§ Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he would introduce legislation at an early date providing some more adequate restriction upon the fraudulent imitation of British trade marks abroad than the mere addition of the definite indication of the country of origin on the goods when they are imported into this country?
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson)The hon. Member is apparently under a misapprehension. The requirement to which he refers, namely, that imported goods bearing British trade marks shall be marked with a definite indication of the country of actual origin has no application to cases where the marks are fraudulent. Goods bearing fraudulent imitations of British trade marks are, under Section 16 of the Merchandise Marks Act, liable to seizure on importation. The regulations of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise provide that owners of marks may register them with the Department, and goods bearing marks resembling those so registered are liable to be detained by the Customs authorities.
§ Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he was aware that the marking of foreign-made gun-barrels, under The Gun Barrel Proof Act, 1868, with marks which in every case included either the British crown or lion rampant by the Gunmakers Company and the Guardians of the Birmingham Proof House, was commonly accepted by the Foreign and British public as proof that the barrels were of British make, and that consequently the provisions of that Act were injurious to the manufacturers in this country of genuine British barrels and to the interests of the wage-earning classes; and whether he would take steps to introduce legislation at an early date providing that a distinct and different mark should be placed on foreign-made barrels proved in this country to that placed upon barrels of British manufacture, or, alternatively, if the same mark was used on foreign as on British barrels it should in that case be accompanied with the words "Not British" intertwined?
§ Mr. ROBERTSONI propose to communicate with the Proof Houses upon the matters raised in this question.
§ Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether, seeing that under the provision of Clause 10 (2) of the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887, evidence of the port of shipment was primâ facie evidence of the country where the goods were made, and as it was, as a matter of fact, no evidence whatever, and as the marking of foreign-made goods with a definite indication of the country in which the goods were made was not in all cases beneficial to British trade, he would introduce at an early date legislation providing that foreign-made goods, which marked with any inscription that would be liable to make a purchaser believe that the goods were manufactured within the British Islands should be marked with the words "Not British" intertwined, and in the case of any such goods not made in the British Islands but made within the British Empire that they shall be marked with the words "British Empire Made"; and (2) whether, seeing that in virtue of the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench. Coppen v. Moore (1898), persons could and did sell foreign produce in this country as British produce, and provided no written trade description or marking was given they could not be proceeded against, and consequently the provisions of The Merchandise Marks Act, 1887, Section 2, Subsection (2), were inoperative, he would take steps at an early date to amend the Act by a Bill with a wider title that would be operative?
§ Mr. ROBERTSONI understand that the hon. Member has already introduced a Bill for giving effect to the proposals to which he refers. In the circumstances, my right hon. Friend would prefer to express any opinion on these proposals when the Bill is discussed in the House.