registration. Strictly speaking, 
it cannot be excluded that a design with just one designer on the filing can be the result of work by several designers, or 
indeed vice versa. 

 43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WOMEN IN DESIGN 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

6  Conclusions and suggestions for further research 

Equality of women and men in the field of designs is far from being achieved, whether consideration 

is  given  to  the  share  of  women  designers,  their  salaries  or  the  registration  of  RCDs  by  women 

designers. Nevertheless, the most worrying finding is the slow pace of reduction of the gender gap 

in  designs,  so  that,  on  current  trends,  it  would  take  51 years  to  achieve  gender  parity  in  the 

registration of RCD filings by EU-based owners. 

Regarding  the  differences  in  earnings  of  women  and  men  designers,  although  some  factors  can 

partially  explain  gender  differences  in  earnings,  there  is  still  a  significant  gender  pay  gap  among 

designers, which needs more investigation. 

This  report  makes  use  of  the  abundant  information  on  designers’  employment  and  earnings  by 

gender provided by Eurostat and the partial information on designers in the registration system of 

European  designs.  The  importance  of  gender  data  in  all  fields  is  crucial.  The  low  participation  of 

women designers in some fields could be understood better if more data on designers that participate 

in the IP system were available. The age of women designers and their working experience is one 

example of information that could explain gender differences in the registration of RCDs. 

Data at country level show significant differences, with some EU Member States in a good situation 

(e.g.  Denmark  ranks  first  in  relative  design  intensity  (measured  by  design  filings  per  thousand 

employees), lies above the EU average in the share of RCD filings with at least one woman designer 

and  has  a  low  GPG  between  designers).  However,  there  is  still  room  for  improvement  in  most 

countries. 

Future research on the gender gap in IP could focus on the reasons behind the step backward in 

participation  of  women  in  designer  occupations  since  2019 ( 82);  adding  national  designs  to  the 

analysis; and more knowledge on the characteristics of women designers registering RCD filings. 

(82) The Covid-19 pandemic is one obvious candidate, but it is unclear what mechanisms would link the pandemic to the 
decline in women designers’ participation in the RCD system. 

 44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WOMEN IN DESIGN 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

References 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE), 2019. Gender in Research. 

European  Patent  Office  (EPO)  and  European  Union  Intellectual  Property  Office  (EUIPO) 

(2022), IPR-intensive industries and economic performance in the European Union. Industry-

level analysis report, fourth edition. 

European Patent Office (EPO), 2022. Women inventors. 

Eurostat  (2021a),  She  figures  2021.  Gender  in  Research  and  Innovation.  Statistics  and 

Indicators. 

Eurostat  (2021b),  Denis  Leythienne  and  Marina  Pérez-Julián.  Gender  pay  gaps  in  the 

European Union – a statistical analysis. Revision 1, 2021 edition. 

Organization  for  Economic  Co-operation  and  Development  (OECD),  2022.  OECD  Gender 

Initiative. 

United  Kingdom  Intellectual  Property  Office  (UKIPO),  2019.  Gender  profiles  in  worldwide 

patenting: An analysis of women’s inventorship (2019 edition). 

United States Copyright Office, 2022. Women in the copyright system. An analysis of women 

authors in copyright registration from 1978 to 2020. 

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), 2019. Progress and Potential. A profile 

of women inventors on US patents. 

United  States  Patent  and  Trademark  Office  (USPTO),  2020.  Progress  and  Potential.  2020 

update on US women inventors-patentees. 

United  States  Patent  and  Trademark  Office  (USPTO),  2020.  Progress  and  Potential.  2020 

update on U.S. women inventor-patentees. 

•  World Economic Forum (WEF), 2022. Global Gender Gap Report, 2022. 

•  World  Intellectual  Property  Organization  (WIPO),  2016.  Identifying  the  gender  of  PCT 

inventors. Economic Research Working Paper No 33. 

•  World  Intellectual  Property  Organization  (WIPO),  2021.  Gender  Equality,  Diversity  and 

Intellectual Property. 

 45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WOMEN IN DESIGN 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

List of Tables and Figures 

Tables 

Table 1: Share of women designers, unadjusted and adjusted gender pay gap (GPG) and 

Registered Community Design (RCD) with at least one women designer. .................................... 10 

Table 2: Share of women by type of contract in EU23: all occupations and designers, 2021 ........ 22 

Table 3: Share of women designers in EU Member States, 2021 ................................................. 25 

Table 4: GPG for designers explained by personal, job and enterprise characteristics in the EU and 

Member States, 2018 .................................................................................................................... 33 

Table 5: Coefficients of determination (R2) of regressions explaining log hourly wages by women 

and men designers. ...................................................................................................................... 62 

Figures 

Figure 1: Share of women designers and RCD filings with at least one women designer in EU 

Member States. ............................................................................................................................ 11 

Figure 2: Share of women designers in EU23, 2011-2021 ............................................................ 21 

Figure 3: Share of women designers in selected EU Member States, 2021 .................................. 24 

Figure 4: Unadjusted and adjusted GPG in EU14: all employees and designers, 2018 ................. 29 

Figure 5: GPG explained by personal, job and enterprise characteristics in EU14: all employees 

and designers, 2018 ..................................................................................................................... 31 

Figure 6: GPG for designers in 12 Member States, 2018 .............................................................. 32 

Figure 7: GPG between designers explained by personal, job and enterprise characteristics in 

12 EU Member States, 2018 ......................................................................................................... 34 

Figure 8: Share of RCD filings with at least one woman designer, 2005-2022 .............................. 36 

Figure 9: Share of RCD filings with at least one woman designer in EU- and non-EU-based 

owners, 2005-2022 ....................................................................................................................... 37 

Figure 10: Share of RCD filings with at least one woman designer, EU and six non-EU countries, 

2005-2022..................................................................................................................................... 39 

Figure 11: Share of RCD filings with at least one woman designer in EU Member States () (average 

2003-2022) ................................................................................................................................... 40 

Figure 12: Share of women designers and share of RCD filings with at least one woman designer 

in 22 EU Member States ............................................................................................................... 41 

 46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
WOMEN IN DESIGN 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

Figure 13: Share of RCD filings with at least one woman designer in EU27 by Locarno class 

(average 2003-2022) .................................................................................................................... 42 

Figure 14: Share of RCD filings with at least one woman designer by size of team (EU only, 

average 2003-2022) ...................................................................................................................... 43 

Figure 15: Share of RCD filings by number of designers. .............................................................. 64 

Figure 16: Share of designers by number of designs. ................................................................... 65 

 47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
WOMEN IN DESIGN 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

Acronyms and Abbreviations 

EIGE 

EIT 

EU 

EUIPO 

Eurostat 

GDP 

DG-EAC 

GPG 

IP 

IPR 

ISCO 

LFS 

NACE 

OECD 

PCT 

RCD 

SES 

STEM 

UK 

UKIPO 

US 

USPTO 

WGND 

WIPO 

European Institute for Gender Equality 

European Institute of Innovation and Technology 

European Union 

European Union Intellectual Property Office 

Statistical Office of the European Union 

Gross Domestic Product 

Directorate-General Education, Youth, Sport and Culture  

Gender Pay Gap 

Intellectual Property 

Intellectual Property Right 

International Standard Classification of Occupations 

Labour Force Survey 

Nomenclature  statistique  des  activités  économiques  dans 
Communauté européene 
Organisation for the Economic Co-operation and Development 

la 

Patent Cooperation Treaty 

Registered Community Design 

Structure Earnings Survey 

Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics 

United Kingdom 

United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office 

United States 

United States Patents and Trademarks Office 

World Gender Name Dictionary 

World Intellectual Property Office 

 48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WOMEN IN DESIGN 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

Appendix I: International Standard Classification of 
Occupations (ISCO-08). 

A job is defined in ISCO-08 as a ‘set of tasks and duties performed, or meant to be performed, by 

one person, including for an employer or in self-employment’. 

Occupation refers to the kind of work performed in a job. The concept of occupation is defined as a 

‘set of jobs whose main tasks and duties are characterized by a high degree of similarity’. It is then 

clear  that  an  occupation  is  defined  by  the  tasks  performed  and  not  by  the  requirement  (studies, 

experience, etc) requested for the job. 

Skill is defined as ‘the ability to carry out the tasks and duties of a given job’ and skill level is defined 

as a ‘function of the complexity and range of tasks and duties to be performed in an occupation’. 

Skill level is measured operationally by considering the nature of the work performed, the level of 

formal education and the amount of informal on-the-job training and/or previous experience.  

The first level of ISCO-08 consists of ten major groups which are made up of one or more sub-major 

groups, which in turn are made up of one or more minor groups. Each of the 130 minor groups is 

made up of one or more unit groups. In general, each unit group is made up of several ‘occupations’ 

that have a high degree of similarity in terms of skill level and skill specialization.  

In this appendix we will limit the analysis to minor groups  which is the maximum level of detail of 

microdata used in section 4.  

Among the ten major groups of ISCO-08, 1 (Managers) and 2 (Professionals) require skills at the 

fourth ISCO skill level, which comprise education which begins at the age of 17 or 18, lasts about 

three,  four  or  more  years,  and  leads  to  a  university  or  postgraduate  university  degree,  or  the 

equivalent. 

Major group 1 includes managers and supervisors that may plan, organize, coordinate, control and 

direct the work done by others. The typical tasks of managers do not include design of products.  

 49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WOMEN IN DESIGN 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

The  occupations  included  in  major  group  2  are  now  detailed  based  on  definitions  of  ISCO-08  to 

delimitate which of their 27 minor groups carry out tasks required to design of products.  

Major group 2: Professionals 

Professionals  increase  the  existing  stock  of  knowledge;  apply  scientific  or  artistic  concepts  and 

theories; teach about the foregoing in a systematic manner; or engage in any combination of these 

activities. Competent performance in most occupations in this major group requires skills at the fourth 

ISCO skill level.  

Tasks  performed  by  professionals  usually  include:  conducting  analysis  and  research,  and 

developing concepts, theories and operational methods; advising on or applying existing knowledge 

related to physical sciences, mathematics, engineering and technology, life sciences, medical and 

health services, social sciences and humanities; teaching the theory and practice of one or more 

disciplines at different educational levels; teaching and educating persons with learning difficulties 

or  special  needs;  providing  various  business,  legal  and  social  services;  creating  and  performing 

works  of  art;  providing  spiritual  guidance;  preparing  scientific  papers  and  reports.  Supervision  of 

other workers may be included.  

Occupations in this major group are classified into the following sub-major groups:  

•  21 Science and Engineering Professionals  

•  22 Health Professionals  

•  23 Teaching Professionals  

•  24 Business and Administration Professionals  

•  25 Information and Communications Technology Professionals 

•  26 Legal, Social and Cultural Professionals- 

Sub-major groups 21 and 25 include occupations related to design.  

Sub-major Group 21: Science and Engineering Professionals  

Science  and  engineering  professionals  conduct  research;  improve  or  develop  concepts,  theories 

and operational methods; or apply scientific knowledge relating to fields such as physics, astronomy, 

 50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WOMEN IN DESIGN 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

meteorology,  chemistry,  geophysics,  geology,  biology,  ecology,  pharmacology,  medicine, 

mathematics, statistics, architecture, engineering, design and technology.  

Tasks performed by workers in this sub-major group usually include: conducting research, enlarging, 

advising on or applying scientific knowledge obtained through the study of structures and properties 

of physical matter and phenomena, chemical characteristics and processes of various substances, 

materials and products, all forms of human, animal and plant life and of mathematical and statistical 

concepts  and methods; advising  on,  designing  and directing  construction  of  buildings,  towns  and 

traffic  systems,  or  civil  engineering  and  industrial  structures,  as  well  as  machines  and  other 

equipment;  advising  on and  applying mining methods and  ensuring their optimum  use;  surveying 

land  and  sea  and  making  maps;  studying  and  advising  on  technological  aspects  of  particular 

materials, products and processes, and on efficiency of production and work organization; preparing 

scientific papers and reports. Supervision of other workers may be included. 

Occupations in this sub-major group are classified into the following minor groups:  

•  211 Physical and Earth Science Professionals  

Physical and earth science professionals conduct research; improve or develop concepts, theories 

and operational methods; or apply scientific knowledge relating to physics, astronomy, meteorology, 

chemistry, geology and geophysics. 

Tasks performed usually include: enlarging scientific knowledge through research and experiments 

related to mechanics, thermodynamics, optics, sonics, electricity, magnetism, electronics, nuclear 

physics, astronomy, various branches of chemistry, atmospheric conditions and the physical nature 

of  the  Earth;  advising  on  or  applying  this  knowledge  in  such  fields  as  manufacturing,  agriculture, 

medicine, navigation, space exploration, oil, gas, water and mineral exploitation, telecommunications 

and other services, or civil engineering; preparing scientific papers and reports. 

•  212 Mathematicians, Actuaries and Statisticians  

Mathematicians,  actuaries  and  statisticians  conduct  research;  improve  or  develop  mathematical, 

actuarial and statistical concepts, theories and operational models and techniques; and apply this 

 51 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
WOMEN IN DESIGN 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

knowledge  to  a  wide range  of tasks  in  such fields as  engineering,  business  and  social  and  other 

sciences. 

Tasks performed usually include: studying, improving and developing mathematical, actuarial and 

statistical  theories  and  techniques;  advising  on  or  applying  mathematical  principles,  models  and 

techniques  to  a  wide  range  of  tasks  in  the  fields  of  engineering,  natural,  social  or  life  sciences; 

conducting  logical  analyses  of  management  problems,  especially  in  terms  of  input-output 

effectiveness, and formulating mathematical models of each problem usually for programming and 

solution by computer; designing and putting into operation pension schemes and life, health, social 

and other types of insurance systems; applying mathematics, statistics, probability and risk theory 

to assess  potential  financial  impacts of future  events;  planning  and organizing  surveys  and other 

statistical  collections,  and  designing  questionnaires;  evaluating,  processing,  analysing  and 

interpreting statistical data and preparing them for publication; advising on or applying various data 

collection methods and statistical methods and techniques, and determining reliability of findings, 

especially in such fields as business or medicine as well as in other areas of natural, social or life 

sciences; preparing scientific papers and reports; supervising the work of mathematical, actuarial 

and statistical assistants and statistical clerks. 

•  213 Life Science Professionals  

Life science professionals apply knowledge gained from research into human, animal and plant life 

and  their  interactions  with  each  other  and  the  environment  to  develop  new  knowledge,  improve 

agricultural and forestry production, and solve human health and environmental problems.  

Tasks performed usually include: collecting, analysing and evaluating experimental and field data to 

identify and develop new processes and techniques; providing advice and support to governments, 

organizations and businesses about ecological sustainable development of natural resources.  

•  214 Engineering Professionals (excluding Electrotechnology)  

Engineering  professionals  (excluding  electrotechnology)  design,  plan  and  organize  the  testing, 

construction,  installation  and  maintenance  of  structures,  machines  and  their  components,  and 

production systems and plants; and plan production schedules and work procedures to ensure that 

engineering projects are undertaken safely, efficiently and in a cost-effective manner. 

 52 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WOMEN IN DESIGN 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

Tasks  performed  usually  include:  planning  and  designing  chemical  process  systems,  civil 

engineering projects, mechanical equipment and systems, mining and drilling operations, and other 

engineering projects; specifying and interpreting drawings and plans, and determining construction 

methods;  supervising  the  construction  of  structures,  water  and  gas  supply  and  transportation 

systems, and the manufacture, installation, operation and maintenance of equipment, machines and 

plant; organizing and managing project labour and the delivery of materials, plant and equipment; 

estimating total costs and preparing detailed cost plans and estimates as tools for budgetary control; 

resolving design and operational problems in the various fields of engineering through the filing of 

engineering technology.  

•  215 Electrotechnology Engineers  

Electrotechnology  engineers  conduct  research  on  and  design,  advise,  plan  and  direct  the 

construction and operation of electronic, electrical and telecommunications systems, components, 

motors and equipment. They organize and establish control systems to monitor the performance and 

safety of electrical and electronic assemblies and systems. 

Tasks performed usually include: conducting research, advising on and directing the maintenance 

and repair of electrical, electronic and telecommunications products and systems; advising on and 

designing  power  stations  and  systems  that  generate,  transmit  and  distribute  electrical  power; 

establishing  control  standards  to  monitor  performance  and  safety  of  electrical,  electronic  and 

telecommunication systems and equipment.  

•  216 Architects, Planners, Surveyors and Designers  

Architects, planners, surveyors and designers plan and design landscapes, building exteriors and 

interiors,  products  for  manufacture,  and  visual  and  audiovisual  content  for  the  communication  of 

information. They conduct survey work to precisely position geographical features; design, prepare 

and revise maps; and develop and implement plans and policies for controlling the use of land. 

Tasks performed usually include: determining the objectives and constraints of the design brief by 

consulting  with  clients  and  stakeholders;  formulating  design  concepts  and  plans  that  harmonize 

aesthetic  considerations  with  technical,  functional,  ecological  and  production  requirements; 

preparing sketches, diagrams, illustrations, animations, plans, maps, charts, samples and models to 

 53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WOMEN IN DESIGN 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

communicate  design  concepts  and  other  information;  analysing  photographs,  satellite  imagery, 

survey  documents  and  data,  maps,  records,  reports  and  statistics;  undertaking  research  and 

analysing functional, spatial, commercial, cultural, safety, environmental and aesthetic requirements.  

Sub-major group 25: Information and Communications Technology Professionals 

Information  and  communications  technology  professionals  conduct  research;  plan,  design,  write, 

test, provide advice and improve information technology systems, hardware, software and related 

concepts  for  specific  filings;  develop  associated  documentation  including  principles,  policies  and 

procedures;  and design,  develop,  control,  maintain  and  support  databases  and  other  information 

systems to ensure optimal performance and data integrity and security. 

Tasks  performed  by  workers  in  this  sub-major  group  usually  include:  researching  information 

technology  use  in  business  functions;  identifying  areas  for  improvement  and  researching  the 

theoretical  aspects  and  operational  methods  for  the  use  of  computers;  evaluating,  planning  and 

designing hardware or software configurations for specific filings including for Internet, Intranet and 

multimedia systems; designing, writing, testing and maintaining computer programs; designing and 

developing  database  architecture  and  database  management  systems;  developing  and 

implementing security plans and data administration policy, and administering computer networks 

and  related  computing  environments;  analysing,  developing,  interpreting  and  evaluating  complex 

system  design  and  architecture  specifications,  data  models  and  diagrams  in  the  development, 

configuration and integration of computer systems.  

Occupations in this sub-major group are classified into the following minor groups:  

•  251 Software and Applications Developers and Analysts  

Software  and  applications  developers  and  analysts  conduct  research;  plan,  design,  write,  test, 

provide  advice  on  and  improve  information  technology  systems  such  as  hardware,  software  and 

other applications to meet specific requirements.  

Tasks performed usually include: researching information technology use in business functions and 

identifying areas in which improvements could be made to maximize effectiveness and efficiency; 

conducting  research  into  the  theoretical  aspects  of  and  operational  methods  for  the  use  of 

 54 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
WOMEN IN DESIGN 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

computers;  evaluating,  planning  and  designing  hardware  or  software  configurations  for  specific 

applications;  designing,  writing, 

testing  and  maintaining  computer  programs 

for  specific 

requirements; evaluating, planning and designing Internet, Intranet and multimedia systems. 

•  252 Database and Network Professionals 

Database  and  network  professionals  design,  develop,  control,  maintain  and  support  the  optimal 

performance and security of information technology systems and infrastructure, including databases, 

hardware and software, networks and operating systems.  

Tasks performed usually include: designing and developing database architecture, data structures, 

dictionaries  and  naming  conventions  for  information  systems  projects;  designing,  constructing, 

modifying,  integrating,  implementing  and testing  database  management systems;  developing  and 

implementing security plans, data administration policy, documentation and standards; maintaining 

and administering computer networks and related computing environments; analysing, developing, 

interpreting and evaluating complex system design and architecture specifications, data models and 

diagrams in the development, configuration and integration of computer systems. 

Based on ISCO 08 description, the occupations that perform tasks related to designs are included 

in  sub-major  group  21  excluding  212  and  213  which  are  related  to  mathematical  and  biological 

related  research  that  usually  do  not  result  in  a  design  plus  minor  group  251  for  Information  and 

Communication Technology (ICT) related designs. 

Designer is understood in section 4 as all workers in occupations included in the following five 

minor groups (3-digit level) classified into detailed unit groups (4-digit level): 

211 Physical and Earth Science Professionals  

2111 Physicists and Astronomers 

2112 Meteorologists  

2113 Chemists 

2114 Geologists and Geophysicists  

214 Engineering Professionals (excluding Electrotechnology)  

2141 Industrial and Production Engineers 

 55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WOMEN IN DESIGN 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

2142 Civil Engineers 

2143 Environmental Engineers 

2144 Mechanical Engineers 

2145 Chemical Engineers 

2146 Mining Engineers, Metallurgists and Related Professionals 

2149 Engineering Professionals Not Elsewhere Classified 

215 Electrotechnology Engineers  

2151 Electrical Engineers 

2152 Electronics Engineers 

2153 Telecommunications Engineers 

216 Architects, Planners, Surveyors and Designers 

2161 Building Architects  

2162 Landscape Architects 

2163 Products and Garment Designers 

2164 Town and Traffic Planners 

2165 Cartographers and Surveyors 

2166 Graphic and Multimedia Designers 

251 Software and Applications Developers and Analysts  

2511 Systems Analysts  

2512 Software Developers 

2513 Web and Multimedia Developers 

2514 Applications Programmers 

2519 Software and Applications Developers and Analysts Not Elsewhere Classified 

 56 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WOMEN IN DESIGN 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

Appendix II: Methodology for the estimation of Gender 

Pay Gap (GPG)  

This  appendix  is  extracted  from  Eurostat  (2021)  ‘Gender  pay  gaps  in  the  European  Union,  a 

statistical  analysis,  Revision  1,  2021  edition’.  Dennis  Leythienne  and  Marina  Pérez-Julián  for 

clarification of the concepts used in sub-section 4.2.  

The unadjusted gender pay gap (GPG) is calculated as the relative difference between the average 

earnings of women and men. However, the unadjusted GPG does not capture discrimination as such 

in  the  sense  of  ‘equal  pay  for  equal  work  or  work  of  equal  value’.  Indeed,  the  unadjusted  GPG 

combines (1) possible differences in the average characteristics of men and women in the labour 

market (e.g. different occupations, economic activities and average age) and (2) gender gaps for the 

same average characteristics.  

To  analyse the  GPG,  Eurostat  has  used  microdata  from  the  Structure  of  Earnings  Survey  (SES) 

2018 83 .  The  microdata  cover  two  broad  areas:  the  earnings  of  individual  employees  and  the 

observed characteristics of individual employees.  

A statistical method known as the Blinder-Oaxaca method was applied on this data set to single out 

the  contribution  of  each  observed  characteristic  to  the  unadjusted  GPG.  According  to  this 

decomposition,  the  unadjusted  GPG  can  be  split  into  three  parts:  (1)  the  part  explained  by  the 

different average characteristics of the men and woman employees, (2) the part explained by gender 

differences in returns for the same average characteristics and (3) the unexplained residual.  

The unadjusted gender pay gap (GPG) 

Eurostat publishes the unadjusted GPG annually. It is based on the methodology of the Structure of 

Earnings Survey (SES), which is released every 4 years. The unadjusted GPG is derived from SES 

data recorded in reference years 2002, 2006, 2010, 2014 and 2018, and from other national sources 

for the years between surveys. The scope and coverage of the unadjusted GPG are as follows: (1) 

83 Only 3 MS are missing in SES microdata for research purposes: Austria, Germany and Ireland. Nevertheless, for 10 
countries  the  occupation  is  detailed  at  ISCO-08  2-digit  level:  Belgium,  Spain,  Finland,  Croatia,  Hungary,  Netherlands, 
Portugal, Romania, Sweden and Slovenia. Therefore, the analysis of GPG is limited to the 14 MS with detailed occupations 
data at ISCO-08 3-digit level. 

 57 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WOMEN IN DESIGN 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

economic activity sections B to S with the exclusion of O84, defined by the statistical classification of 

economic  activities  in  the  European  Community  (NACE)  Revision  2,  (2)  only  enterprises  with  10 

employees or more, (3) no restrictions for age and hours worked, and (4) both full-time and part-time 

employees are included.  

The definition of the unadjusted GPG, expressed as a percentage, is as follows:  

𝑀𝑒𝑎𝑛 (𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠) ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑙𝑦 𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑚𝑒𝑛 − 𝑀𝑒𝑎𝑛 (𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠) ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑙𝑦 𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑤𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑛
𝑀𝑒𝑎𝑛 (𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠) ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑙𝑦 𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑚𝑒𝑛

The  mean  gross  hourly  earnings  are  defined  as  the  actual  remuneration  in  cash  paid  during  the 

reference month before any tax deduction and social security contributions payable by wage earners 

and  retained  by  the  employer  divided  by  the  number  of  hours  actually  paid  during  the  reference 

month.  

As an unadjusted indicator, the GPG gives an overall picture of the differences in pay between men 

and women. It measures a concept that is broader than the concept of ‘equal pay for equal work or 

work of equal value’. A part of the difference in earnings between men and women can be explained 

by differences in the average characteristics of men and woman employees. The differences in the 

average characteristics can result from many factors, including the concentration of one gender in 

certain economic activities or occupations.  

Another possible source of GPGs is the difference between the returns paid to women versus those 

paid to men with the same average characteristics. Such differences may stem from ‘unequal pay 

for equal work’ but also from the lack of information on detailed economic activities and occupations 

in which men  and women may  be  concentrated. Such  effects  of  segregation  cannot  be  captured 

directly because SES variables are collected at a rather aggregated level (e.g. NACE sections). 

The  unadjusted  GPG  is  therefore  a  complex  indicator.  Its  measurement  covers  possible 

discrimination between men and women through ‘unequal pay for equal work’; the differences in the 

84 The  unadjusted  GPG  estimated  by  Eurostat  covers  all  economic  activities  except  agriculture,  forestry  and  fishing 
(section  A),  public  administration,  defence  and  compulsory  social  security  (section  O),  and  activities  of  households  as 
employers, undifferenciated goods and services producing activities of households for own use (section T). 

 58 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WOMEN IN DESIGN 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

average characteristics of men and woman and further segregation effects that would show up in 

the different returns of men and women.   

To  differentiate  the  different  factors  at  work  in  the  GPG,  Eurostat  applied  the  Oaxaca-Blinder 

methodology.  

In the first stage, we ran a regression analysis to estimate the earnings equations for men (M) and 

women (W) separately, as detailed in the following equations: 

𝑙𝑛𝑦𝑖

𝑊 = 𝛽0

𝐾
𝑀
𝑊 + ∑ 𝑥𝑘𝑖
𝑘=1

𝑙𝑛𝑦𝑖

𝑀 = 𝛽0

𝐾
𝑀
𝑀 + ∑ 𝑥𝑘𝑖
𝑘=1

𝑊 + 𝜀𝑖
𝛽𝑘

𝑊 

𝑀 + 𝜀𝑖
𝛽𝑘

𝑀 

Where: 

• 

• 

𝑙𝑛𝑦𝑖 represents the natural log of hourly earnings for observation i; 

xki   from  k=1  to  k=K,  are  explanatory  variables  covering  the  observed  personal,  job  and 

enterprise characteristics that may impact on the log hourly earnings of individual i; 

• 

 𝛽0  is  a  constant  and 𝛽𝑘  ,  from  k=1  to  k=K,  are  the  parameters  for  the  corresponding 

variables covering the observed characteristics; 

• 

𝜀𝑖  is  a  disturbance  term  for  observation  i,  independent  from  each  other  and  normally 

distributed with average zero and same variance (i.e. ‘white noise’). 

The regression analysis includes the SES variables as explanatory variables covering the observed 

personal, job and enterprise characteristics.  

In the second stage, a decomposition analysis of the difference between the means of log hourly 

earnings of men and women is carried out:  

∆= 𝑙𝑛𝑦̅̅̅̅̅𝑀 - 𝑙𝑛𝑦̅̅̅̅̅𝑊  

The  Oaxaca  decomposition  uses  the  following  regression  property  for  the  means  of  log  hourly 

earnings of men and women: 

 59 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WOMEN IN DESIGN 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

𝐾
𝑙𝑛𝑦̅̅̅̅̅𝑀 =   𝛽̂
𝑀
𝑀 + ∑ 𝑥̅𝑘
0
𝑘=1

𝛽̂
𝑀 
𝑘

𝐾
𝑙𝑛𝑦̅̅̅̅̅𝑊 =   𝛽̂
𝑊
𝑊 + ∑ 𝑥̅𝑘
0
𝑘=1

𝛽̂
𝑊 
𝑘

These  equations  provide  insights  into  the  men  and  woman  earnings  structures  by  showing  the 

relationship between the mean of log hourly earnings and the observed average characteristics for 

men  and  women  (𝑥̅𝑘
respectively). 

𝑀 and 𝑥̅𝑘

𝑀 and 𝛽̂
𝑊 ,  respectively)  as  well  as  the  corresponding  returns  (𝛽̂
𝑊, 
𝑘
𝑘

Assuming, in accordance with the definition of the unadjusted GPG, that the men earnings structure 

constitutes the benchmark, the estimated constant and coefficients in the men’s equation are treated 

as the non-discriminatory benchmarks for the returns on characteristics of employees.  

The difference between the logarithms of the earnings of men and women can thus be decomposed 

as follows:  

𝐾

𝑙𝑛𝑦̅̅̅̅̅𝑀 −   𝑙𝑛𝑦̅̅̅̅̅𝑊 =   ∑ 𝛽̂
𝑊)
𝑀( 𝑥̅𝑘
𝑘
𝑘=1⏟            
𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑠 (𝐸)

𝑀 − 𝑥̅𝑘

𝐾
+   ∑ 𝑥̅𝑘

𝑀 − 𝛽̂
𝑊(𝛽̂
𝑊)
𝑘
𝑘
𝑘=1⏟            
𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑛𝑠 (𝑈1)

𝑀 − 𝛽̂
+ (𝛽̂
𝑊)
⏟      
0
0
𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑢𝑎𝑙𝑠 (𝑈2)

Where k=1 to k=K refers to the corresponding variables covering the observed characteristics.  

If we call the gap explained by the different average characteristics of men and woman employees 

E, the unexplained part caused by different returns U1 and the remaining residual U2, we have: 

𝑙𝑛𝑦̅̅̅̅̅𝑀 − 𝑙𝑛𝑦̅̅̅̅̅𝑊 = 𝐸 + 𝑈1 + 𝑈2 

Then, we correct the mean hourly earnings of women for the explained part E and define:  

𝑙𝑛𝑦̅̅̅̅̅𝑊 𝑎𝑑𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑑 = 𝑙𝑛𝑦̅̅̅̅̅𝑊 + 𝐸 

The GPG definition is based on average hourly earnings:  

 60 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WOMEN IN DESIGN 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

𝐺𝑃𝐺 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑎𝑑𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑑 = 1 −   (

𝑦𝑊̅̅̅̅
𝑦𝑀̅̅̅̅

) 

We define the GPG adjusted as:  

𝐺𝑃𝐺 𝑎𝑑𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑑 = 1 −   (

̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
𝑦𝑊𝑎𝑑𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑑
𝑦𝑀̅̅̅̅

) = 1 − (

𝑦𝑊̅̅̅̅
𝑦𝑀̅̅̅̅

= 1 − (1 − 𝐺𝑃𝐺 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑎𝑑𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑑) ∗ (

) ∗   (

)

̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
𝑦𝑊𝑎𝑑𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑑
𝑦𝑊̅̅̅̅
̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
𝑦𝑊𝑎𝑑𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑑
𝑦𝑊̅̅̅̅

) 

The estimate for  𝑦𝑊𝑎𝑑𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑑

̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ can be derived from 𝑙𝑛𝑦̅̅̅̅̅𝑊 𝑎𝑑𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑑 as follows:  

̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ = 𝐸𝑥𝑝 (𝑙𝑛𝑦̅̅̅̅̅𝑊 𝑎𝑑𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑑) ∗ 𝐸𝑥𝑝(𝜀𝑖
 𝑦𝑊𝑎𝑑𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑑

̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ =  𝐸𝑥𝑝 (𝑙𝑛𝑦̅̅̅̅̅𝑊) ∗ 𝐸𝑥𝑝(𝐸) ∗ 𝐸𝑥𝑝(𝜀𝑖

̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅  
𝑊)

𝑊)

Likewise:  

𝑦𝑊̅̅̅̅ = 𝐸𝑥𝑝(𝑙𝑛𝑦𝑊̅̅̅̅̅̅̅) ∗ 𝐸𝑥𝑝(𝜀𝑖

̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ 
𝑊)

Hence:  

 (

̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
𝑦𝑊 𝑎𝑑𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑑
𝑦𝑊̅̅̅̅̅

) = 𝐸𝑥𝑝(𝐸) 

Therefore: 

𝐺𝑃𝐺 𝑎𝑑𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑑 = 1 − (1 − 𝐺𝑃𝐺 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑎𝑑𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑑) ∗ 𝐸𝑥𝑝(𝐸) 

Hence:  

𝐺𝑃𝐺 𝑎𝑑𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑑 = 𝐸𝑥𝑝(𝐸) ∗  𝐺𝑃𝐺 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑎𝑑𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑑 +   [1 −  𝐸𝑥𝑝(𝐸)] 

The adjustment of the GPG (GPG not adjusted – GPG adjusted) can be calculated as:  

𝐺𝑃𝐺 𝑎𝑑𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 = [ 𝐸𝑥𝑝(𝐸) − 1] ∗ (1 − 𝐺𝑃𝐺 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑎𝑑𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑑) 

And  this  last  equation  may  be  applied  to  E  as  a  whole  or  to  each  component:  𝛽̂
𝑀( 𝑥̅𝑘
𝑘

𝑀 − 𝑥̅𝑘

𝑊) 

separately. This way, it is possible to measure how differences in the average profile of  men and 

woman employees contribute to the GPG, for each variable (age, occupation, education, etc.). 

GPG explained part (by each variable and total) and the unexplained/adjusted GPG is presented in 

table 1 in the Executive Summary. The unexplained or adjusted GPG cannot be directly understood 

as a measurement of discrimination through ‘unequal pay for equal work’ due to data limitations of 

SES: some variables are compiled in an aggregated way and other variables are not included in the 

 61 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WOMEN IN DESIGN 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

survey  that  cannot  capture  all  the  characteristics  of  a  job85.  This  limitation  should  be  considered 

when  interpreting the  unexplained  GPG,  in  particular  for  those  countries with  a  low  coefficient  of 

determination, presented for all MS and both genders in table 5. 

Table 5: Coefficients of determination (R2) of regressions explaining log hourly wages by women and 

men designers. 

R2 (%) 

Women 

Men 

designers 

designers 

EU14 

Bulgaria 

Czech Republic 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Greece 

France 

Italy 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Latvia 

Poland 

Slovakia 

74.5 

18.9 

30.0 

44.5 

33.7 

50.0 

27.0 

46.0 

41.9 

48.7 

30.5 

33.1 

33.7 

67.7 

17.1 

31.5 

40.9 

30.7 

44.4 

24.4 

42.3 

36.4 

44.1 

34.7 

30.7 

33.1 

Source:  Authors’  calculations  based  on  EU-SES 
microdata  for  research  purposes  with  available  and 
reliable data. 

85 An important variable not included in SES is the total working experience, in the current and previous positions.  

 62 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WOMEN IN DESIGN 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

Appendix III: Determination of the gender of designers 
in Registered Community Design (RCD) filings. 

The source of data used in section 5 to analyse gender of designers is the EUIPO database of RCDs 

filings. It is not obligatory to provide the data of designers in the RCD filing, therefore this information 

is  available  only  for  a  fraction  of  RCDs.  Additionally,  the  data  on  designers  is  stored  in  one field 

containing first name and surname, and sometimes additional data identifying a designer86.  

Therefore, the first challenge in data analysis consisted in separation of first name of designer from 

additional data. Then, an algorithm was used to disambiguate the gender based on the first name 

and  the  World  Gender  Name  Dictionary  (WGND) 87 developed  by  WIPO,  with  some  additional 

cleaning88.  

Information on designer was available for over 670 000 observations, corresponding to over 43 % of 

all designs’ filings. Approximately 330 000 of those filings correspond to filings of EU-based owners. 

The ratio of designer data availability for RCDs with EU-based applicants is lower and amounts to 

32%. The availability of designers’ data varies depending on country of origin of owner. Whereas the 

RCDs filed by the EU based owners make up approximately 70% of all filings, they correspond to 

approximately 50% of the sample with designers’ data. Availability of designers’ data varies also by 

Locarno class associated with designs. The ratio of designers’ data availability is higher for Locarno 

classes with lower rate of women designers which also might introduce some bias in the analysis. 

Estimation of the RCD gender gap in section 5 has been performed based on weighted statistics 

correcting sample observations with weights reflecting distribution of designs by year, country and 

Locarno class.  

Based on the algorithm, the project team was able to indicate designers’ gender for almost 632 000 

(94 %) of all designs with information of the designer available. In the case of designs with EU-based 

owners, the team was able to determine designers’ gender in case of over 308 000 RCDs (94 % of 

designs with designer information available). The quality check of the disambiguation of gender data 

86 The field with the name of the designer includes first name, surname and address information without separation. This 
field was cleaned before extracting the most probable first name. 
87 https://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/ip_innovation_economics/gender_innovation_gap/gender_dictionary.html 
88 The gender is assigned based on the first name and country of the owner. When the filing is filed by owners of different 
countries, the country used to assign the gender of the designer is the country of the first owner.  

 63 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WOMEN IN DESIGN 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

resulted in 1 % of false positive errors89 and approx. 50 % of false negative errors90. It is important 

to emphasise that false negative errors affect only those observations where the designers’ data is 

present in the file, but gender was not indicated (approx. 6% of designs with designers’ data). The 

quality  check  of  the  correctness  of  gender  disambiguation,  conducted  on  a  sample  of  designs, 

showed that the error rate is below 5%. 

The average number of designers per design is 1.7, with a maximum of 26 designers and two thirds 

of designs with only one designer.  

Figure 15: Share of RCD filings by number of designers.  

Source: Authors’ calculations based on RCD database. 

Based on all the RCD designers identified in EUIPO database, the average number of designs per 

designer in 5.6 with a maximum of 6 877 designs. 37 % of the designers have registered only one 

RCD design and more than half designers have registered a maximum of 2 designs.   

89 False positive error corresponds to the case when the algorithm assigns a gender to a field that does not contains a first 
name, and it should not assign any gender. 
90 False negative error is the case when the algorithm is not able to associate a gender with the first name when it should 
do  so.  This  error  is  related  to  lack  of  presence  of  specific  name-country  pairs  in  the  dictionary,  problems  in  gender 
disambiguation of names of foreign designers or rejection of an observation during the cleaning phase.   

 64 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WOMEN IN DESIGN 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

Figure 16: Share of designers by number of designs. 

Source: Authors’ calculations based on RCD database. 

Appendix IV: Locarno classification  

Class 
Number 

Class Heading 

Subclass 
Number 

Subclass Heading 

01 

02 

03 

Foodstuffs 

Articles of clothing and 
haberdashery 

Travel goods, cases, 
parasols and personal 
belongings, not elsewhere 
specified 

01 

02 
03 
04 
05 
06 
99 
01 
02 
03 
04 
05 
06 
07 
99 

01 

03 
04 
05 

Bakers' products, biscuits, pastry, pasta and other cereal products, 
chocolates, confectionery, ices 
Fruit, vegetables and products made from fruits and vegetables 

Cheeses, butter and butter substitutes, other dairy produce 

Butchers' meat (including pork products), fish 

Tofu and tofu products 

Animal foodstuffs 

Miscellaneous 

Undergarments, lingerie, corsets, brassières, nightwear 

Garments 

Headwear 

Footwear, socks and stockings 

Neckties, scarves, neckerchiefs and handkerchiefs 

Gloves 

Haberdashery and clothing accessories 

Miscellaneous 
Trunks, suitcases, briefcases, handbags, keyholders, cases specially 
designed for their contents, wallets and similar articles 
Umbrellas, parasols, sunshades and walking sticks 

Fans 

Devices for carrying and walking with babies and children 

 65 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
WOMEN IN DESIGN 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

Class 
Number 

Class Heading 

04 

05 

06 

07 

08 

Brushware  

Textile piece goods, 
artificial and natural sheet 
material  

Furnishing  

Household goods, not 
elsewhere specified  

Tools and hardware 

Subclass 
Number 
99 
01 
02 
03 
04 
99 
01 
02 
03 
04 
05 
06 
99 
01 
02 
03 
04 
05 
06 
07 
08 
09 
10 
11 
12 
13 
99 
01 
02 
03 
04 
05 
06 
07 
08 
09 
10 
99 
01 
02 
03 
04 
05 
06 
07 
08 

09 

10 

Subclass Heading 

Miscellaneous 

Brushes and brooms for cleaning 

Toilet brushes, clothes brushes and shoe brushes 

Brushes for machines 

Paintbrushes, brushes for use in cooking 

Miscellaneous 

Spun articles 

Lace 

Embroidery 

Textile fabrics 

Miscellaneous 

Seats 

Beds 

Ribbons, braids and other decorative trimmings 

Artificial or natural sheet material 

Tables and similar furniture 

Storage furniture 

Composite furniture 

Other furniture and furniture parts 

Mirrors and frames 

Clothes hangers 

Mattresses and cushions 

Curtains and indoor blinds 

Carpets, mats and rugs 

Tapestries 

Blankets and other covering materials, household linen and napery 

Miscellaneous 

Table cutlery 

China, glassware, dishes and other articles of a similar nature 

Cooking appliances, utensils and containers 

Appliances and utensils, hand-operated, for preparing food or drink 

Flat-irons, and washing, cleaning and drying equipment 

Other table utensils 

Other household receptacles 

Fireplace implements 

Stands and holders for household appliances and utensils 

Cooling and freezing devices and isothermal containers 

Miscellaneous 

Tools and implements for drilling, milling or digging 

Hammers and other similar tools and implements 

Cutting tools and implements 

Screwdrivers and other similar tools and implements 

Other tools and implements 

Handles, knobs and hinges 

Locking or closing devices 

Fastening, supporting or mounting devices not included in other classes 
Metal fittings and mountings for doors, windows and furniture, and similar 
articles, not included in other classes or subclasses 
Bicycle and motorcycle racks 

 66 

 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
WOMEN IN DESIGN 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

Class 
Number 

Class Heading 

Packaging and containers 
for the transport or 
handling of goods  

Clocks and watches and 
other measuring 
instruments, checking and 
signalling  

Articles of adornment 

Means of transport or 
hoisting  

09 

10 

11 

12 

13 

10 

99 
01 
02 
03 
04 
05 
06 

07 

99 
01 
02 
03 
04 
05 
99 
01 
02 
03 
04 
05 
06 
07 
08 
09 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 

16 

17 
99 
01 
02 

Bottles, flasks, pots, carboys, demijohns, and pressurized containers 

Subclass 
Number 
11 
99 
01 
02 
03 
04 
05 
06 
07 
08 
09 

Subclass Heading 

Hardware for curtains 

Miscellaneous 

Storage cans, drums and casks 

Boxes, cases, containers, tin cans 

Hampers, crates and baskets 

Bags, sachets, tubes and capsules 

Ropes and hooping materials 

Closing means and attachments 

Pallets and platforms for forklifts 

Refuse and trash containers and stands therefor 
Handles and grips for the transport or handling of packages and 
containers 
Miscellaneous 

Clocks and alarm clocks 

Watches and wrist watches 

Other time-measuring instruments 

Other measuring instruments, apparatus and devices 

Instruments, apparatus and devices for checking, security or testing 

Signalling apparatus and devices 
Casings, cases, dials, hands and all other parts and accessories of 
instruments for measuring, checking and signalling 
Miscellaneous 

Jewellery 

Trinkets, table, mantel and wall ornaments, flower vases and pots 

Medals and badges 

Artificial flowers, fruit and plants 

Flags, festive decorations 

Miscellaneous 

Vehicles drawn by animals 

Handcarts, wheelbarrows 

Locomotives and rolling stock for railways and all other rail vehicles 

Telpher carriers, chair lifts and ski lifts 

Elevators and hoists for loading or conveying 

Ships and boats 

Aircraft and space vehicles 

Motor cars, buses and lorries 

Tractors 

Road vehicle trailers 

Cycles and motorcycles 

Perambulators, invalid chairs, stretchers 

Special-purpose vehicles 

Other vehicles 

Tyres and anti-skid chains for vehicles 
Parts, equipment and accessories for vehicles, not included in other 
classes or subclasses 
Railway infrastructure components 

Miscellaneous 

Generators and motors 

Power transformers, rectifiers, batteries and accumulators 

 67 

 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
WOMEN IN DESIGN 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

Class 
Number 

Class Heading 

Equipment for production, 
distribution or 
transformation of electricity  

Subclass 
Number 
03 
04 

99 

Subclass Heading 

Equipment for distribution or control of electric power 

Solar equipment 

14 

15 

16 

17 

Recording, 
telecommunication or data 
processing equipment  

Machines, not elsewhere 
specified  

Photographic, 
cinematographic and 
optical apparatus  

Musical instruments  

18 

Printing and office 
machinery 

19 

Stationery and office 
equipment, artists' and 
teaching materials 

01 
02 

03 

04 
05 

06 

99 
01 
02 
03 
04 
05 

06 

07 
09 
10 
99 
01 
02 
03 
04 
05 
06 
99 
01 
02 
03 
04 
05 
99 

01 

02 
03 

04 

99 
01 
02 
03 
04 

06 

07 

Miscellaneous 

Equipment for the recording or reproduction of sounds or pictures 

Data processing equipment as well as peripheral apparatus and devices 
Telecommunications equipment, wireless remote controls and radio 
amplifiers 
Screen displays and icons 

Recording and data storage media 
Holders, stands and supports for electronic equipment, not included in 
other classes 
Miscellaneous 

Engines 

Pumps and compressors 

Agricultural and forestry machinery 

Construction and mining machinery 

Washing, cleaning and drying machines 
Textile, sewing, knitting and embroidering machines, including their 
integral parts 
Refrigeration machinery and apparatus 

Machine tools, abrading and founding machinery 

Machinery for filling, packing or packaging 

Miscellaneous 

Photographic cameras and film cameras 

Projectors and viewers 

Photocopying apparatus and enlargers 

Developing apparatus and equipment 

Accessories 

Optical articles 

Miscellaneous 

Keyboard instruments 

Wind instruments 

Stringed instruments 

Percussion instruments 

Mechanical instruments 

Miscellaneous 

Typewriters and calculating machines 

Printing machines 

Type and type faces 
Bookbinding machines, printers' stapling machines, guillotines and 
trimmers (for bookbinding) 
Miscellaneous 

Writing paper, cards for correspondence and announcements 

Office equipment 

Calendars 

Books and other objects of similar outward appearance 
Materials and instruments for writing by hand, for drawing, for painting, for 
sculpture, for engraving and for other artistic techniques 
Teaching materials and apparatus 

 68 

 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
WOMEN IN DESIGN 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

Class 
Number 

Class Heading 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

Sales and advertising 
equipment, signs 

Games, toys, tents and 
sports goods  

Arms, pyrotechnic articles, 
articles for hunting, fishing 
and pest killing  

Fluid distribution 
equipment, sanitary, 
heating, ventilation and air-
conditioning equipment, 
solid fuel  

Medical and laboratory 
equipment   

Building units and 
construction elements  

Lighting apparatus  

Tobacco and smokers' 
supplies  

08 

99 
01 
02 
03 
04 
99 
01 
02 
03 
04 
99 
01 
02 
03 
04 

05 

06 
99 
01 
02 
03 

Subclass 
Number 
08 
99 
01 
02 
03 
99 
01 
02 
03 
04 
99 
01 
02 
03 
04 
05 
06 
99 
01 
02 
03 
04 
05 
06 
07 

Subclass Heading 

Other printed matter 

Miscellaneous 

Automatic vending machines 

Display and sales equipment 

Signs, signboards and advertising devices 

Miscellaneous 

Games and toys 

Gymnastics and sports apparatus and equipment 

Other amusement and entertainment articles 

Tents and accessories thereof 

Ammunition, rockets and pyrotechnic articles 

Miscellaneous 

Projectile weapons 

Other weapons 

Targets and accessories 

Hunting and fishing equipment 

Traps, articles for pest killing 

Miscellaneous 

Fluid distribution equipment 

[Vacant] 

Heating equipment 

Ventilation and air-conditioning equipment 

Solid fuel 

Sanitary appliances for personal hygiene 

Equipment for urination and defecation 
Other sanitary equipment and accessories, not included in other classes or 
subclasses 
Miscellaneous 

Apparatus and equipment for doctors, hospitals and laboratories 

Medical instruments, instruments and tools for laboratory use 

Prosthetic articles 

Materials for dressing wounds, nursing and medical care 

Miscellaneous 

Building materials 

Prefabricated or pre-assembled building parts 

Houses, garages and other buildings 

Steps, ladders and scaffolds 

Miscellaneous 

Candlesticks and candelabra 

Torches and hand lamps and lanterns 

Public lighting fixtures 

Luminous sources, electrical or not 
Lamps, standard lamps, chandeliers, wall and ceiling fixtures, 
lampshades, reflectors, photographic and cinematographic projector lamps 
Luminous devices for vehicles 

Miscellaneous 

Tobacco, cigars and cigarettes 

Pipes, cigar and cigarette holders 

Ashtrays 

 69 

 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
WOMEN IN DESIGN 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

Class 
Number 

Class Heading 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

Pharmaceutical and 
cosmetic products, toilet 
articles and apparatus  

Devices and equipment 
against fire hazards, for 
accident prevention and for 
rescue  

Articles for the care and 
handling of animals  

Machines and appliances 
for preparing food or drink, 
not elsewhere specified 
Graphic symbols and 
logos, surface patterns, 
ornamentation 

02 

99 

01 
02 
03 
04 
05 
06 
07 
08 
09 
10 
11 
12 
99 

00 

00 

Cigar cases, cigarette cases, tobacco jars and pouches 

Electronic cigarettes and other electronic smoking supplies 

Subclass Heading 

Matches 

Lighters 

Miscellaneous 

Pharmaceutical products 

Cosmetic products 

Subclass 
Number 
04 
05 
06 
07 
99 
01 
02 
03 
04 
05 
99 
01 

Toilet articles and beauty parlor equipment 

Wigs and false beauty articles 

Air fresheners 

Miscellaneous 

Devices and equipment against fire hazards 
Devices and equipment for accident prevention and for rescue, not 
elsewhere specified 

Miscellaneous 

Animal clothing 

Pens, cages, kennels and similar shelters 

Feeders and waterers 

Saddlery 

Whips and prods 

Beds, nests and furniture for animals 

Perches and other cage attachments 

Markers, marks and shackles 

Hitching posts 

Grooming articles for animals 

Litter boxes and devices for removing animal excrement 

Toys for animals 

Miscellaneous 

Machines and appliances for preparing food or drink, not elsewhere 
specified 

Graphic symbols and logos, surface patterns, ornamentation 

 70 

 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
WOMEN IN DESIGN 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

WOMEN IN DESIGN 

 71