76
a very speedy and, as marks not kept on the
market soon cease to be of much value.
(c). Firms in the United Kingdom which used to manufac-
-ture and export goods bearing these marks, to
the order of German firms here, would be able
to continue to sell their products as before.
Otherwise they would have to build up new
marks and open new connections, and in the
meantime trade might be driven to China Coast
Ports and at the same time a door might be
opened to competition from Japan and the
United States.
be summarised thus:
The arguments against adopting this policy may
(a). The policy might incur the imputation of being a
policy of confiscation.
(b). It might thus give rise to reprisals. (c). It might cause complications with the Chinese
Authorities as the Treaty Port branches of the
enemy firms concerned might apply to the
Chinese Officials for protection against the
use of the marks in China.
On a review of the whole situation I think
that it would be inadvisable to allow these marks to be sold by
the liquidators. Of course it is not in any case intended to authorise the sale of the trade marks or goodwill of any enemy
firm where the winding up will result in a surplus of assets over
liabilities.
4.
The third question is whether non-enemy
persons and firms formerly interested in the sale of goods under trade marks registered in enemy names should not be given licences to use those trade marks during the war. This affects the position of many Manchester and Bradford firms. The
importance