§ 27. Mr. Skinnerasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry why he permitted the brand name Treetop to be registered by one firm as the name of a disinfectant and another as the name of a fruit drink; and if he will take steps in future to prevent such duplication.
§ Mr. David PriceA direction was issued to the Registrar of Trade Marks in 1961 to draw the attention of new applicants for trade marks to the risk of confusion of this kind. Both these marks were on the Register before that date. Nevertheless when, in 1969, Treetop was re-registered for non-alcoholic drinks the examiner should have followed the direction, but unfortunately failed to do so. My right hon. Friend has taken steps to ensure that the direction is strictly observed in future. Meanwhile I understand the firms concerned are negotiating with a 364 view to avoiding risk of confusion by the public.
§ Mr. SkinnerA success story at last! Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he can claim credit for it only on the basis of having to combine with the hon. Member for Bolsover? In the short time available to the Department of Trade and Industry before the reshuffle takes place, will the hon. Gentleman ensure that steps are taken to see that there is no further duplication and no error of this kind in the future?
§ Mr. PriceIf the hon. Gentleman insists on making party points, perhaps I might remind him, as I said in my main Answer, that the date in question is 1969.
§ Sir G. NabarroWill my hon. Friend bear in mind that the problem of disinfectants and weed killers sold under proprietary names urgently requires attention? Has he details on his files of a man in Evesham who bought paraquat, a granular form of disinfectant and weed killer which, when dissolved in water, looks like Coca Cola? It was put in a Coca Cola bottle. It was drunk, and that man died a horrible death, due to a series of misunderstandings. Does not this whole range of disinfectants and weed killers need urgent attention?
§ Sir G. NabarroI have sent it to my hon. Friend.