MERCHANDISE MARKS (No. 2) BILL. (Hansard, 17 May 1911)

§ Mr. PETO

The Bill which I ask leave to introduce is to amend the Merchandise Marks Act of 1887 in two directions—first, in the direction where the experience of manufacturers and traders in this country has proved it to be defective, and, secondly, in the direction where experience has proved it to be ineffective in securing the defence of the manufacturers of this country, which I believe was the object of the Act of 1887. Clause 1 provides:—

"Where there is on any goods a word being according to its ordinary signification identical with or similar to a geographical name in the British Islands or any inscription or description that would be liable to make a purchaser believe that the goods were manufactured in the British Islands, such goods shall be marked with the words 'Empire made' if they are manufactured in any part of the British Empire outside the British Islands, or with the words 'Foreign made' if they are manufactured outside the British Islands."

In the Bill which was introduced into the last Parliament by the hon. Member for the Kingswinford division of Stafford-shire, provision upon similar lines were made. It was provided that the words "not British" should be used in the case of any goods manufactured outside the British Islands. I do not think that was regarded by any trade in this country as an altogether satisfactory solution of the difficulty. I believe the words which I suggest in this Clause are not only preferable to those of the Bill of last year, but infinitely preferable to those in the Merchandise Marks Act of 1887, which provides a distinctive description of the country in which the goods are made. I 2019 think we have got far beyond the time when British manufacturers should regard their products with the self-satisfaction which we did in the past, as necessarily superior to anything that could possibly be produced in any other part of the world. In some cases, therefore, the familiar words "made in Germany" have been rather detrimental to British industry than otherwise. In any case, whether that is so or not, it was held to be somewhat invidious, as always pointing to some particular country. The general words, "foreign made" are just sufficient to indicate to the purchasers in this country how they may get what they really desire. It might be held by some hon. Members that the provisions with regard to goods "manufactured in the British Empire" are not necessary. I believe they will prove a passport to the favour of British consumers if you are going into the question of irrigation you cannot turn on the water until you prepare the channels beforehand. I believe the same thing is applicable to the commerce of the Empire, and I believe it is the duty of statesmen to prepare these channels for the trade of the Empire.

The second Clause merely provides for stopping up some of the gaps in the Act of 1887, and it provides that the words specified in the first Clause should be marked in the same manner and in the same part, and not less conspicuously than the words or other description or inscription referred to in the previous section. Where, for example, an article like Portland cement is imported into this country, and is marked in a familiar manner on the sack; exactly in the same way it must be marked whether the words be "foreign made" or "Empire made." The third Clause of the Bill applies the obvious penalties for noncompliance, namely, prohibition of importation.

Clause 4 deals with the imitation of trade marks on articles of manufacture. In the Act of 1887, in the second Clause, it is laid down very clearly what is to happen to an offender in the case of the imitation of trade marks. Many substantial penalties are provided under Sub-section 3, which obviously deals with persons under the jurisdiction of the British Courts. When we turn to Clause 16 of the Act of 1887 it says:—

"All such goods and also all goods of foreign manufacture bearing any 2020 name or trade mark, being or purporting to be the name or trade mark of any manufacturer, dealer, or trader in the United Kingdom, unless such name or trade mark is accompanied by a definite indication of the country in which the goods were made or produced are hereby prohibited to be imported into the United Kingdom."

I venture to think the penalty in that case is wholly inadequate to the offence committed, in fact that the penalty does not fit the crime. I provide in this Clause 4 the only possible and obvious penalty in such cases—namely, the entire prohibition of the importation of such fraudulently marked goods. I also include goods marked with the name by which an article becomes known whether during the currency of a patent or after its expiration, if by custom, trading or use it has become distinctive of an article manufactured within the British Islands. The reason for that is that in 1908 the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce applied to the Board of Trade to suggest proceedings, under the Act of 1887, in the case of a bicycle rim known as the "Westwood Rim." The answer of the Board of Trade was to the effect that no breach of the Act had been committed as the name "Westwood Rim" was a commercial name by which the goods had become known. I do not quarrel with the decision of the Board of Trade. I believe they correctly interpreted the Act of 1887, but I do not consider that as a satisfactory solution. I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who fearlessly advocated the cause of the English patentees and passed the Patents Act, which is undoubtedly of immense advantage to them will, when he comes to consider the provisions of this Bill, arrive at the conclusion that a man's name does not necessarily become common property all the world over the moment the protection of the patent is removed by law.

Under Clause 6 I simply repeal and reenact the Clause of the 1887 Act, which provides that a trade description lawfully and generally applied may be undoubtedly used on goods wherever manufactured, provided they are not accompanied by a name and place within the British Empire which could possibly give rise to misunderstanding. The Clause provides that "where such trade description includes a word being according to its ordinary signification, identical with or similar to, a geographical name in the British islands, such goods shall be marked in 2021 accordance with the provisions of this Act if they are manufactured outside the British islands."

In Clause 8 I provide the machinery necessary for seeing that all goods marked "Empire made" shall be accompanied by a sworn declaration of a duly authorised British consul that the goods were manufactured within the British Empire. For this purpose, after careful consideration, I have come to the conclusion there is only one means we can apply, and that is that we must ask those in charge of these goods to bring a consul's certificate as to the place where the goods were made. I do not think that in asking that I am imposing any hardship as between different parts of the Empire. I remind the House that this is only optional; there is no necessity to adopt these words, and they could be avoided by omitting any words that would indicate the goods are of English origin. I know there is difference of opinion as to how far the interests of British traders can or ought to be protected by putting a Customs duty on foreign goods. I believe we are all agreed we want to give no unfair advantage to the products of foreign labour, and we want to expose to no unfair competition the products of British labour.