20
4+
to convey the meaning that marks duly registered in either country, and in use in China, should, although not registered in the country of the other, be afforded as full protection as if they had been registered in both countries. The non-protection of British marks registered in England and in use in China, but not registered or in use in Japan, will give Japanese the opportunity of appropriating these marks and registering them in Japan as Japanese marks (which has already been done), and when the Chinese Trade-marks Regulations come into force there will be nothing to prevent the Japanese holders of these counterfeit marks from claiming their re-registration as Japanese marks in China against the original British proprietors of the marks who did not register their marks in Japan, possibly because they were in use in China only. Or if, again, it is decided by the Chinese Regulations that all marks in use in China prior to a certain date shall be placed in a special list, as has been proposed, the Japanese holder equally with the British owner will demand that his mark be placed in that list, and if the counterfeit is unassailable, according to Japanese law, it will be exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to secure justice. This is one of the many difficulties likely to ensue, unless a Convention fully safeguarding all British trade-marks in use in China can be successfully concluded.
The necessity for such a comprehensive Convention as will embrace British marks, unregistered as well as registered, in Japan may be gathered from the following illustration. The proprietor of a British trade-mark uses it on goods in China, but not in Japan, and does not therefore register it in Japan. When the Chinese Trade-marks Regulations come into force he registers that mark for his exclusive use in China. A Japanese subject may, however, counterfeit, imitate, or colourably imitate that mark and even register it in Japan, thus making it, according to Japanese law, unassailable (cf. "Crocodile" mark). He can introduce goods bearing that counterfeit mark into China, and, as registration in China will be optional, there need be no dispute at the Chinese registration office as to the bona fide ownership of the mark. In such a case the British proprietor would have no redress, whether in Chinese or Japanese Courts, in China.
Japanese law recognizes priority of registration, not priority of use. Had a Trade-marks Law existed in China there can be no doubt that the old British marks now in use in this country would have been duly registered under that law. That, however, was impossible, and when the Chinese Trade-marks Regulations again come up for discussion care must be taken that priority of use shall receive due consideration, that ample time shall be given for the filing of marks, and that, to permit of objections being raised, a sufficient interval shall elapse after publication of the marks for which application for registration is made before registration or re-registration is granted.
(Signed) ALEX. HOSIE,
Peking, August 15, 1908.
Acting Commercial Attaché.
0
Office or Individual.”
Foreign
1908
14 Oct
Last previous Paper.
HONG KONG
STRAITS
No. 37615
(Subject.)
China Trade
DOMESTIC.
37615
15.30. 08
further confl.corre ap
(Minutes.)
4. Stuble
Dr Antrobus Jongres
The Amenian Govt suggest that it's representatives should be given Plews potentiang.
deprecated
Aug 31
This at the Brand puim conference
The Action of Sin E. Grey suggestion.
with 35408
Aug 28
Ministers has
Seft 21
Section 1
Section 1
Couls sent t Str but hey bury H.I mae
25000---17-7. 100005--W. & S. Ltd.-20902- 250I-W. MA. Ltd.—23140–— 2500-11-07.
Next subsequent Paper.
Hofe has better still be held back for 58H 16/10
We can't send out the Conference frother, got (see a 2383)
The rest fort matter.
Rht. Oct. 24 at puce.
Gr. 16
20
4+
to convey the meaning that marks duly registered in either country, and in use in China, should, although not registered in the country of the other, be afforded as full protection as if they had been registered in both countries. The non-protection of British marks registered in England and in use in China, but not registered or in use in Japan, will give Japanese the opportunity of appropriating these marks and registering them in Japan as Japanese marks (which has already been done), and when the Chinese Trade- marks Regulations come into force there will be nothing to prevent the Japanese holders of these counterfeit marks from claiming their re-registration as Japanese marks in China against the original British proprietors of the marks who did not register their marks in Japan, possibly because they were in use in China only. Or if, again, it is decided by the Chinese Regulations that all marks in use in China prior to a certain date shall be placed in a special list, as has been proposed, the Japanese holder equally with the British owner will demand that his mark be placed in that list, and if the counterfeit is unassailable, according to Japanese law, it will be exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to secure justice. This is one of the many difficulties likely to ensue, unless a Convention fully safe-guarding all British trade-marks in use in China can be successfully concluded.
The necessity for such a comprehensive Convention as will embrace British marks, unregistered as well as registered, in Japan may be gathered from the following illustration. The proprietor of a British trade-mark uses it on goods in China, but not in Japan, and does not therefore register it in Japan. When the Chinese Trade-marks Regulations come into force he registers that mark for his exclusive use in China. A Japanese subject may, however, counterfeit, imitate, or colourably imitate that mark and even register it in Japan, thus making it, according to Japanese law, unassailable (cf. "Crocodile" mark). He can introduce goods bearing that counterfeit mark into China, and, as registration in China will be optional, there need be no dispute at the Chinese registration office as to the bond fide ownership of the mark. In such a case the British proprietor would have no redress, whether in Chinese or Japanese Courts, in China.
Japanese law recognizes priority of registration, not priority of use. Had a Trade. marks Law existed in China there can be no doubt that the old British marks now in use in this country would have been duly registered under that law. That, however, was impossible, and when the Chinese Trade-marks Regulations again come up for discussion care must be taken that priority of use shall receive due consideration, that ample time shall be given for the filing of marks, and that, to permit of objections being raised, a sufficient interval shall clapse after publication of the marks for which application for registration is made before registration or re-registration is granted.
(Signed) ALEX. HOSIE,
Peking, August 15, 1908.
0
Acting Commercial Attaché.
Office or Individual.”
Foreign
1908
14 Oct
Last previous Paper.
уз жа
Hongkong Cat Printils Huangling"
Tout they 28 seet, & up a secti
Straits!
B3 Na 7.0.
Sendo
HONG KONG
STRAITS
No. 37615
(Subject.)
China Trade
Opuian
prints of further
C O
DOMESTIC.
37615
15.30. 08
further confl.corre ap
(Minutes.)
4. Stuble
Dr Antrobus Jongres
The Amenian Govt suggest hat it's
representatives
should be given
Plews potentiang.
deprecated
Aug 31
This
at the
Brand puim conference
The Action of
Sin E. Grey
suggestion.
with 35408
Aug 28
Ministers
has
Seft 21
Sectio. I.
Section 1
Section 1
Couls
ве
sent t
Str
but hey
bury
H.I
mae
25000---17-7.
100005--W. & S. Ltd.-20902-
250I-W. MA. Ltd.—23140–— 2500-11-07.
Next subsequent Paper.
Hofe
has better still be held back for
58H 16/10
We can't send out the Conference frother, got (see a 2383)
The rest fort matter.
Rht. Oct. 24
at
puce.
Gr. 16
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.