Successful Prosecution by the Dunlop Rubber Ca, The bicycle trade mark case, in which Wong Foh-kee and Ah Lien, 1825 Kashing Road, were charged with selling and using bicycles, which an infringement of the trade mark rights of the Dunlop Rubber Ca, (Chins), Ld, was concluded on last Friday in the Mixed Court before Mr, A. J. Martin (British, Assessor) and Magistrate Kua Mr. Tajima (Japanese Acsessor) watched the proceedings,—sines Japanese interests were involved.
Mr, A. E. Seddon appeared for the complainants, Mr. R. T. Bryan, Jr, represented the first accused and. Dr, 0. Fischer the second accused, 'The complainants', general manager, Mr. F. S. Gibbings, gave evidence of the registration of the trode mark of the "Selby" bicycle with the Bureau of Registration in Peking. He then said that he had sent three persons to buy the alleged. infringed goods. He did so ash had heard that bicycles with hig company's trade mark were being sold ata low price. His evidence was corroborated by his Portugues clerk, Int. F, C, Remedios, and several Chinese employees, Mr. Bryan based his defence on article 13 of the Chinese Provisional Criminal Code, which states that a person cannot be convicted of rime which be committed uninten= tionally. He stated that his client got the bicycles from a Japanese named Kawai, who brought them to Shanghai from Ovaka. His client corroborated thave allegations and that he had ever sold bicycles the complainants' trade mark, but under the trade mark "Glide; which the Japanese seller claimed were made in Japan. In cross examination by Dr, Fascher, it was brought cut that the accused had sold six bicycles with complainants? trade mark and that first accused had sold a "Selby" bicycle to the second accused (his client). The second ecused examined, said that he had bought the bicycle from the first accused.
In his closing argument, Mry Seddon informed' the Court' tha from the evidence given by the second accused, he was convinced that the second accused was me nocent, and wished to withdraw the charges. As for the first accused, he brought out in evidence that this desier know that he was selling goods with an infringed trade mark, Tae Court then dismissed charges Against the second accused and posed a maximum fine of $100 on the first accused. Their Honours remarked that, since this was the first offence, they would not impose gool sentence.
After sentence was passed, Mr. Seddon asked that the bicycles be confiscated, The Court was of the opinion that this matter was one for civil action,
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.