Tue case of Mr. Clifford Wilkinson and his Tansan, an excellent cooling fluid with whose name at least we are all of us familiar, and which Mr. Wilkinson's enterprise and ener; have made procurable all over the Far East as well as in Australia; this case, we say, indicates that it is high time that the Japanese carried out their reported design of establishing a separate Court to deal with cases in which foreigners are concerned. 'A funnier and more absurdly unjust decision has seldom been solemnly rendered than that given on the 10th ultimo at Kobe in the Tansan Label Case by Mr. Tamaki Shigeo, Chief Judge of Ist Department, Kobe District Court, and Messrs. Shimo-Jad Some two years ago ama Eigoro and Hiyama Hikojuro,
Wilkinson—we take these facts from the judgment—registered his Inbel at the Japanese Patent Bureau. It bears on it the word "Tansan" and other matter. The Japanese are nothing if not imitative, and a Japanese envious of Mr. Wilkinson's success started a water of his own, adopted a label which was close copy of Mr. Wilkinson's, and registered this label in the spring of this year, also at the Patent Bureau. Mr. Wilkinson went to Court to get an injunction against the Japanese who was stealing his thunder. "The defendant uses this libel for waters manufactured by him. The firn several times that he was violate plaintiff (Mr. Wilkinson) informed
ing the Trade Mark Regulations, but the defendant did not stop the sale of his water. Consequently the plaintiff applied for cancellation of the registration of the defendant's Tansan label to the Patent Bureau... The Patent Bureau cancelled the registration of defendant's Jabel. The decision of the Patent Bureau has already been delivered to the defendant. The defendant may appeal to the Court of Cassation against the decision of the Patent Bureau within sixty days of the decision, We cannot find any reason to think that the decision was made contrary to law. The plaintiff and the defendant have been fighting for the monopoly of the label. The defendant can only appeal to the Court of Cassation on a legal point. The defendant will continue the use of the unjust label which it was decided could be used by the plaintiff only. The plaintiff will thereby suffer loss. This is a clear point. The plaintiff has suffered great loss. The amount of water which was sold by the plaintiff has been increasing at the rate of 20 or 30 per cent per day, but it began to decrease. This has injured the name of the plaintiff and it will damage his business. This is very clear. The plaintiff thus sustained a great loss but the actual amount cannot be ascertained. The plaintiff is about to sue for damages, but as his customers are scattered all over the eastern ports of Asia, he states that he applied for interdict while he engaged in investigating his loss."
This is the judicial statement of the plaintiff's ease, and the judgment then goes on to state the defendant's case, which does not traverse that of the plaintiff in a single particular the defendant owns that his label has been cancelled by the Patent Bureau because of its "strong likeness" to the plaintiff's, but he claims that he is allowed sixty days in which to ap- i peal to the Court of Cassation, "and he is entitled to his label until the decision of the Patent Bureau is confirmed." The Court refuses Mr. Wilkinson the injunction he asks for and then proceeds to give its reasons, although sages from time immemorial have pointed out how he who gives his reasons digs a pit for his own fect. The following are the reasons It is an acknowledged fact that the label registered by the defendant at the Patent Bureau of the Agricultural and Commercial Department was pronounced void and that the decision of the Patent Bureau awaits confirmation. The defendant is entitled to use his label which he registered legally until such time as the decision rendering his label void has been confirmed. The plaintiff declares that the use'of the defen-Gant's label has caused him considerable loss, but Fukami Shukichi, sole agent for the defendant's water, and a sworn witness, stated in Court that the weather is now becoming cold and that there is not much demand for Tansan water. Thus it cannot be admitted that at loss is likely to be sustained by the plaintiff if the defendant us-s his label. The statement of the plaintiff relating to his loss becomes only a matter of the past and it will not affect him in the future. Moreover, the time for confirmation of the decision of the Patent Bureau is drawing near and there is practically no necessity to enforce the interdict applied for by the plaintiff. A decision was delivered accordingly. It is not necessary to explain about the second Been decided that this application is un-rotest by the plaintiff secing that it has reasonable on the ground stated above.
We hope that this is not a fair sample of the sort of justice that foreigners are to endure in Japan now that Treaty Revision has given the Japanese full jurisdiction over them. The judge admits that Mr. Wilkinson registered his label two years before his Japanese competitor; that the Japanese label is an infringement of Mr. Wilkinson's; that as being an unjust infringement it has been cancelled by the Patent Bureau and that the result has been pecuniary loss and injury to Mr. Wilkinson's name; but he refuses Mr. Wilkinson an injunction and gives judgment against the foreigner and in favour of the Japanese defendant on the ridiculeus ground "that the weather is now becoming cold and that there is not much demand for Tansan water." A Yokohama paper commenting or this judgment, points out that " the facts are that outside of Japan and China the sales of Tansan are larger in winter than in summer—notably in Australia, for it is the hottest time of the year. We learn that since the judgment has been rendered large shipments have been made to outside ports, expecting to profit by the illegal label before the higher Courts can decide the question, thus adding to the injury already done." It is quite natural that foreign merchants in Japan should view with alarm the consignment of their rights and property to the care of such utterly incompetent Courts' as that which has just refused an junction against the manufacturer of fraudulent Tansan.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.