apparently

no action is needed beyond sending a copy & the B. 27.

W

I presume of (a sequented by the for

hi 5989)

? Tel to the for saging that we

an advised that permission in arthe

When to Iphabb to use

the track mull

tand NT

out why a better mail

Rissasin.

I do not think there is any real conflict between the Comptroller's memorandum and the views expressed on 38989. The Governor did not propose, and we did not propose to instruct him, to licence

In or expressly permit the use of these marks. fact we proposed to tell him that any licence issued should make it clear that no permission to use trade-marks belonging to enemy owners was given or implied. All the Comptroller says is that

no permission to use marks of this kind should be granted, but he does not say that legal proceedings

should be taken to stop the use of such marks by a

person who has obtained the leave of the German

owner, because in point of fact no criminal pro-

ceedings are possible and civil proceedings by the

Liquidator would probably fail, having regard to the

consent given by the owner.

It seems, therefore,

that conclusions (1) (3) and (4) in my Minute on

38989

is Fo. tree crew has been state

Ito Subcommitte The Has advisory

ottaw which Realin with the

thu 7

peal to probilit

hading with

enemy heit in neutral

66.

#1

106

38989 still stand. Conclusion (2) we should perhaps

now modify, The experience gained since the issue of the Proclamation of June the 25th having show, I think, that the injury anticipated to British trade by the closing of trade with enemies in China was considerably exaggerated, and the probability being that the suppression of these marks will not lead to any very serious damage to British trade there. Conclusion (5) we might, perhaps, leave to the discretion of the

Governor.

linea.

I submit draft telegram to Governor on these

06.221205

A&C

after speaking

Fiddes

a fresh oft

23.10. 15

new Submit

which 1

should wish to have

substitute for

earlier one

Un

I agree with

is

hein that this Proper way to treat the I have read question.

the oft 18 M. Martin Mr. Patent Office q

Share This Page