MARKING OF GOODS.

Manawatu Standard, Volume LIV, Issue 110, 9 April 1934, Page 8

MARKING OF GOODS.

DESIRABILITY OF PRACTICE. VIEWS OF ASSOCIATED CHAMBERS. A suggestion that all goods imported to New Zealand be branded with the name of the country of origin is not viewed with favour bv the executive of the Associated Chambers of Commerce iof New Zealand, which has adopted a Teport by a special committee of its members. The report is as under: “The question of having legislation enacted requiring that goods imported into New Zealand should be branded with the name of the country of origin has been brought before the executive of the association by several chambers and has been investigated by this subcommittee. “The sub-committee has studied the English Act .and regulations, the House of Commons debate on the subject, the legislation obtaining in other countries, and reports by the League of Nations, Imperial Conference and the International Chamber of Commerce. In tlie vending of goods, any step that is taken in the direction of honest dealing is a step in the right direction. Great Britain has had in force since 1926 an Act governing the marking of imported goods, and each year the list of those articles which must bear the name of the country of origin is being added to. “The first line of cleavage is on the question whether it is sound policy to make it compulsory to mark foreign goods. We are in entire sympathy with all efforts to put down unfair trading, and the passing off of foreign goods as British, but it is useless to shut our eyes to the practical difficulties to be surmounted in the matter of compulsory marking. “At the present time New Zealand is following somewhat on the lines of the English Act, in that the Customs Department has power to direct the marking of imported goods with the name of tlie country of origin if those goods bear a misleading mark, and mav, if indemnified, hold goods which infringe trade marks. Our imports from foreign countries are such a small percentage of their total exports that it would be impracticable to insist that all goods . imported should bear a mark of tlie country of origin. Great Britain has had some of her most able men investigating tlie whole question, and when the Bill was introduced in 1926 the then President of the Board of Trade stated that he considered a general Bill requiring everything to be marked on importation would go too far and would not b o e f the above facts the sub-committee has no recommendation

to make at the present time, except that it may be useful to obtain the opinions of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce and the Federation of Chambers of Commerce of the British Empire on the subject.”