PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
C.O. 885/
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-
COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
138
that healthy development which might be fairly expected if the conditions of competition were alike for all, and it is therefore worthy of serious consideration whether some effort ought not to be made, in the interests of our Colonies, to bring to an end a system which is obviously so injurious to a Colonial industry of considerable importance. And this is by no means so difficult as might at first sight be imagined. The object which the European Governments have had mainly in view in granting these bounties has been to secure access to the English markets, and by means of a large export trade in sugar to this country to increase the means of employment for their people. England, therefore, has a predominant voice in the matter, and I am convinced that, by judicious action and representation on her part, an agreement night he come to with foreign Governments under which all bounties should be abolished.
It has been argued by the press of this country that England profits by the reduced price of sugar caused by the bounties, and that this being so, it was no concern of hers if our Colonies were injured. Now apart from the consideration that it can, I believe, he shown and proved that the indirect loss caused to our working classes through loss of employment owing to the transference of the industry from our Colonies to Europe is fully equal to, and probably exceeds, any advantage arising from the price of sugar being slightly below the natural price, I cannot but think the representatives of our Colonies would protest against such a doctrine, a doctrine, moreover, which I do not think would meet with acceptance generally in this country, where the sympathy with our Colonics is undoubtedly very strong, and the tendency of political feeling is rather to strengthen the ties which unite the Empire than to relax them.
I would also point out that whilst hitherto bounties have been confined to sugar and two or three other minor articles, such as cod-fish, there is nothing to prevent their being granted on other commodities, and hence I think other industries which are equally open to attack are concerned in seeing the system put an end to.
I hope, therefore, that the Colonial representatives will agree in representing to the Government :-
1. That the maintenance of the sugar bounties by European Governments is injurious
to a large Colonial industry.
2. That justice to our Colonial industries and trade should be no less an object of our
Government than justice to home industries and trade.
3. The hope that Her Majesty's Government will spare no effort to bring about the
abolition of a system so destructive of sound and healthy competition. April 1887.
SIR,
No. 15.
MERCHANDISE MARKS,
NEVILLE LUBBOCK.
CIRCULAR LEtter to GOVERNORS OF COLOMES.
Downing Street, February 10, 1887.
I HAVE the honour to transmit to you the accompanying copy of papers* presented to Parliament relative to the Conference at Rome in 1886 on the subject of Industrial Property, and to the fraudulent use of Trade Marks.
In consequence of representations made to Her Majesty's Government by the Cutlers' Company of heffield as to the fraudulent practice in certain foreign countries of stamping the word “Sheffield ” upon cutlery not made in that district, the British delegates at the Conference were instructed to propose an addition to Article 10 of the Industrial Property Convention of 1883 (enclosed in the Earl of Derby's circular despatch of the 9th of July 1884), designed, when supplemented by internal legislation of the con- tracting States, to prevent the fraudulent marking of goods bearing a false indication of origin. This proposal was accepted by the Conference-eight delegates having voted for and one against it; three abstaining from voting and it remains for the countries that are parties to the Convention to consider the legislation necessary for giving effect to the additional article in the event of its ratification.
Her Majesty's Government are about to introduce a Bill for more effectuaily checking the fraudulent marking of merchandise, with especial regard to the proposed addition to Article 10 of the Convention; and apart from the question of the Colony under your Government becoming a party to the Convention, I have the honour to suggest, for the consideration of your Government, the expediency, with a view to the protection of
* See C.-4837 of 1886.
139
trade interests, and of the consumers in the Colony of goods bought on the faith of trade marks, and to the promotion of commercial morality, of legislating for the same purpose, but not before the passing of the Imperial Act, as it would seem desirable that legislation on this subject should be, as nearly as may be, uniform throughout Her Majesty's Dominions.
I have, &c., (Signed)
The Officer Administering the Government of
Clause.
I.
Short title.
No. 46.
H. T. HOLLAND.
MERCHANDISE (FRAUDULENT MARKS) BILI..
2. Forging trade marks.
ARRANGEMENT OF CLAUSES.
3. Wrongfully applying trade marks to goods.
4. False trade description.
5. Selling goods with false trade marks or false
trade description.
6. Punishment of accessories.
7.
Defendant may give evidence.
8. Search warrant and seizure of goods liable to
forfeiture.
Clause.
9.
Prohibition of importation.
10. Legal proceedings.
11. Savings.
12. Saving of rights of cutlers of Hallamshire,
13. Interpretation of terms.
14. Application of Act to Scotland.
15. Application of Act to Ireland. 16. Repeal of Act.
A BILL to amend and consolidate the Law relating to the FRAUDULENT MARKING of
MERCHANDISE.
Be it enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:
1. This Act may be cited for all purposes as the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887. 2. Every person who—
(a.) Forges any trade mark; or
(b.) Makes any die, block, machine, or other instrument for the purpose of forging,
or of being used for forging, any trade mark; or
(c.) Is in possession, without lawful excuse, of any forged trade marks, or of any
such die, machine, tool, or instrument as aforesaid,
shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a term not exceeding four months or to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds, and shall also be liable to forfeit all goods and things in his possession in relation to which an offence under this section has been committed.
A person shall be deemed to forge a trade mark who makes the same or any mark so nearly resembling the same as to be calculated to deceive, unless he proves that in such making he acted with the assent of the proprietor of such trade mark.
Short title.
Forging trade murks.
3. Every person who wrongfully applies to any goods a trade mark or a mark so Wrongfully nearly resembling any trade mark as to be calculated to deceive shall, unless he proves applying
trade marks that he acted innocently and without intent to defraud, be liable on summary
to goods. conviction to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a term not exceeding four months or to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds, and shall also be liable to forfeit all goods and things in his possession in relation to which an offence under this section has been committed.
A person shall be deemed to apply a mark or trade inark to goods who (a.) Applies it to the goods themselves; or
(b.) Applies it to any covering, reel, label, or other thing in or with which any goods are sold or exposed for sale, or intended for any purpose of sale, trade, or manufacture; or
(c.) Where any goods are sold or exposed for sale, or intended for any purpose of sale, trade, or manufacture, places, encloses, or annexes such goods in, with, or to any covering, reel, label, or other thing to which a trade mark has been applied; or
Z 3