Community design right: little changes; Excess copyright

Courtesy of the IPKat's never-ending quest for legislative amendments to European Union IP law, here are two fairly obscure items for the cognoscenti:

Right: artwork from the registered charity Nine Lives Cat Rescue

* Commission Regulation 876/2007 of 24 July 2007 amending Regulation 2245/2002 (which in turn implements Council Regulation 6/2002 on Community designs) following the accession of the European Community to the Geneva Act of the Hague Agreement concerning the international registration of industrial designs;

* Commission Regulation 877/2007 of 24 July 2007 amending Regulation 2246/2002 concerning the fees payable to the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market following the accession of the European Community to the Geneva Act of the Hague Agreement concerning the international registration of industrial designs.

Excess Copyright is the name of a blog which the IPKat feels embarrassed not to have found before, since it has been going since January 2006. It's masterminded by Howard Knopf (left), who practises IP law with Macera & Jarzyna, LLP in Ottawa, Canada. Howard's manifesto is simple:

"Copyright is good. Excess in copyright is not. There are many parties in the copyright construct. All of them must avoid excess in order for copyright to be sustainable. This blog will explore when success is excess".

Here's his take on the recent Supreme Court of Canada 7-2 split decision in Euro Excellence v Kraft in which Kraft, the world's second-biggest food company, failed to stop an importer of its Côte d'Or and Toblerone chocolates from using its copyright-protected images on confectionery (the Côte d'Or white elephant and the Toblerone bear hidden in a mountain). He says (among other things) this:

"This is a major victory for those who who favour free trade and real competition. The core reasoning turns mainly on the hypothetical maker doctrine and the rights (or lack thereof) of exclusive licensees.The Court looked very carefully at comparative jurisprudence here. Although only briefly mentioned, I believe that Sir Hugh Laddie's material on the hypothetical maker doctrine and exclusive licenses from his major treatise on UK law was very influential".

The IPKat says, this blog looks pretty useful: it alloys news and comment in a clear, constructive manner and is worth following. Merpel says, I don't understand: if the bear is hidden in the mountain, how can you see it? If you can see it, how can it be hidden?

Bear mountain here
Bare mountain here