Operation Scuttle, Part II

Readers of this weblog will instantly recall an earlier post (Operation Scuttle), which draws their attention to the planned 'tidying up' of the Community Trade Mark Regulation by renumbering its provisions, notwithstanding the administrative chaos and confusion which this initiative -- which neither trade mark owners nor their professional representatives -- have called for. Well, now the IPKat has some further news from Alexander von Mühlendahl (Attorney-at-Law, Bardehle Pagenberg, Munich, former Vice-President of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market and a person who is sincerely concerned to enhance the wellbeing of the European trade mark community at all levels). According to Alex:

"The "re-codification" project, euphemistically called "better regulation", covers both

The Directive of 1988 (Council Directive 89/104)

even though the Directive has not been changed or amended, neither after TRIPs nor after the accession of the European Community to the Madrid Protocol. The Commission considers it necessary to make "amendments" such as the updating of the name of the Benelux Office, but the only significant amendment, namely that brought by the EEA providing that exhaustion is EEA-wide -- which was at the time "forgotten" to include in the CTMR -- has been omitted.

and Council Regulation 40/94 (CTMR)

but, apparently not (yet) the Implementing Regulation (the Implementing Regulation would continue to refer to provisions in the CTMR which had in the meantime been given new Article numbers!), the Designs Directive, the Designs Regulation, and other acts dear to us.

Also, it seems that the Council Working Party, most likely unaware of the relevance of the exercise for us outsiders, has already consented, but -- fortunately -- the versions in the languages of the most recent "new" Member States, Bulgaria and Romania, are not yet final.

Thus the project has not reached, it seems, COREPER or the Council. If enough of us continue to throw or thrust sticks in the spokes of the wheel, we may actually still be able to stop the train.

Your readers can contribute ..."

The IPKat remains convinced that any improvements achieved through the proposed amendments will be vastly outweighed by the inconveniences. He wonders (i) whether any of his readers disagree and (ii) where precisely it is that spokes must be thrust? Does anyone have any names, email addresses or other guidance in this matter? Or perhaps the IPKat should hold a referendum ... Merpel says, there are far more pressing instances of laws in need of nettoyage. At national level, has anyone tried navigating the section numbers of the current version of the UK's Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988?