The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1887-04-23 00:00:00

FRAUDULENT TRADE MARKS,

consider Th S el e
t ehc Parliamentary
et
three
bills
o nthis Committeesub appointed
jectbefore to
the
House of Commons met for the first time on Monday
to take evidence, Baron H. De Worms presiding. The
Committee consists of Mr. Biggar, Mr. R. Cham-
berlain, Mr. Coddington, Mr. Coleridge, Mr. Frank
Hardcastle, Mr. Howell, Mr. Hoyle, Mr. Hozier Mr.
Kimber, Mr. Lane, Mr. Maclean, Sir F. Mappin, Mr.
Mundella, Mr. Jas. Robertson, Sir A. Rollit, and Mr.
Stuart Wertley. One of the bills was introduced by
Mr. Mundella, a second by the Government, and a
third was also introduced by the Government as a
consolidated measure.
Mr. Courtney Boyle, Assistant Secretary to the
Board of Trade, was examined. He said he had been
in charge of the working of the Patents and Designs
Act, and engaged in the preparation of the Govern-
ment Bills before the House. In 1884 Great Britain
joined the Union for the protection of English patents
and designs. The ninth article of the Convention of
1883 applied to all goods illegally bearing a trade
mark or name, and it proposed to authorise their
seizure on the arrival of such goods in this country.
In 1883 it became apparent that the ninth and tenth
articles of the Convention did not go far enough, and
the Cutlers' Company called attention to the fact that
there was a large importation of fraudulently-marked
goods, which was mainly directed to injury of the
Sheffield ti ade. Cutlery goods, that company stated,
stamped with the word "Sheffield," were im-
ported into this country, and re-exported and
sold in the foreign market. In April, 1886, the
first conference of the Union was held at Rome,
and England was represented by an official from the
Foreign Office, the Master of the Cutlers' Company,
and the secretary of the company. At that Conven-
tion it was recommended that an addition should be
made to the tenth articles of the Convention, provid-
ing that every article bearing an illegal or false indi-
cation of the maker or place might be seized in all the
States of the Union, and an attempt had been made
to give effect, so far as this country was concerned, to
that recommendation in the Government Bill, This
recommendation was to be carried out through the
agency of the Customs, whose officers should have
power to seize goods bearing evidence of fraudulent
origin on their coming into this country. The Act of
1862 had failed in consequence of the cost thrown
upon the prosecutor, who, instead of being at liberty
to proceed by summary procedure, were obliged to
proceed by indictment. The Act was therefore very
rarely put in force.
Mr. Mundella : Is there any reason why a fraudu-
lent or false mark should not render the vendor liable
to imprisonment ?—I cannot go so far as that, as it
would entail a considerable change in the habits of the
country.
The Chairman: If stockings which were described
as containing 75 per cent. of wool and 25 per cent, of
cotton were sold as woollen, that would not subject a
man to punishirent ; I mean it would resolve itself
into a practical analysis of the materials of every
article sold?—lt would.
The Chairman: If it were an article of food, such
as butterine being sold for butter, the. vendor would
be liable to punishment would if he described
it as butter.
Mr. Mundella said he had had experience for two
years of the working of the Adulteration Acts, and
such a case as food came under the operation of
these Acts, but so far as stockings were concerned of
which 25 per cent. were cotton and 75 per cent.
wool, they were invariably described as what they
we TO.
The Committee shortly afterwards adjourned.