538
6
# ARTICLE 16.
This Treaty shall, on the exchange of ratifications by His Majesty the King of Sweden and by His Majesty the Emperor of China, be kept and sacredly guarded in the following manner, viz.:----
The original Treaty as ratified by the Emperor of China shall be deposited at Stockholm, the capital of His Majesty the King of Sweden, in charge of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; and as ratified by the King of Sweden shall be deposited at Peking, the capital of His Majesty the Emperor of China, in charge of the Wai-wu Pu.
The High Contracting Parties agree that, immediately after the exchange of ratifications, the provisions of this Treaty shall be published in order that the officials and people of the two countries may know and observe them.
# ARTICLE 17.
The present Treaty is signed in the Swedish, Chinese, and English languages. In order, however, to prevent future discussions, the Plenipotentiaries of the High Contracting Parties have agreed that in case any divergence in the interpretation between the Swedish and Chinese texts of the Treaty, the difference shall be settled by reference to the English text.
The ratifications of this Treaty, under the hand of His Majesty the King of Sweden and of His Majesty the Emperor of China respectively, shall be exchanged at Peking within a year from the date of signature.
In token whereof the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed and sealed this Treaty-two copies in Swedish, two in Chinese, and two in English.
Done at Peking, this 2nd day of July in the year of our Lord 1908, corresponding with the Chinese date, the 4th day of the 6th moon of the 34th year of Kwang Hsü.
(Signed)
WALLENBERG. LIEN FANG,
This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government.
O.
CHINA TRADE,'
CONFIDENTIAL.
[August 29.
Rec
SECTION 1.
34815
23
33 SEF 08.
[29942]
(No. 194.) Sir,
No. 1.
Sir C. MacDonald to Sir Edward Grey.--(Received August 29.)
Tokió, August 1, 1908. WITH reference to my despatch No. 92 of the 15th April, in which I referred to a note that I had addressed to Count Hayashi on the subject of the registration by Konishi Hambei of the "Fishing Crocodile" trade-mark belonging to Sir Elkanah Armitage and Sons (Limited), I have now the honour to transmit herewith copy of the note above referred to, together with translation of a reply which I have received from General Terauchi, Minister for Foreign Affairs ad interim.
It will be observed that his Excellency explains that sub-heading 3 of Article 2 is intended to protect the public, while sub-heading 5 is for the purpose of protecting the individual interests of trade-mark proprietors, and he goes on to explain that in the case of certain marks both sub-headings may apply.
In the case of the "Crocodile" trade-mark he thinks it is possible that, according to the manner of its use, the apprehension may exist that it will deceive people, and it would, therefore, come under sub-heading 3 of Article 2. But he adds that the fact whether it does or will deceive people cannot be definitely ascertained until a trial has been held.
I have for some time past been urging Cornes and Co., who are acting for Sir Elkanah Armitage, and their patent agent to hurry on with their case, but they say that a great deal of time is required to marshal all their facts and proofs. I have communicated a copy of General Terauchi's note to them, and once more suggested that they should lose no time in taking the necessary action.
I have, &c.
(Signed) CLAUDE M. MacDONALD.
}
0
M. le Ministre,
Inclosure 1 in No. 1.
Sir C. MacDonald to Count Hayashi.
Tokić, March 24, 1908. ON the 27th May, 1907, Mr. Lowther, acting under the instructions of His Majesty's Government, brought to your Excellency's notice a complaint made by Messrs. A. Ross and Co., a British firm, with regard to the imitation of the "Crocodile" trade-mark of Sir Elkanah Armitage and Sons (Limited) by Konishi Hambei, a Japanese merchant of Osaka.
Konishi Hambei had succeeded in obtaining registration of this mark in the Patent Bureau of Japan.
In your Excellency's reply of the 23rd July, 1907, to His Majesty's Government you pointed out that after inquiries had been conducted by the Department concerned it had been found that Konishi Hambei had obtained registration of the "Crocodile mark on the 20th February, 1903, and that this mark had since been in uninterrupted use, and that as three years had elapsed since registration, the trade-mark had become final. Your Excellency went on to explain that in spite of the fact that another person had previously obtained registration abroad of a trade-mark of the same design, it was impossible under Japanese law to render the trade-mark invalid because no demand for the cancellation of the registered mark had been made by any one within three years of its registration.
It would appear to me that in coming to this decision the Department concerned had limited their investigations to the ground covered by sub-heading 5 of Article 2 of the Trade-mark Law, which says that "a mark which is the same as or resembles a trade-mark used by another person before the operation of this Law cannot be registered," and Article 10, which says that if a registered trade-mark infringe Article 2 its registration shall be treated as invalid, but that this rule does not apply
[1904 -1]