1.5
2
work off stocks bearing pirated marks seems somewhat extraordinary. To my mind the Convention should become effective immediately ratifications are exchanged so as to prevent further damage being done to British trade.
2. I agree with Article II of the American draft that "Hong" names should be considered to be trade-marks, and it would be well if a similar Article could be introduced into the Anglo-Japanese Convention.
As regards copyright, I understand that both America and Japan are parties to the Berne Convention, which, if I mistake not, lays down that non-authorized translations cannot be protected.
This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government.
CHINA TRADE.
CONFIDENTIAL.
[9525]
No. 1.
312
13251
[March 19.] 14 APR 08
SECTION 1.
Yours sincerely,
(Signed) A. HOSIE.
Sir J. Jordan to Sir Edward Grey.-(Received March 19.) (No. 92.)
Peking, February 26, 1908. Sir,
WITH reference to my despatch No. 77 of the 17th instant, inclosing a letter from the Acting Commercial Attaché to His Majesty's Legation submitting his observations on the proposed Convention between Great Britain and Japan and America and Japan for the mutual protection of trade-marks in China and Corea, I have the honour to forward to you herewith copy of a second Memorandum from Sir Alexander Hosie embodying his further views on the subject.
I have sent a copy of this Memorandum to His Majesty's Ambassador at Tôkið.
I have, &c. (Signed) J. N. JORDAN.
Inclosure in No. 1.
Memorandum on the subject of a Convention between Great Britain and Japan for the Reciprocal Protection of their Trade-marks in China.
IT appears from Sir Claude MacDonald's despatch No. 10 of the 18th January, 1908, to Sir Edward Grey that a Japanese subject may counterfeit and register at the Patent Bureau in Japan any foreign trade-mark not already registered thereat; but, if such mark was in use prior to the coming into force of the Japanese Trade-marks Law of 1899, the foreign owner of the mark has the right of challenge within a period of three years from the date of registration. Should he not exercise the right of challenge, the mark becomes final, unassailable, and the absolute property of the Japanese subject who has registered it. A Japanese subject would also appear to be able to do what it is the duty of a Patent Bureau to prevent, namely, to register a mark resembling one already registered by another person; but in this case the party who obtained the first registration may demand the cancellation of the second registration. Presumably, therefore, the British proprietor of a trade-mark which has been counterfeited and registered in Japan by a Japanese would be debarred from registering his mark in that country, did he wish to do so, on the ground that the mark was already registered. In other words, the Trade-marks Law of Japan does not debar a Japanese from depriving the British manufacturer of his property—of what may be a very valuable asset. The Government of Japan declares that a foreign mark so registered and (it may be owing to ignorance) unchallenged is unassailable, and it borders on irony to say that the only alternative for the manufacturer whose mark has been pirated is to start an entirely new one for the Japanese market. The British trade-mark is not merely pirated, but the Japanese pirate is allowed to escape with his loot and use it to the detriment of the man he has robbed. Not only can he speak for the Japanese market, but the Chinese merchant relies almost entirely for the quality of the goods he buys on the "chop," or mark, thereon, and the older the mark and the longer it has been in use in China, the more valuable it is. Such a "chop," for example, as the "Crocodile" trade-mark of Sir Elkanah Armitage and Sons, of Manchester, has been in use in China for over thirty years, and, being well and favourably known throughout the Empire, is of great value to its owners. This trade-mark has been pirated by a Japanese and registered in Japan, and its use in China on Japanese goods of the same class as the English make cannot fail to injuriously affect an old-established business. To advise Sir Elkanah Armitage and Sons to abandon this mark, which it has taken many years to popularize, to the Japanese pirate and start a new mark for their goods would appear to me to be nothing short of adding insult to injury.
No one disputes the right of the Japanese to manufacture goods of foreign type; it is the law which permits Japanese to counterfeit and register foreign trade-marks and to use them on Japanese-made goods that requires amendment.
[2889 --1]
1.5
2
work off stocks bearing pirated marks seems somewhat extraordinary. To my mind the Convention should become effective immediately ratifications are exchanged so as to prevent further damage being done to British trade.
2. I agree with Article II of the American draft that "Hong" names should be considered to be trade-marks, and it would be well if a similar Article could be introduced into the Anglo-Japanese Convention.
As regards copyright, I understand that both America and Japan are parties to the Berne Convention, which, if I mistake not, lays down that non-authorized translations cannot be protected.
This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government.
CHINA TRADE.
CONFIDENTIAL.
[9525]
No. 1.
312
13251
[March 19.] 14 APR 08
SECTION 1.
Yours sincerely,
(Signed) A. HOSIE.
Sir J. Jordan to Sir Edward Grey.-(Received March 19.) (No. 92.)
Peking, February 26, 1908. Sir,
WITH reference to my despatch No. 77 of the 17th instant, inclosing a letter from the Acting Commercial Attaché to His Majesty's Legation submitting his observations on the proposed Convention between Great Britain and Japan and America and Japan for the mutual protection of trade-marks in China and Corea, I have the honour to forward to you herewith copy of a second Memorandum from Sir Alexander Hosie embodying his further views on the subject.
I have sent a copy of this Memorandum to His Majesty's Ambassador at Tôkið.
I have, &c. (Signed) J. N. JORDAN.
Inclosure in No. 1.
Memorandum on the subject of a Convention between Great Britain and Japan for the Reciprocal Protection of their Trade-marks in China.
IT appears from Sir Clande MacDonald's despatch No. 10 of the 18th January, 1908, to Sir Edward Grey that a Japanese subject may counterfeit and register at the Patent Bureau in Japan any foreign trade-mark not already registered thereat; but, if such mark was in use prior to the coming into force of the Japanese Trade-marks Law of 1899, the foreign owner of the mark has the right of challenge within a period of three years from the date of registration. Should he not exorcise the right of challenge, the mark becomes final, unassailable, and the absolute property of the Japanese subject who has registered it. A Japanese subject would also appear to be gable to do what it is the duty of a Patent Bureau to prevent, namely, to register a nark resembling one already registered by another person; but in this case the party who obtained the first, may demand the cancellation of the second, registration. Fresumably, therefore, the British proprietor of a trade-mark which has been counterfeited and registered in Japan by a Japanese would be debarred from registering his mark in that country, did he wish to do so, on the ground that the mark was already registered. In other words, the Trade-marks Law of Japan does not debar a Japanese from depriving the British manufacturer of his property-of what mjay be a very valuable asset. The Government of Japan declares that a foreign mark so registered and (it may be owing to ignorance) unchallenged is unassailable, and it borders on irony to say that the only alternative for the manufacturer whose mark has been pirated is to start an entirely new one for the Japanese market." The British trade-mark is not merely pirated, but the Japanese pirate is allowed to I cannot escape with his loot and use it to the detriment of the man he has robbed. spe ak for the Japanese market, but the Chinese merchant relies almost entirely for the quality of the goods he buys on the "chop," or mark, thereon, and the older the mark and the longer it has been in use in China, the more valuable it is. Such a "chop," for example, as the "Crocodile" trade-mark of Sir Elkanah Armitage and Sons, of Manchester, has been in use in China for over thirty years, and, being well and favourably known throughout the Empire, is of great value to its owners. This trade- mark has been pirated by a Japanese and registered in Japan, and its use in China on Japanese goods of the same class as the English make cannot fail to injuriously affect an old-established business. To advise Sir Elkanah Armitage and Sons to abandon this mark, which it has taken many years to popularize, to the Japanese pirate and start a new mark for their goods would appear to me to be nothing short of adding insult to injury.
No one
disputes the right of the Japanese to manufacture goods of foreign type; it is the law which permits Japanese to counterfeit and register foreign trade-marks The use by and to use them on Japanese-made goods that requires amendment.
[2889 --1]
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.