THE PROPOSED TRADE MARK

Evening Post, Volume LXXXIV, Issue 154, 27 December 1912, Page 2

THE PROPOSED TRADE MARK

STROtfG OPPOSITION. DOMINION'S COMMISSION EVI DENCE. (From Our Own CorrespondeAt.) ' LONDON, 16th November. Yet another change in the personnel of the Dominion's Royal Commission. First Sir Joseph Ward backed out, then Lord Inchcape withdrew froni the chairmanship, and now Sir Charles J. L. Owens has resigned. In place of the last-named gentleman, Mr. Joseph Tatlow, an Irish railway director, has been appointed. The proposed British Trade Mark is having a bad time. The Lancashire cotton trade is bitterly opposed to the suggestion, and other large manufacturing industries also object. Mr. J. F. L. Brunner, M.P., on behalf of his own compahy (Messrs. Brunner, Mond, and Co.), and also at the requeot of the Castner Htellner Alkali Company, Oadbury Brothers, J. S. Fry and Sons, Rowntree and Co., and the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce, strongly opposed the trade tti&rk. He gave four reasons. - In the first place, if the mark were not generally adopted, it would be useless, a mark of lhfenor quality, and a possible source of prejudice to manufacturers, who refused to use it. On the other hand, if generally adopted the effect would be to level up the^grade- oi high-class and low-class manufactures to the detriment of 'makers of high-class goods, inashttirh as the use of such a mark could not be restricted to goods of any particular quality, ' Thirdly, the use of such a mark, added to the distinctive trade mark 'of a particular manufacturer, would in many cases affect the distinctive get-up of that manufacturer's gSodB and destroy the value of the manufacturer's existing marks, Would tend to confusion, ana Wad to , suspicion in the minds of buyers. Finally, the use of bttch a mark would facilitate'the imitation of well-known brahds in foreign ' countries, where it was often difficult eneugh at the present time to protect the trade mar.k against fraudulent imitation. COTTON TRADE'S OPPOSITION. ' Sir Charles Schwann, M.P., introduced a deputation consisting of leading members df all sl branches of the Manchester cotboir trade. Ho stated that the firme represented by these gentlemen had a combined ' capital of £44,000,000 and owned 27.000 trade marks. ■ ' Mr. Wiley, acting as spokesman, said that the suggestion .made by the British Empire League when before the Commission that legislation might be required to authorise the registration of the Em* pire trade mark, seemed- to be in accord with the proposals made at the British Empire eLagUe meeting on 16th October, that the Parliaments of Great Britain and .the Dominions should be invited to give the sanction of' law to the proposed trade mark. The only meahing witness could pbt on these words was that some statutory or other express legal recogni-, tion ought to be- given to the trade mark throughout the Empire, with the result that those traders who used it would gain some legal advantage which wouldbe denied to those who did not. In that case all traders would be placed in the hands of the British Empire Trade Mark, Association for a decision whether a permit to use the mark should be giveh or not. . v Another suggestion made by "the pro- 1 moters of this movement before the Commission: was that- the proposed trade mark need not be affixed to the goods, but need ohlybe put on the invoices. The suggestion, said the witness," was an extrttordinary one. and quite inconsistent with the published views of 'the 1 brombters. The purpose of the British Tmpire trade mark was, or wasNheld xtv^t to be^ that it should catch the eye of the consumer all over the globe, and should give him direct notice of the fact that the article purchased was produced within' the British 'Empire. The new idea, that instead of this, the consumer 'was to be referred to the' shopkeeper from whom he purchased, with a demand to see the invoice of the goods, in order to verify the fact whether the goods came under cover of the British Empire trade mark or not, appeared to the witness so impracticable as to demonstrate the futility of the whole proposal. BREWERS OPPOSE. Mr. A. «!r, Clay (representing Messrs. Bass, Rateliff, and Gretton, Ltd.) said his rirm Were deeply interested in the question, owing to the value of their own trade maFks. The essential characteristics of a trade-mark were that it should be striking and distinctive. 1 The proposed British Empire trade-mark would probably be heither striking nor distinctive.- There was no real demand for a- British trade-mark by manufac- | turers and traders. On the contrary, it was viewed with distrust and anxiety. Certain > firms and Chambers of Commerce had, it, was true, intimated their sympathy with the proposal of the league; but the number of really prominent firms in the list was- not large, ahd he was informed that two important Chambers of- Commerce were likely to withdraw their support. He was confident'that before the Commissioners r«h turiifcd from their tour of the Dominions the support of practical business- men and Chambers df Commerce would have dwindled, to very small proportions. Messrs. Guinness and other firms held Opinions identical with those of Messrs. Bass. He sympathised with the aim& ilf the British Empire League, but there were technical difficulties which made an Empire trade-mark unworkable. Mr. &. G. Thyne gave similar cviI dencedii behalf of the Bradford Dyers' l Association. '