A Chinese_Dealer's Dislike of Embarrassing Publicity The case of the Sanitas Ca. v. the General Pharmacy again came up in the Mixed Court, on Wednesday, before Mr. Blackburn and Mavistrate Loh, on an application by Mr. ™ Reader Harris, for the plaintiffs, as the owners of the trade mark "Sanitas,' against the defendants, who were manufacturing and selling in Shanghai a disinfectant called "Sanitar." "They were also advertising this product as one from London, describing st as coming from a factory manufacturing an old brand of sanitary disinfecting fluid in London. They further indicated that it was a London. or imported, product, whereas it was manufactured in Shanghai, all this going to show that they were infringing the plaintiffs" trade mark.
An order had been obtained from the court, attaching all the goods in the shop bearing the "Sanitar" mark and they were sealed up. Messrs. Ellis & Hays, for the defendants, then opened negotiations for a settlement and on May 3 the action was settled on terms which provided for the insertion of advertisements in the North-China Daily News," the "Shanghai Times" and two Chin-} ese papers, three times, and the defendants to pay costs, Nothing was done until the beginning of June, when an advertisement was put in the "China Press," which was not one of the papers asked for and also two Chinese papers. Counsel said he did not so very much mind the "China Press" being selected instead of the "Shanghai Times," but he did insist on having the advertisement in the "North-China Daily News."
Later, the defendants again undertook to have the adver-fisement inserted in the "North-considerable correspondence, but up to this day the advertise ment had not appeared, neither had the defendants—_furnished an undertaking not to continue the infringement. His earlier costs had been paid, but others had accrued, owing to further negotiations resulting from the defendants' own omissions. The defendants had been let. off very lightly in view of the obvious fraud -perpetrated, which would have justified considerable damages.
The plaintiffs now asked for an injunction in the terms of the defendants' undertaking not. to use the name of "Sanitar," that they should' insert an advertise ment at their own expense in the next three issues of the "North China Daily News" and that they should pay further costs incurred by counsel, Mr. J. G, Priestwood (for the defence) said that the defendants took up the attitude that the matter had been settled and was ubject to the other agreement. t seemed that the object of the application was to secure pubplicity, to which the defendants did not object, but they did object to paying extra costs. They did not wish to evade advertising in the "North-China Daily News."
The Assessor suid that the defendantS would be ordered to insert the advertisement in the "North-China Daily News" of June 20, July 1 and 2 and pay counsel's further costs to date.
Mr, Harris: May I have an injunction restraining them from using the word "Sanitar?"
The That Assessor: is an essential. That is agreed, is it not?
Mr. Priestwood: I have been rather misled as to the nature of this application and T don't agree to anything. I think I ought to have had more notice.
The Assessor: Very well, 1 will make an interim injunction.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.