CO129-421 - Governor Sir May - 1915 [3-4] — Page 78

76

a very speedy and, as marks not kept on the

market soon cease to be of much value.

(c). Firms in the United Kingdom which used to manufac-

-ture and export goods bearing these marks, to

the order of German firms here, would be able

to continue to sell their products as before.

Otherwise they would have to build up new

marks and open new connections, and in the

meantime trade might be driven to China Coast

Ports and at the same time a door might be

opened to competition from Japan and the

United States.

be summarised thus:

The arguments against adopting this policy may

(a). The policy might incur the imputation of being a

policy of confiscation.

(b). It might thus give rise to reprisals. (c). It might cause complications with the Chinese

Authorities as the Treaty Port branches of the

enemy firms concerned might apply to the

Chinese Officials for protection against the

use of the marks in China.

On a review of the whole situation I think

that it would be inadvisable to allow these marks to be sold by

the liquidators. Of course it is not in any case intended to authorise the sale of the trade marks or goodwill of any enemy

firm where the winding up will result in a surplus of assets over

liabilities.

4.

The third question is whether non-enemy

persons and firms formerly interested in the sale of goods under trade marks registered in enemy names should not be given licences to use those trade marks during the war. This affects the position of many Manchester and Bradford firms. The

importance