HC Deb 11 July 1890 vol 346 cc1466-7
MR. FARQUHARSON (Dorset, W.)

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that at the Greenwich Police Court on 28th June, when Messrs. Kearley and Tonge were convicted for selling tea with a false trade description, under the name of "Pure Ceylon Tea, Blackmoor Vale Estate. Imported by Kearley and Tonge," it was stated in evidence that although there was no such estate in Ceylon as the "Blackmoor Vale Estate," the Registrar of Trade Marks had allowed the name to be registered; and whether steps will be taken to remove the name from the register, and to prevent the registration in future of names calculated to mislead?

THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH, Bristol, W.)

Messrs. Kearley and Tonge are the successors to a firm trading as Heseltine, Kearley and Tonge, who were registered prior to the passing of the Merchandise Marks Act, as owners of certain two marks which exhibit as "added matter" the words "Blackmore Vale Estate." Under the Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Acts, 1883–88, it did not devolve on the Comptroller to satisfy himself that the words claimed to be registered as "added matter" were a bonâ fide address. Since the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887, came into operation, however, the Comptroller has, under the directions of the Board of Trade, made it a practice in cases of the kind to require an explanation of the appearance in connection with a trade mark of an address or name of a place other than that given as the address of the person claiming the registration of the mark, and an application for another tea-label bearing the same words "Blackmoor Vale Estate" has been withdrawn in consequence.