CO129-326 - Foreign Office - 1904 — Page 743

739

10

registration, and entail endless worry and annoyance. The fee for cancelment has probably been made the same as for registration for this reason. The fee of 20 tacls for transfer of partnership rights seems unnecessarily heavy; alterations in partnerships are so frequent, both with foreigners and Chinese, and sometimes, owing to death, so unforeseen that very serious expenditure would be involved in following out these provisions. The English scale provides, like the Chinese, for a separate fee for registration, and, or application to register. The reason for this is not apparent, and it would seem that the application fee should be charged only where, for any reason, registration does not follow. If registration is granted, the registration fee in the Chinese scale, 30 tacls, is amply high enough to justify dis- pensing with the other at 5 taels. The charge for copies of documents may or may not be reasonable; it depends upon whether one is obliged to have certain docu- ments copied, or whether it is only on special occasions that the necessity would arise. The charge for a fresh certificate (20 taels) to replace one that has been lost seems excessive, involving as it would a very small amount of clerical work, and being like a copy of documents, 2 taels.

Generally speaking it would seem from a consideration of the scale of fees that it has been compiled with the cost of three establishments in view, and possibly also with an eye to revenue. As regards the first the expense appears to be unnecessary, and the three establishments undesirable; and as regards the second, if such an idea exists, it is unwise, and calculated to defeat its own end. A moderate scale of fees would encourage registration to the benefit of all; the present scale will certainly discourage it, for although there are some marks which perhaps the owners cannot afford to risk losing, there are many others which may be used for quite a short term of years and for trades which are constantly changing. In these latter cases the fees appear excessive. It is not clearly stated whether the registration fee of 30 taels covers registration under one only or all classes. It is desirable that this should be made clear.

A point of importance also is the Registrar himself: is he to be a Chinaman or a foreigner It is obvious that he ought to be the latter, employed by the Customs and an expert.

say,

The Regulation says that the Courts concerned will, in case of infringement, afford all necessary protection." Presumably this is a free translation, and means that redress must be sought in the Courts concerned. China cannot impose obligations on foreign Powers. The last point to which I would draw attention is the rule that all applications must be made in the Chinese language, which I think is arbitrary and unfair. When commercial intercourse between foreigners and the Government, as represented by the Customs, is carried on in English as being the universal commercial language, why should this Department be one exception, and for what good purpose? Looking at the commercial man's total ignorance of Chinese, this would place him at the mercy of his translator, and easily see what misunderstandings and complications might arise between his man's idea of what is meant, and the translation of same as understood by an official.

Mr. Jamieson.--I said there were one or two recommendations made to me, which I would put forward, and that is one of them.

Mr. Scott. That is all I have to remark. (Applause.)

one can

Mr. C. Selby Moore.-Mr. Scott has ably put before us detailed criticisms with regard to the question of registration, and so far as they go we shall most of us agree with him. There is one point, however, which he overlooked, and which will add again to the cost of registration, viz, the required production of blocks. I see that according to the Regulations the block of which registration is desired has to be sent in. As is known to most of us, many of the trade-marks are repre- sented out here by prints only, and the blocks themselves are retained at home by the firms of which we are the agents. The necessity of making a block

to comply with the Regulations when applying for registration is another expense

therefore.

A Member-Quite right.

Mr. C. Brodersen.-I think Mr. Scott's lengthy explanation has shown fully that we have a sufficient reason to ask for six months to elapse before these Trade-marks Registration Rules come into force, and I beg to propose that a further repeated request be sent to the British Minister to oblige this Chamber by bringing forward its request for delay. It might be well to frame the request as shortly and concisely as possible, and I propose, therefore, that a small sub-committee be selected to prepare the answer to Sir Ernest Satow's letter in time for Mr. Jamieson's departure for the capital. I

11

may add that I fully agree with Mr. Scott, and do not think that Mr. Jamieson's explanation of Rule 8 () is the correct one. I do not see, if this means what Mr. Jamieson says it does, why it does not say simply "marks already registered," which would make it perfectly secure. The Regulation goes on to say "all marks, which for two years prior to the application for registration have been publiely used in China, or have covered a similar class of goods.' That means we have to apply for registration of marks we already use, and I cannot see the Regulation in the sense that Mr. Jamieson wants to put into it, as the meaning attached to it by the Chinese Government. If Mr. Jamieson can give us a definite assurance that is what the Regu lations means we can be well satisfied with that, and with the whole of the Regulations. I beg to repeat my proposal that a sub-committee be elected to frame the proposals to be submitted to the British Minister.

Sir Charles Dudgeɩn.-I do not propose to occupy the time of the meeting at any length. I am in agreement with Mr. Brodersen that it is desirable that time be given for looking into all these Regulations, because it is desired by most of us to refer these Regulalions to our firms and people at home, and we have no opportunity of doing so by the date at present fixed as that for the coming into force of the Regulations. I cannot follow Mr. Scott all through his long argument, but on one point certainly I agree with him: the fees I certainly think are unreasonable. In regard to the rest I am in agreement with Mr. Jamieson as regards the interpretation of Regula- tion 8 (c). It is plain English to me when it says that any mark you have had in use for two years cannot be registered by any one else. Another point which I think Mr. Jamieson has dealt with is Rule 21, which gives protection in a way that it is not given, as far as my knowledge goes, in any other country. It says that Chinese who are found in possession of goods with marks which are imitations of registered marks, or to which we have any of us a prior right, shall be subject to punishment. I don't think that that provision exists in the Regulations of any other country. I think it quite reasonable that a Committee be formed to discuss the details of these Regu- lations, but I must say I do not think the Regulations, as they stand, form an ill- considered set of Regulations, but are very favourable to our wishes and to those who wished to obtain registration here. I may say one word, perhaps, as a member of the China Association, with which I have been associated for twelve or fourteen years. It has been one of our endeavours to get protection for trade-marks, and that can only be done by obtaining registration, Mr. Jamieson told you he has already called two meetings of British importers to discuss the Regulations with him, and I am inclined to suggest that it would have been better had Mr. Scott's objections been put before those meetings, instead of being brought forward now. (No, no.)

The Chairman.-This is a resolution proposed by Mr. Broderson and seconded by Sir Charles Dudgeon :-

"That a Sub-Committee be elected to consider the Provisional Regulations govern- ing the registration of trade-marks, and that their Report be handed to the Committee of the Chamber, to be forwarded to the British Minister, to enable him to obtain the postponement previously applied for by cable."

That will go before the British Minister in reply to his cable, stating that if the Chamber would put before him in writing the points to which they want to give further consideration, he will find himself in a better position to formulate an application to the Chinese Government, it it appears to him that the circumstances warrant his addressing them again on the subject. Mr. Brodersen proposed that this Sub-Committee be formed in order that they may get these views together. On that Sub-Committee I propose as members, Mr. Brodersen, who represents the German Association; Mr. J. N. Jameson, who represents the American Association; Mr. J. L. Scott, who, as we have seen, takes a very great interest in the matter; Sir Charles Dudgeon; Mr. Slevogt, who Mr. Brodersen tells me drew up the rules for the German Association; and Mr. Stern.

A member proposed Mr. Stempel us an additional member.

The Chairman.It is not a question of having particular trades represented on the Sub-Committee, and the object is not to have too large a Committee. I am not certain but that we should do better with five only instead of six. I have always found in my experience that a small Committee gets through its work more quickly and more satis- factorily than a large one, but as this is an important question, it is proposed to make it six. Unless the matter of the additional member is pressed, I think the six proposed will be found ample. I will put the resolution first and the names afterwards.

The resolution was carried unanimously.

[2288 e-3]

E