736
4
-received through the British Commercial Attaché is dated the 19th September, and states that if we will put our views in writing, he will find himself in a better position to formulate a fresh request to the Chinese Government, if he considers the circumstances warrant him in approaching them again. On receipt of that letter I consulted with my Committee and suggested that we should ask the British Commercial Attaché to attend to-day, to give us such information as he might consider, from his official position, he might be competent to give. I have to thank Mr. Jamieson for kindly responding to our invitation. After he has addressed you I would invite discussion on any points that you may desire to put before the Committee. A full statement of your views before this meeting will fulfil the object for which it was, in the first instance, called.
We can then decide what further action this Chamber should take. We have engaged the services of a reporter to take a full report of this meeting, which will in due course be forwarded to all members of the Chamber.
Mr. J. W. Jamieson.--Mr. Chairman, Gentlemen of the Committee, and members of the Shanghae General Chamber of Commerce: You have been convened this afternoon for the purpose of discussing a legislative enactment of the Chinese Government, drawn up as the outcome of the Treaty obligations they have recently incurred towards Great Britain, the United States, and Japan. You have been informed that the suddenness of its institution has caused some consternation, and to judge from the tone of the remarks of certain members of the Chamber who have done me the honour to consult me, the proposal would appear to have created a certain amount of undue excitement—in fact, hints have been thrown out that this is a deep-laid conspiracy to upset foreign trade in China. The responsibility for perpetrating such an outrage is variously laid at the doors of the Chinese Government, the Ministers at Peking, the British Treaty Commissioners, and of your humble servant, the Commercial Attaché. It is therefore, in the first place, my duty to try and lay before you a succinct statement of how these Provisional Registration Rules came into being. The initiators of this measure are none of the parties, exalted or otherwise, above mentioned, but purely and simply such members of this Chamber as incited their Governments to insert in the new Treaties with China some provision for the protection of trade-mark rights. Believing that it was the sincere desire of those concerned to have some such protection, the respective Governments addressed saw to it that effect was given to this desire. It may be taken for granted that the Chinese Government is not over anxious to contract new Treaty obligations, and one of the commonest taunts thrown in the teeth of those who had anything to do with the British Treaty is "when is any provision of your much-bragged-about Treaty coming into force?" When then, gentlemen, after careful deliberation and previous warning, the Chinese Government do make up their minds to give effect to Article VII of a Treaty signed two years ago, it is somewhat surprising, to say the least of it, to be told that such action on their part is viewed with consternation. If a merchant sends home a firm order for goods to be delivered ten months hence, he can hardly complain if in due course he is drawn against for the full invoice value.
The first steps taken by the Chinese Government to carry out Article VII were to instruct the Deputy Inspector-General of Customs and two Commissioners to draft Registration Rules. These Rules were, by order of the Inspector-General, submitted to me in February last, and I called a representative meeting of British importers together to discuss them. They were drawn up in English, were complicated with legal and technical phraseology, and were in many respects open to objection. After they had been referred to the powers that be, nothing more was heard of the matter until, in June, the Chinese Foreign Office communicated to the British, American, and Japanese Ministers a copy of the present Regulations in Chinese. They invited observation thereof with as little delay as possible, and Sir Ernest Satow, in forwarding them to me for comment, stated that, as they were provisional in character, and constituted the first step towards the attainment of a very desirable object, he was not prepared to criticize them in a carping spirit, while he at the same time recognized the necessity of eliminating any provisions which seemed likely to prove burdensome or impracticable. It was in such a spirit, therefore, that I requested a second meeting of British importers, convened by me, to discuss them. Those recommendations were at once passed on, and, after correspondence with the Chinese Government, in part adopted. I may say at the same time I informed the Minister that, in my opinion, their elasticity was a strong point in their favour, seeing that they would necessarily have to be interpreted by Chinese Courts. Now, therefore, when the Chinese Government propose, after having consulted those concerned, to put these Regulations into force, it would be invidious to meet them with fresh objections. As you will have gathered from the telegram, in answer to the request of your Committee for a postponement of the coming into force of the Regulations, Sir Ernest Satow is not disposed to put forward an application of this kind unless it can be demonstrated to him that there are cogent reasons for so doing. There is no desire not to meet the views of merchants, as far as it may be possible to do so, but it would serve no useful purpose to put forward anything but serious contentions. And, gentlemen, from what I have heard in the course of the last few days, I am disposed to think that the Rules have not been considered with impartiality, nor perused with a desire to dwell on the many good points they undoubtedly contain. What seems to have been immediately focused upon is the scale of fees, and that looms so large in the minds of members that all other considerations have been left out of account. It does not appear to have occurred to those who feel aggrieved that what you have demanded, and what you have received, is Protection, in capital letters, and to obtain protection, registration is a necessary corollary. I am even told that members are perfectly satisfied with the protection they have hitherto enjoyed. I do not think that this view is shared by those firms who, at great expenditure of money and of time, have had to contest their rights in the Mixed Court at Shanghae. What the measure of protection they would have obtained up-country may well be left to the imagination.
5
Now, may I ask in what respect does Rule 21 leave anything to be desired? Let me read it to you:---
"21. The undermentioned offences are punishable with imprisonment up to one year and a fine not exceeding 300 taels, but judgment can only be given in a suit instituted by the party aggrieved:
(a.) Any attempt to use a similar class of goods, or to imitate a registered trade-mark belonging to another party, or to offer the same for sale.
(b.) To imitate a trade-mark, or apply it to a similar class of goods, or knowingly to sell such goods, or have the same on the premises for purposes of sale.
"(c.) To use an imitation of a trade-mark as a 'chop,' or to employ it for purposes of advertisement.
"(d.) Knowingly to use packages or wrappers bearing the registered trade-mark of others for the same class of goods, or knowingly to offer the same for sale.
(e) To import goods, being well aware of the fact that they infringe the trade-mark rights of others."
46
Another vital point which has been overlooked is the full protection accorded to existing rights. It was certainly never the intention of the British Government or their advisers to put their nationals in a worse position than they were in before the Treaty was drafted, and for such rights they have secured full protection. I will now read you Rule 8 (c):-
"8. Trade-marks which infringe the following conditions cannot be registered:
"(c.) Marks already registered, or marks resembling, or of the same nature as, marks which, for over two years prior to the application for registration, have been publicly used in China or have covered a similar class of goods."
This means that any mark in use prior to the signature of the British Treaty is absolutely protected from imitation on the part of anybody.
Mr. J. N. Jameson. Without registration...
Mr. Jamieson.---Without registration. I think the reading of the Rule in question is quite clear. I have gone carefully over the Rules in Chinese, and this English is a very clear and accurate rendering of the Chinese. A third point which has been made much of by the conscientious objectors is that registration facilitates the pirating of marks. That may or may not be the case, but if it be, then the trade-mark legislation of all countries suffers from the same defect. I do not, however, think that registration in Hong Kong, where similar conditions to those in China prevail, has led to any wholesale pirating. It has also been completely forgotten that, in a country where extra-territoriality obtains, all that the Government can do is to protect the stranger within their gates against an infringement of his rights on the part of their own nationals. They cannot legislate for non-Chinese, and yet even here they have done their best to secure as full a measure of protection as possible. A merchant of Timbuctoo may at any time import, as far as the Chinese Government is concerned, goods with a fraudulent mark on them and sell them in China. The only redress that the aggrieved party has against him personally is to sue him in his own Courts, somewhere in the remote sands of the Sahara, but any Chinese who would venture to handle such goods can be severely punished.
C
(2288 3]
........