75
C
virtue of section 22 of the Trade Marks Ordinance, 1909, the trade marks formerly used in every such business have also deter- -mined. I am advised that the soundness of this view is doubtful, especially in view of section 5(7) of the Alien Enemies (Winding up) Ordinance, 1914, as amended by section 4 of the Alien Enemies (Winding up) Amendment Ordinance, 1914, and of the rule that a temporary cessation of business does not necessarily determine trade mark rights. It may be advisable, however, in order to allay
doubts, to enact legislation declaring that the trade mark rights
in question have not been determined by the various events and
enactments which have been occasioned by the war. This is a matter
which is not of a very pressing nature. I may add that on the 5th.
February, 1915, I issued a proclamation granting a licence to all
persons resident carrying on business or being in the Colony of
Hongkong similar to the licence granted by the notification of the Board of Trade of the 4th. November, 1914, and the liquidators of the various German firms are being instructed to renew the registration of trade marks standing in the names of the respect- -ive enemy firms which they are winding up. Without the above licence it might have been doubted whether the renewal of a mark belonging to a firm with its head office in enemy territory was legal.
3.
The second question is whether liquidators of enemy firms whose local assets are insufficient to meet their local liabilities should not be empowered and directed to sell the trade marks of such firms. The arguments for adopting such a course are shortly as follows:-
(a). The dividends payable to unsecured creditors would
be increased.
(b). The enemy firm itself would benefit. The sale of
these marks now would reduce the liabilities
to be met by the enemy firm after the conclu- -sion of the war. If not sold, their value
will disappear unless the war should come to
а
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.