The Sun.
London, England, 1862-02-19 00:00:00

TRADE MARKS.

Mr. ROEBUCK, in committee of the whole house,
moved for leave to bring in a bill to amend the law relating
to trade marks. The manufacturers of this country, by
dint of labour, skill, and industry, had acquired a
great reputation, and were naturally anxious to preserve t 3

themselves all the advantages that resulted therefrom. His
only object was to prevent forgery, and he asked the house

to aid him in his efforts for that purpose. He would illus-
trate the existing evil by a foreign example. This month
one of his constituents had received a letter from a manu-
facturer in Prussia offering to make for him articles of hard-
ware with the mark of any Sheffield manufacturer he pleased,
and to put them into the wrappers used by that maaufac.
turer, or in others so like them that no one could tell the
difference. The reasons given for these forgeries were some-
times very strange. A Prussian who wished to come into
the market to compete with the English manufacturer
would make a bad article, put an English mark upon it,
and charge an English price, which was a high one. Then
he would make a good article, put his own mark upon it,
and charge a low price—so that he might be able to say
that his goods were cheap and good, while the English-
man's were bad and dear. His constituents at Sheffield had
for many years had a corporation called the Cutler's Com-
pany, which assigned trade marks and registered the gyre.
bola which different manufacturers employed ; so that any
one by consulting the books of the company might ascertain
in an instant what was the mark of A.B. He wanted, in a
similar manner, to protect all English manufacturers inthe
honest prosecution of their calling, and to enable them to

keep their symbols free from forgery. He believed that
other towns besides Sheffield experienced the want of an
improved law. There were persons, for instance, who sold
reels of thread with the name of a well-known Manchester
house upon them, and a statement that they contained 300
yards, whereas in reality they only contained 200. The re-
sult was that the public, when they discovered the fraud,
exclaimed, " What rogues Messrs. So and So are !" the real
truth being, all the time, that their goods were perfectly
honest, and that it was only the forger of them who
sold the deficient lengths. He 'ithe hon. and learned
gentleman) proposed to send his bill before a select com-
mittee, to which he supposed the right hon. gentleman
opposite (Mr. M. Gibson) would also refer his mea-
sure, and he hoped that the result would be a prac-
tical law by which the evils of which his constituents
complained might be remedied. His own proposal was to
visit the forgers of trade marks with summary conviction;
and to make the enactment reciprocal with other nations,
so that the goods of every foreign manufacturer should be
protected, if his country protected the goods of Englishmen,
but not otherwise. The bill would do no harm to any one
but rogues. (Cheers.)
Mr. GIBSON was quite willing to adopt the suggestion
of his hon. and learned friend, and to refer his intended

measure to the same select committee. A bill on this sub-
ject had last year passed the House of Lords, but it sculd
not be proceeded with any further owing to a want infor-
mation in this house on the subject; and there was not
time last year to appoint a committee of investigation. The
object was one upon which they were all agreed, but it was
extremely difficult to effect what they had in view without
exposing innocent persons to prosecutions of a vexatious
character. It would also be very difficult to say what a
trade mark was, so that a justice of the peace, to whom it
was proposed to give jurisdiction, might be able to say whe-
ther A B was entitled to the exclusive use of the symbol he
claimed. It was not sufficient for a person to show that he
had used a particular mark, but he must show that he had
so used it that it became known to the world as his. With
regard to the foreign question, he could not say that the
retaliation clause which the hon. and learned gentleman
proposed seemed to him judicious. It appeared to him that
it would be better to give the foreigner the benefit of our
laws without reference to how they treated us in return. It
was said that foreigners had already the benefit of our laws,
but that those laws were so bad as to be useless to them.
At the same time, unless the experiment of attempting a
prosecution, say, in Prussia, had actually been tried, it
could not be said that Prussia refused our manufacturers
redress. It did not appear to him that the registration of
trade marks would be of any benefit. It was altogether a
different case from the registration of designs.
That was intended to create a new species of property ;
whereas the bill would neither create a new property nor
introduce a new law; for it was already illegal to appro-
priate another man's mark. A registration, therefore, would
rather be a new obstacle thrown in the way of manufac-
turers, because it would require them to pay some fee or to
go through some additional form before they could take
steps to defend their rights. These were, however, all mat-
ters of detail, which it would be wrong to discuss at pre-
sent. The Government were entirely of opinion that some-
thing should be done to remedy the evils complained of,
provided only that it could be done without exposing inno-
cent persons to frivolous and vexatious prosecutions.
Mr. CRAWFORD said his constituents in the City were
chiefly interested in the bill, so far as it would render them
liable to prosecution for innocently selling articles which
had fraudulent trade marks upon them ; and he was glad,
therefore, to hear that they would have an opportunity
allowed them of stating their views to a select committee.

Mr. LOCKE agreed with the hon. and learned gentle •
man the member for Sheffield ; but there was another fraud
to which attention should be drawn, namely, the practice
of manufacturers themselves putting false trade marks upon
their goods. For example, a case had occurred in the Court
of Queen's Bench, where a manufacturer had labelled his
cotton as of greater length than was really the fact. He
(Mr. Locke) had been in Paris while Mr. Cobden was ne-
gotiating the commercial treaty, and he learned from the
secretary of that hon. gentleman that the greatest difficulty
had been experienced in attempting to settle the question of
trade marks, in consequence of the practice which obtained
amongst English manufacturers of using fictitious labels
for their own goods; and the very case which he had cited
Las bccu aoftritea Lu. (Hear, heal.)
Mr. HADFIELD agreed with the hon. and learned gen-
tleman, and was of opinion that the registration' trade
marks would be both feasible and useful. He had known
of cases in which a manufacturer had advertised a caution
against the forgery of his mark, and in which the
forger had straightway retorted by advertisements, stating
that his goods were the genuine ones, and that the real
makers of the articles were fraudulent imitators. (Hear.)
Mr. CRUM-EWING supported the bill.
Mr. M. GIBSON said he had been in communication
with the Attorney-General upon this question, and he was
authorised to say that the right hon. gentleman had given
great attention to the subject, and would be ready to give
every assistance in the passing of a measure upon it.
The motion was then agreed to, and the house having re-
sumed, leave was given for the introduction of the bill.
AUSTRALIAN EXPLORING EXPEDITION.
Mr. CHILDERS, in moving an address for copy of all
despatches from Sir Henry Darkly and the other colonial
governors upon this subject, drew the attention of the house
to the successful cross'ng of the Australian continent by
the expedition under the charge of Mr. Burke. He reminded
the house that for expeditions to endeavour to cross the
Australian colonies they had voted considerable SUM of