2
I learnt yesterday from Messrs. Butterfield and Swire that their trade-mark is registered in Japan No. 25803 of the 29th April, 1906.
The trade-mark is also registered in Shanghae.
127
3
I am now informed by telegraph from our Consulate-General at Mukden that it has requested of the Vice-Consulate at Tiehling, which is a branch office of the former, to inquire into the matter, and that it will not fail to take whatever steps it can for stopping the infringement when the fact is established.
It is hoped that a satisfactory settlement may thus be brought about, and I shall know when I further hear from Mukden.
Yours sincerely, (Signed) M. ABÉ.
I have, &c.
(Signed) ROBERT WILLIS.
Inclosure 2 in No. 1.
Sir,
Messrs. Butterfield and Swire to Acting Consul-General Willis.
Newchwang, May 13, 1908. WE beg to bring to your notice the following instance of the infringement of the trade-mark and general imitation of the packing of our Taikoo Sugar Refining Company's sugars, detected by our Mr. Alway whilst at Tiehling on the 2nd instant.
It was reported to Mr. Alway that a Japanese firm, known as the "Pi Tien Yang Hong," located under the wall just outside the West Gate at Tiehling, had sold fifty bags of refined white sugar apparently bearing our regular marks, and declared by them to be our "B" grade, or "Wu Wan Ti," as it is known to the Chinese, and which they said they had purchased from us in Hong Kong.
On inquiring into the matter, Mr. Alway found that this sugar was packed in bags weighing 120 catties gross, 112 catties net, Tiehling scale, whereas our sugars are never packed by us in any other form than bags of about 148 catties gross, 140 catties net, Tiehling scale. At the Taikoo Sugar Refinery, Hong Kong, all bags are packed with 136 Hong Kong catties net weight of sugar.
Mr. Alway saw a bag of this sugar on sale in a Chinese retail shop, which only weighed 115 catties gross, and the marking was clearly an imitation of our marks, and had evidently been executed by hand with a Chinese brush; besides which, the quality of the contents was far inferior to that of our "B" grade, which it purported to be. We have secured a bag of this sugar direct from the Pi Tien Yang Hong, together with a receipted bill from them in Japanese character stating the sugar to be ours, and both the bag and the receipt are now in our possession in our Newchwang office.
We inclose a small sketch of our trade-mark, grade letter, and pack number, which are stencilled on each bag, in case you should require them. The grade letter and numbers, of course, vary, but the same trade-mark appears on all bags.
We shall be very much obliged if you will take whatever steps you think most advisable to protect us from further injury to our business by the infringement of our marks by this or any other Japanese concern.
We are, &c.
(Per pro Butterfield and Swire),
(Signed) W. F. HARLEY,
General Agents, Taikoo Sugar Refining Company.
Inclosure 3 in No. 1.
Mr. Abé to Sir J. Jordan.
Dear Sir John,
June 1, 1908.
I HAVE received your note of the 25th ultimo forwarding copies of a despatch and its inclosures, which your Acting Consul-General at Mukden sent you in regard to a case stated to be an infringement by a Japanese firm at Tiehling of Messrs. Butterfield and Swire's, Hong Kong, sugar trade-mark, registered in Japan.
You desire to know if I can adopt in this case such procedure as was taken in similar cases in Corea where, according to what Mr. Kato is stated to have told Mr. Willis, Japanese officials effected satisfactory settlement without recourse to the law courts.
I am not aware what sort of steps they have taken on those occasions, but in view of the Japanese Consular jurisdiction not covering such cases, I suppose that the procedure adopted in Corea was not of legal character but simply what may be called a moral pressure.
In the present case, too, I think it only to be in my power to instruct the Vice-Consul at Tiehling to investigate the matter, and take the best possible steps with a view to stopping the infringement if he should find the British firm's complaint well-founded.
17