CO129-345 - Public Offices & Foreign Office - 1907 — Page 206

0-

203

[This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government

CHINA TRADE.

CONFIDENTIAL.

!

OCT OF

[August 30.]

.....

SECTION 2.

[29122]

Sir,

No. 1.

Messrs. C. and E. Morton to Foreign Office.-(Received August 30.)

107, 108, and 109, Leadenhall Street, London,

August 29, 1907.

REVERTING to our letter of the 9th January last, on the subject of infringe- ment of labels and trade-marks in Japan, and your letter dated the 23rd April, 1907, in reply, also to the confidential particulars which were shown to our representative by Mr. Langley.

We have just had advice of the completion of the registration of our trade labels in Japan, and at the same time our agents there bring to our notice the apparent futility and useless expense involved in carrying these out, owing to the fact that the Japanese law does not appear to be enforced.

They give us particulars of an action brought by Messrs. James Buchanan and Company, whisky distillers of this country, who have prosecuted a Japanese trader for infringement of their label registered in Japan. We expect that this matter has been laid before you, and that you are conversant with the details; if not, we shall be pleased to send for your inspection the printed details which we have before us.

From your

letter of the 23rd April we take the following extract:-

"The Japanese Law of 1899 on the subject is of sufficiently stringent character, and provides for a fine of 200 yen, or a maximum term of two years' imprisonment for the infringement of duly registered trade-marks."

It is true that in the case of Messrs. Buchanan's action there were slight differences in the two labels, but we ourselves have suffered very severely by the infringement of labels, not only by copies in which differences could be detected, but we have recently had sent home a bottle labelled with two labels, and capsuled so exactly like our own that we could not detect any difference save by almost micro- scopic examination.

We maintain that, in view of the case we cite above, it is useless for us to go to further expense in proceeding under our registrations until the matter has been taken up strongly with the Japanese Government, and we can hope to receive justice in their Courts.

We have also had brought before our notice the great danger which exists to British trade-marks by the Japanese exportations to China, Manchuria, Corea, &c. Mr. Langley, in the interview mentioned above, stated that a fresh Treaty had been proposed to guard against this. We should be glad to hear whether this Treaty is still under consideration, as it is of very vital importance to us, with our large trade in the countries named.

We understand that there is at present no registration law in China, and should be glad if you will confirm this. "If we are right in this statement, we would mention that in our opinion any Treaty entered into with Japan should provide that the registration of any trade-mark or label in China (when China undertakes registra- tion) shall be liable to cancellation upon proof of a prior right. It is obvious that the Japanese traders will, immediately on the promulgation of a Chinese Trade-mark Registration Law, step in and register wholesale infringements of British trade-marks, thus reaping the whole benefit which the British trader should enjoy.

We ask ourselves what is the use of going to the heavy expense of travellers, advertising, &c., to develop our trade in China if we cannot look with certainty to the proper and sufficient guarding of our interests, and we trust to have your assurance that no efforts will be spared to push forward a Treaty with Japan which shall guard the interests of British traders to the full, both from infringements internally and infringements for export from Japan, and that upon our proof of prior right of a label or brand we may be able to upset any registered copy or infringement.

We are, &c.

(Per pro. C. and E. Morton), (Signed) THEO. W. WATKINS.