CO129-438 - Public Offices - 1916 — Page 75

consent to I

A

18/10/

Ase

3

18.10.16

GB. 15.10.16

The Bozt. Concurs in our proposed Jes

An sever

19/10/16

I have asked Major Hunt to postpone this

question until next week, at the request of the S.of S.

Jer

9/4/6

Anown attached to 49848

Included in the

Dr

3

207 107 16

Moreover marks which indicate manufacture in Germany could not ce sold, since the good-will of the manufacturing business could not. Only marks belonging to local distributing housea and indicating selec- tion by them could be sold.

C.T.

day.

70

I am sorry I have been engaged nearly all

I think we can safely answer this question

in the manner proposed, but I had better perhaps briefly summarize the position regarding enemy Trade Marks in Hong Kong.

These may be divided into

(a) Marks belonging to enemy subjects or firms not carrying on business in Hong Kong. (b) Marks belonging to enemy subjects or firms

carrying on business in Hong Kong.

As to the former (a), to cancel or sell these would be to go directly contrary to the policy of His Majesty's Government and the same applies to the refusal to renew. The payment of fees for renewals on behalf of enemies was expressly allowed here by a soard of Trace license of 23rd September 1914 (Cp.381 of Manual of G.Legn.).

As to (b). To cancel or refuse permission to renew these would also have been contrary to the policy of His Majesty's Government, but they might no doubt have been sold in the liquidation of the owning firms. After considerable deliveration we came to the conclusion that in the special circum- stances of Hong Kong we would not sell, as we are doing elsewhere. See paragraphs 4 and 5 of 16796 - the reasons being briefly that it would be impossible to make the sales effective in China, where the

principal use of the marks would be, and that it was feared that they might be bought by agents for the

enemy owners.

We