Although Mr, Krisel, representing plainti' in the action of eases, Lysol v. the American Drag Con, had argue? his client's ease last week, Judge M.D, Purdy in the United States Court for Ohina on Wednesday listened to further evidence which might—_elarify certain points in doubt. The matter under discussion' cen-cerns the right of defendant to sell a product known as Kota Lysol, plaintiffs asserting that the ame is a trade name and that the action of defendant is illegal, unlawful and injurious to their business. Mr. C. 8, Franklin and Mr, N. F. Allman represented the his argument last week Mr, Krisel pointed out that the Ly: company was originally a Get which transferred 'American rights to Messrs, Fink, the present manufacturers, Defendants were selling an inferior brand which contained only half of the main ingroent, Mr, Krisel's con'! tention that American trade marks in China were binding on Americans and that the Court' could forbid {infringements thereon, by reason of the ing in China, Iie case was further strengthened, he went on to say, by the formal registration of their product's trademark with th Chines" Bureau for Rexistration, [Common law and the statutes com: bined, he asserted, to give protection in China ay well' as in America, An Expert's Evidence In ing evidence Mr. H. V. Hawley, analytical chemist who had fsnalyzed three samples, "British American and German, found them to contain respactively:—46 4/10 per cent 48 8°10 per cent, and 49 8/10 por cent. of creese!, and a in answer to Mr. Krisel, that the) iserepaney between the original and one of 28 0/10 per cent. would the more marid, but added that as creosols "were ' not "of the same strength the disinfecting quality right be the xame. In rity to hia} Honour. witness addi that the disinfecting value of the three he had examined might be the same, Yesterday afternoon Mfr. Franklin expounded Taw and statutes as he thought applied to the defence, the session edo! before he had completed. He will continue this morn-Tg, after which Air, Allman reve the point, whether or not U.S, diplomatic acceptance of the China Freie Marks Bureau and the registration of American trade marks by that office makes it binding for. the Court to hold American defendants Taw, ar is the case tinder certain land regulations under which the extraterritorial courts apply Chines" regulations, Bit, Franklin cited Inw to prove that trade marks concern and" are binding only in the country of their origin and that they ennnot extend to other countries, to which his Honour replied. that this was a country in which Americans pos sessed extraterritcria] rights and you will have to show me to the contrary.)
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.