March 5.
According to telegram from Reuter's Agency published in our jgsue of yesterday it is understood in London that an agreement will shortly be concluded with Japan for the protection of British trademarks; but it is not stated on what authority this expectation is based. For some time negotiations have been carried on in Tokio between the British Ambassador and the Japanese Government with a view to overcome the anomalous position brought about by the widespread piracy of foreign trademarks in japan and by Japan's refusal to join the coterie of Powers who have reed to afford mutual prote: against such infringement by their respective nationals in China. This arrangement has proved the best substitute available in the circumstances for satisfactory legislation on the subject "in ('hina; and it would seem a simple procedure fi Japan to come into the agreement on the same terms as Great Britain, the United States, Gprmany and the other Powers concerned. Unfortunately, however, the protection afforded by Japanese law to foreigners against the infringement of trade-marks falls so far short of that enjoyed in Western countries and is so glaringly inadequate, that the adherence of Japan to the existing modus vivendi would be of little or no advantage to other nationals. For this reason we are tempted to hope that an agreement: with Japan on the subject of trademarks will not be hurriedly concluded, if it is to be of such a nature that, on being put to the test, it tails entirely to afford the protection required. The piracy of trademarks in the Far East has of late assumed formidable proportions. If it. were confined to China and the Chinese it would be reasonable to hope that in course of tive the evil could be checked by persuading the Central Government to enact suitable regulations. But the piracy is carrie {on in Japan on a far more extensive scale, and the prospects of amelioration are not so bright, for the fault lies deep, in the very essence of the Japanese law on trade-marks.
That the complaint against Japanese piracy is not merely the view of foreign trade rivals is proved by recent utterances of the Japanese Minister of Agriculture and ('ommerce. Speaking ut a dinner given by the Director of the Patent Office on January 14, Mr. K. Matsuoka Among out basines men there are some bringing discredit upon their country... They do not hesitate to te foreign products nor to steal foreign trademarks," The Minister of Commerce proceeded to indicate the steps that Japan would have to take to prevent this universal plundering and pleaded for effective measures "to raise the moral standard" of Japanese traders. In the face of this striking acknowledgement on the part of a Mi no diffidence need be felt in em-teil and. its possible effect. on phasizing the wide extent of the
Japan's foreign relations. It would, indeed, be idle to seek to deny the existence of this wholesale piracy of trade-marks; but it will not: have been 80 generally kriowa, before Mr. Matsuoka's admissions, how powerless foreign merchants in existing circumstances to obtain redress. Where individual claimants have failed to secure the protection of the Japanese Courts, there has always been room for the supposition that there has been a technical flaw in the appeal to the law. Investigation, however, proves that the law itself is as mach at fault as the interpretation put upon it by the judges. In its present state it would be almost a solecism to find judgement gi in favour of a foreign plaintiff, however obvious may appear the infringement under complaint. As framed to-day the law encourages the counterfeiting of trade-marks, and the Patent Bureau which exists ostensibly for the protection of trade, whether Japanese or foreign, has been proved to be useless. In the presence of its Director Mr. Matsuoka urged that care and impartiality should be shown, and] that not content with the m wording of the law, the offi should enter into its spirit of. giving protection to rightful owners." It is true that Japan can int to a clause in its Trade-mark ws which states that " Trademarks in regard to which the apprehension exists that they will deceive people cannot be registered," but it would be difficult to adduce an instance where this has been put into effect. Presumably this and other clauses have some meaning in respect to imitations of Japanese marks, but as far as the Patent Bureau is concerned, no consideration to the most widely-known foreign mark is ever shown.
The world is thus left with the uncomfortable reflexion that neither Japanese law nor public opinion regards the piracy of foreign trademarks as an offence. It is not contended that the Japanese should not imitate goods manufactured abroad, but the deliberate adoption of well-known marks—the " chops" on which the Chinese especially set so mach store—is an itimoral act designed to deceive the purchaser.. Carried on to the extent now prevailing in Japan it becomes 'a' national vice, which must in time re-act on the country far more seriously than by merely affecting the fortunes of the 1912 Exhibition. It will be well, indeed, if we may look upon Mr. Matsuoka's notable speech as an indication that the Japanese Government is at last alive to the seriousness of the situation. He went so fur as to say that anese application for the registration of a recognized foreign trade-mark should not be granted, even if the mark had not been registered in Japan. If the whole code affecting trade-marks could be altered in this spirit, there would be. some purpose in the ratification of an agreement on the subject between Great Britain and Japan. But to confirm by written undertaking existing practice in Japan in regard to trade-marks would bring no relief to foreigners in that country, while it might serve as a stimulus to dishonest Japanese traders and others to extend yet further their piracy enterprise in China, NOTES & COMMENTS, February 29.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.