TUESDAY, JUNE 10, 1980
HE SAID IT WAS PLANNED TO ESTABLISH AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO INCLUDE TRADE AND CONSUMER COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVES, TO ADVISE ON WHICH GOODS SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO MARKING ORDERS.
FOR GOLD ARTICLES A 1972 AMENDMENT TO THE MERCHANDISE MARKS ORDINANCE PROHIBITS THE DESCRIPTION OF AN ARTICLE AS GOLD IF ITS GOLD CONTENT IS LESS THAN EIGHT CARATS. THIS PROVISION WILL BE RETAINED.
AS A MEANS OF STOPPING POSSIBLE UNETHICAL PRACTICES BY ADVERTISERS OR THEIR AGENTS, IT IS INTENDED TO EXTEND THE LAW BY BRINGING WITHIN ITS OPERATION HISDESCRIPTIONS USED IN ADVERTISEMENTS, AND ORAL MISDESCRIPTIONS.
THE DEFINITION OF ADVERTISEMENT INCLUDES CATALOGUES, CIRCULARS AND PRICE LISTS.
THE SPOKESMAN ADDED: +IN ORDER TO CONFER PROTECTION ON INNOCENT PUBLISHERS, THE BILL PROVIDES THAT IT WOULD BE A VALID DEFENCE IF THEY COULD PROVE THEY RECEIVED THE ADVERTISEMENT IN THE COURSE OF THEIR BUSINESS AND DID NOT KNOW THAT IT' INFRINGED PROVISIONS OF THE BILL.+
THE BILL RETAINS EXISTING PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE FORGING OF TRADE MARKS, THEIR APPLICATION AND OTHER CONNECTED OFFENCES.
OFFENCES INCLUDE FORGING, FALSIFYING ANY GENUINE TRADE MARK, AND +MAKING OR HAVING INSTRUMENTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF FORGING.+
+THE BILL PROHIBITS THE IMPORT OR EXPORT OF GOODS TO WHICH A FALSE TRADE DESCRIPTION OR FORGED TRADE MARK IS APPLIED EXPLAINED THE SPOKESMAN, +BUT A DEFENCE IS PROVIDED WHERE THE OFFENDER WAS ABLE TO PROVE HE DID NOT KNOW, HAD NO REASON TO SUSPECT AND COULD NOT REASONABLY HAVE FOUND OUT THAT THE GOODS HAD A FALSE TRADE DESCRIPTION OR FORGED TRADE MARK, OR IF HE WAS ABLE TO PROVE THAT THE GOODS WERE NOT INTENDED FOR TRADE OR BUSINESS.+
GOODS IN TRANSIT ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS.
ALSO, THE BILL EXEMPTS GOODS FOR EXPORT FROM THE QUANTITY, SIZE AND GAUGE ASPECTS OF A TRADE DESCRIPTION. THIS IS BECAUSE UNITS OF QUANTITY SOMETIMES HAVE DIFFERENT MEANINGS IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES.
NOR ARE PROVISIONS MADE FOR THE PROHIBITION OF MISDESCRIPTION IN RESPECT OF PRICES, SERVICES, ACCOMMODATION AND FACILITIES. THESE ARE TO BE LOOKED AT IN CONSULTATION WITH THE NEW ADVISORY COMMITTEE AT A LATER STAGE.
THE SPOKESMAN SAID THAT THE DIRECTOR OF TRADE, INDUSTRY AND CUSTOMS WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ENFORCEMENT.
THE BILL PROVIDED, TOO, THAT WHERE AN OWNER SUFFERED A LOSS THROUGH WRONGFUL SEIZURE OR DETENTION OF HIS GOODS, HE COULD MAKE A CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION,
13