72
C
breover marks hich indicate nufacture in rmany could not
sold, since the od-will of the
ufacturing. iness could et.Only marks
longing to local striouting Buses and
dicating selec-
on by them could be sold.
C.T.
*
I am sorry I have been engaged nearly all day
I think we can safely answer this question in the manner proposed, but I had better perhaps briefly summarize the position regarding enemy Trade Marks in
Hong Kong.
These may be divided into
(a) Marks belonging to enemy subjects or firms not carrying on business in Hong Kong.
(b) Marks belonging to enemy subjects or firms
carrying on business in Hong Kong.
As to the former (a), to cancel or sell these
would be to go directly contrary to the policy of
His Majesty's Government and the same applies to the refusal to renew, The payment of fees for renewals on behalf of enemies was expressly allowed here by a Board of Trade license of 23rd September 1914(Cp.381 of Lanual often.Legn)
Spi
As to (b). To cancel or refuse permission to renew these would also have been contrary to the
policy of His Majesty's Government, but they might no doubt have been sold in the liquidation of the owning firms. After considerable deliberation we
came to the conclusion that in the special circun-
stances of Hong Kong we would not sell, as we are doing elsewhere. See paragraphs 4 and 5 of 16796
the reasons being briefly that it would be impossible
to make the sales effective in China, where the
principal use of the marks would be, and that it was feared that they might be bought by agents for
the enemy owners.
We