1
A fresh Ordinance and a proper set of Rules became absolutely necessary and I was accordingly instructed to draft them, and they will, I trust, prove of use to those interested in these mutters. The alterations in the law effected by this Ordinance and the new Rules are based on the English practice with some local modifications.
In England, applications for the registration of the same mark in different classes of goods are treated as separate and distinct applications, and the present Ordi- nauce imposes the same rule in this Colony. See section 14 and Form A, in the Schedule. The former Ordinance, however, coutained no similar provision.
I am afraid that, owing to the absence of such rule, applications have hitherto occasionally been made to register trade marks in respect of goods as to which the marks never have been used, nor are likely to be used by the applicant forthwith. I suspect this has been done, occasionally, with a view to prevent others from using similar marks in respect of goods or classes of goods in which they deal, but which are really not dealt in by the applicants at all.
It is very necessary, too, that an applicant should state, to the best of his belief, whether the mark he desires to have registered locally has been registered previously in England. In the absence of such requirement, it might happen that marks registered in A's name in England or marks closely resembling them might get registered in B's name in Hongkong, without A's knowledge or consent. All such practices should be discouraged, and I trust the new Ordinance and Rules will put matters ou u more satisfactory basis.
I will now proceed to deal with the various sections of the new Ordinance.
The preamble follows the hues of the preamble to the original Ordinance No. 16 of 1873, omitting reference to the repealed Merchandize Marks Ordinance and Act.
Section 2. Compare sections 78 and 114 (3) of the Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Aet, 1883, and section 1 of Ordinance No. 16 of 1873.
Section 3. This follows the wording of section 10 of the Act of 1888, but under sub-section (3) the words "if it is already registered in England" are added to prevent difficulties here.
Section 4. Sec section 2 of Ordinance No. 2 of 1878. Section 5. Compare section 8 of Ordinance No. 20 of 1895. An additional specimen of the mark is now required, and either a statutory declaration or affi- davit. By the Ordinances No. 2 of 1873 and No. 20 of 1895, an affidavit was required. Difficulties were experienced before, as sometimes a statutory declaration was sent instead of an affidavit. Forms are given approximating, in the case of Form A, to that contained in the English Trade Mark Rules. In this Colony the additional safeguard of a statu- tory declaration or affidavit continues to be necessa- ry.
Section 6. This is section 4 of Ordinance No. 16 of
1873, amplified, while the proviso comes from section 72 of the Act of 1883 as amended by the Act of 1888, with the Governor substituted for the Court.
Section 7. Compare with section 5 of Ordinance No.
16 of 1873.
486