¦
+
.
226
Messrs. Arnhold Karberg and Company have, through their Shanghai
branch, stated that they have no objection to Mr. Webb's making
use of the above marks, though they express the hope that the
liquidators of their Hongkong branch may be able to arrange with
Mr. Webb for "a certain allowance for the use of (the Fox and Duck)
mark" as it "is considered an asset of the firm".
4.
Under these circumstances many of the object- -ions to allowing the use of enemy marks set out in the Despatch referred to above cease to apply, but some British piece goods firme here object strongly to these marks being kept alive in this
way for a German firm, and representations have been received on
the subject from the Chamber of Commerce. There is, of course, no
guarantee that the agencies will not return to Hessrs. Arnhold
Karberg and Company after the conclusion of the war.
5.
The present applicants put forward the argument that if permission be refused they will suffer serious loss, and
that some temporary loss would result seems probable. There are same grounds for the opinion which is frequently expressed here that the building up of a new mark for the same goods would not be impossible, but the anxiety of certain local British firms on the subject of these applications rather suggests that they expect some substantial benefit for their own business from the non-user
of the enemy marks.
The above case is typical of others. In parti-
-cular, it is
you in my Confidential Despatch of the 18th. June, intends to sell
piece goods with marks which have hitherto been used by Messrs. Sander Wieler and Company, and that he has obtained the necessary consent of that firm, who formerly were his employers. Mr. Back- -house, as will be seen from the despatch last quoted, has receiv- -ed permission to deal with certain firms in England, but the
licence does not refer to the question of trade marks. Mr. Webb
believed
elieved that Mr. Backhouse, about whom I addressed
bas