CO129-351 - Public Offices - 1908 — Page 836

CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案 All AI Reviewed

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

CHINA TRADE.

CONFIDENTIAL.

[20110]

No. 1.

829END

25755

[June 11.3

! JUL 08

SECTION 1.

Sir,

Board of Trade to Foreign Office.-(Received June 11.)

Board of Trade, June 10, 1908.

I AM directed by the Board of Trade to refer to your letter of the 26th ultimo, transmitting a copy of a letter from the Manchester Chamber of Commerce on the subject of the protection of trade-marks in China, and asking whether the Board concurred in the answer which Sir E. Grey proposed to make on the subject.

In reply, I am to state that, with reference to the first paragraph of the proposed answer, the Board of Trade do not think it should be admitted that the voluntary deposit of trade-marks at Shanghae or elsewhere will confer any priority or other advantage.

On this point the Board would refer to their letter of the 22nd December, 1906, in which was inclosed a draft of a notice afterwards inserted in the Board of Trade and Trade-Marks Journals, calling attention to the fact that owners of trade-marks could deposit the same in China, but stating that, as far as the Board were aware, the deposit did not confer any legal status or right.

Subject to the above remarks, the Board concur in the proposed reply to the Manchester Chamber of Commerce.

I have, &c. (Signed) T. W. P. BLOMEFIELD.

[1815 -1]

Edit History

2026-06-06 12:55:01 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct
Live
View comparison
AI Proofread
[This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government.] CHINA TRADE. CONFIDENTIAL. [20110] No. 1. 829END 25755 [June 11.3 ! JUL 08 SECTION 1. Sir, Board of Trade to Foreign Office.-(Received June 11.) Board of Trade, June 10, 1908. I AM directed by the Board of Trade to refer to your letter of the 26th ultimo, transmitting a copy of a letter from the Manchester Chamber of Commerce on the subject of the protection of trade-marks in China, and asking whether the Board concurred in the answer which Sir E. Grey proposed to make on the subject. In reply, I am to state that, with reference to the first paragraph of the proposed answer, the Board of Trade do not think it should be admitted that the voluntary deposit of trade-marks at Shanghae or elsewhere will confer any priority or other advantage. On this point the Board would refer to their letter of the 22nd December, 1906, in which was inclosed a draft of a notice afterwards inserted in the Board of Trade and Trade-Marks Journals, calling attention to the fact that owners of trade-marks could deposit the same in China, but stating that, as far as the Board were aware, the deposit did not confer any legal status or right. Subject to the above remarks, the Board concur in the proposed reply to the Manchester Chamber of Commerce. I have, &c. (Signed) T. W. P. BLOMEFIELD. [1815 -1]
Baseline (Original)
[This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government.] CHINA TRADE. CONFIDENTIAL. [20110] No. 1. 829END 25755 [June 11.3 ! JUL 08 SECTION 1. Sir, Board of Trade to Foreign Office.-(Received June 11.) Board of Trade, June 10, 1908. I AM directed by the Board of Trade to refer to your letter of the 26th ultimo, transmitting a copy of a letter from the Manchester Chamber of Commerce on the subject of the protection of trade-marks in China, and asking whether the Board concurred in the answer which Sir E. Grey proposed to make on the subject. In reply, I am to state that, with reference to the first paragraph of the proposed answer, the Board of Trade do not think it should be admitted that the voluntary deposit of trade-marks at Shanghae or elsewhere will confer any priority or other advantage. On this point the Board would refer to their letter of the 22nd December, 1906, in which was inclosed a draft of a notice afterwards inserted in the Board of Trade and Trade-Marks Journals, calling attention to the fact that owners of trade-marks could deposit the same in China, but stating that, as far as the Board were aware, the deposit did not confer any legal status or right. Subject to the above remarks, the Board concur in the proposed reply to the Manchester Chamber of Commerce. I have, &c. (Signed) T. W. P. BLOMEFIELD. [1815 -1]
2026-06-06 12:55:01 · Baseline
View content

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

CHINA TRADE.

CONFIDENTIAL.

[20110]

No. 1.

829END

25755

[June 11.3

! JUL 08

SECTION 1.

Sir,

Board of Trade to Foreign Office.-(Received June 11.)

Board of Trade, June 10, 1908. I AM directed by the Board of Trade to refer to your letter of the 26th ultimo, transmitting a copy of a letter from the Manchester Chamber of Commerce on the subject of the protection of trade-marks in China, and asking whether the Board concurred in the answer which Sir E. Grey proposed to make on the subject.

In reply, I am to state that, with reference to the first paragraph of the proposed answer, the Board of Trade do not think it should be admitted that the voluntary deposit of trade-marks at Shanghae or elsewhere will confer any priority or other advantage.

On this point the Board would refer to their letter of the 22nd December, 1906, in which was inclosed a draft of a notice afterwards inserted in the Board of Trade and Trade-Marks Journals, calling attention to the fact that owners of trade-marks could deposit the same in China, but stating that, as far as the Board were aware, the deposit did not confer any legal status or right.

Subject to the above remarks, the Board concur in the proposed reply to the Manchester Chamber of Commerce.

I have, &c. (Signed) T. W. P. BLOMEFIELD.

[1815 -1]

Comments

Approved members can add comments, bookmarks, and private notes.

No comments yet.

Private Research Note

Private notes are available after approval.