This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government. 454
TRADE IN CHINA.
CONFIDENTIAL.
[26320]
No. 1.
[July 29,]
SECTION 1.
(No. 296.) Sir,
Sir J. Jordan to Sir Edward Grey.-(Received July 29.)
Peking, July 6, 1908. WITH reference to my despatch No. 274 of the 22nd ultimo, I have the honour to transmit to you herewith copy of a further despatch, with inclosures, from His Majesty's Consul-General at Mukden, respecting the alleged infringement by a Japanese firm at Tiehling of a trade-mark belonging to Messrs. Butterfield and Swire.
It would seem to be established that the bags bearing this mark originally contained the genuine article, and that the substitution of a sugar of inferior quality was made by the Japanese firm at Tiehling, and not by the Yu Asa Shokai at Dairen. There has, therefore, technically been no infringement of Messrs. Butterfield and Swire's trade-mark, but merely a fraudulent use of their bags by the firm who received them. Whether the Japanese Criminal Code provides for the repression of such an offence appears, in the present instance, to be a question of academic interest, in view of the fact that the offending firm is no longer in existence at Tiehling. The Japanese authorities have, I submit, done all that was possible to assist Mr. Willis, and the case would seem to have been satisfactorily elucidated.
I have, &c.
(Signed) J. N. JORDAN.
Inclosure 1 in No. 1.
(No. 49.) Sir,
Acting Consul-General Willis to Sir J. Jordan.
Mukden, June 24, 1908. WITH reference to my despatches No. 44 of the 19th May and No. 48 of the 10th instant, I have the honour to inclose copy of a further letter I have received from Mr. Yoshida, the Elève-Consul in charge of the Japanese Consulate General.
From this letter it seems clear that the 115 bags of sugar, sold by the Yu Asa Shokai to the Pi Tien firm of Tiehling, contained originally bona fide British sugar, and that, later on, inferior sugar was substituted at Tiehling by the Pi Tien firm.
A letter of Messrs. Butterfield to me, dated the 22nd instant, confirms this information, and it seems probable that Messrs. Butterfield and Swire were mistaken in alleging, as they did in their letter of the 13th May, that their marks had been imitated.
I have informed Messrs. Butterfield and Swire that, in my opinion, the Japanese Consular officials have done all in their power, under present conditions and pending the conclusion of a Trade-mark Convention between the British and Japanese Governments, to assist us in inquiring into the facts of this case. Further, even if a prosecution for fraud lay against the Pi Tien firm under the Japanese Criminal Code, which is very doubtful, it would seem useless for them to undertake such prosecution at the present time, as the culprit firm has disappeared from Tiehling.
I inclose copy of a letter I have addressed to Mr. Yoshida.
I have, &c.
(Signed) ROBERT WILLIS.
Inclosure 2 in No. 1.
Mr. Yoshida to Acting Consul-General Willis,
Sir and dear Colleague,
Consulate-General of Japan, Mukden,
June 19, 1908.
IN reference to my communication dated the 5th instant regarding the fraudulent imitation of trade-marks by a Japanese firm in Tiehling, I have the honour to inform...
[1844 -1]