*

German interests, before the war, abused their opportunities in this country by obtaining "blocking patents." ** We recommend that special steps be taken in regard to the right of Germans in patents in this country, especially in what is known as 'blocking patents." There should be means of compelling the "blockers to grant licenses when it is known to be in the public interest.

66

A further abuse, of which complaint was made, is the practice of British as well as foreign patentees of taking out unimportant supplemental patents as a means of prolonging the terms of the master patent.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT.

As a war measure, Parliament in 1914 passed an act providing for the working of enemy patents under license. The administration of this act brought out much information as to the need for improving and strengthening the patent system and for preventing such abuses as have been mentioned above. As a result a bill was introduced in November, 1917, to amend the Patents and Designs Act of 1907. In this bill provision was made for the extension of the terms of such patents as the courts should decide to have been incapable of working during the period of the war. It does not appear that any particular opposition was aroused by the introduction of this bill, but it was not acted upon, largely because of the pressure of other measures in Parliament. A similar bill has been introduced, however, and is now being considered by Parliament.

PROPOSAL FOR HARMONY IN EMPIRE SYSTEMS.

An inventor who wishes to protect an invention throughout the Empire has to take out some 40 patents, and the fees required amount to a sum that is so large as to discourage all who lack strong financial backing. From time to time the suggestion has been made that an imperial patent system should be established, but the differences in economic conditions are so great that this has not been favored. It is apparent that something can be done to bring the various systems into greater harmony, and this is a matter that has been discussed at various imperial conferences; but progress in this direction, depending as it does upon the initiative of scattered governments, is certain to be slow.

THE TRADE-MARK NAME "ABUSE."

As a companion measure to the Patents and Designs Bill a TradeMarks Bill was introduced in Parliament by the President of the Board of Trade in November, 1917. This, too, was designed to remedy abuses that had been disclosed or emphasized during the campaign against German trade practices. It had three declared purposes: (1) To introduce minor amendments to the act of 1905; (2) to provide facilities for the registration of marks which, though in use, could not be registered under existing law (that is, common-law marks); and (3) "to prevent the abuse of words used as trademarks."

Only the third need be considered here. The "abuse " which it was proposed to remedy was described by the sponsors of the bill, as "the use by the trade-mark owner of his registered word not for its proper purpose of distinguishing the goods of the trade-mark owner

from the goods of other persons, but in order to give a special proprietary name to the article itself." This was declared to be ̄obviously contrary to the public interest. The argument follows:

If it were permitted to a trade-mark owner thus to use a mark as the name of an article, he would obtain, under the protection of the trade-mark law, a perpetual monopoly in the manufacture of the article itself. The purpose of trade-mark protection is not to give to manufacturers a monopoly in the production of an article, but to enable the manufacturer of a particular brand of goods clearly to distinguish his goods from those of other manufacturers and to forbid competitors from passing off their goods as the products of another firm. * *

*

The name by which an article is commonly known, without any reference to its origin, is not a proper registrable trade-mark, and the courts have on many occasions removed such marks from the register.

*

* *

It is a well-known principle of law that the name of a patented article can not be protected as a trade-mark. If it were so protected, and the name had become of wide general acceptance, then the rights of the public to manufacture the article after 14 years might in practice be destroyed. They would have become unable to use the name by which alone the patented article had been known or sold. A very good example of the abuse of a trade-mark word is "Aspirin." This word was registered as a trade-mark for a drug (acetyl salicylic acid). The owners of the mark, instead of using it legitimately to indicate the manufacture of the drug by a particular firm, have consistently sought to use the word "Aspirin" as the name of the drug itself, and so, under the shelter of a trade-mark, to obtain in fact a perpetual monopoly of the drug.

But trade names become of "wide general acceptance" largely through advertising, and the attack upon this practice is an attack upon advertising "good will." Upon this ground the bill was opposed by the business interests of Great Britain and of the United States as well. As such word trade-marks are registrable by British manufacturers under the laws of the United States, the possibility of American retaliation was advanced as an argument against the proposal. So formidable became the opposition that the bill was finally withdrawn.

On August 11, 1919, however, a similar bill was introduced, in somewhat less objectionable form. This provides that the right to the exclusive use of such a trade-mark shall cease upon the expiration of the patent covering the article to which the trade-mark name is applied, and that thereafter such word shall not be deemed a distinctive mark and may be removed from the register by the courts. It also provides that if the proprietor of any registered word uses his mark as a name or only practicable description of any single chemical substance, such mark may be similarly removed; but there is no definition of what is meant by "single chemical substance."

PROPOSAL FOR NATIONAL TRADE-MARK.

For many years there has been an agitation in favor of a national trade-mark for goods of British origin, but it has been unsuccessful because of the opposition of those who believe that such a mark would impair the value of private trade-marks. The interests opposed to this proposal, however, view with favor the marking of foreign goods with the name of the country of origin, or at least with a statement that they are not British. This is no more than a development of the idea underlying the merchandise marks act of 1887, which forbids the use of false indications of origin; and the growing practice of American manufacturers in marking their goods Made in U. S. A." would be in conformity with the proposal.

THE HOME MARKET.

CAPACITY OF THE DOMESTIC MARKET.

In normal years the home market for the products of British industry is several times as great as the colonial and foreign markets put together. Habits of home buying are well established, and the war has served to strengthen them. British importers may be as willing as before the war to trade with Germany, but so long as the memory of the air raids remains with the people, there is likely to be a restricted demand for goods of German origin. The extensive propaganda against foreign manufactured goods will also have some effect, although it is unlikely to be great or lasting.

The national income is now lower than before the war, although this fact has been obscured because of the inflation of the currency. The need for public borrowing is not past, and there is an accumulation of demands for private capital deferred during the war.

Income is now differently distributed, and the purchasing power of those who receive fixed salaries or incomes has decreased. On the other hand, there was little unemployment during the war and the level of wages was raised. The purchasing power of wage earners as a whole has increased, standards of living have improved, and there is now a disposition to make purchases that have been long deferred. In consequence there is a brisk demand for luxuries as well as articles of necessity.

In the long run, however, the demand will be limited by the surplus available to the people after outlays have been made for subsistence; and the cost of food is likely to remain at a high level for some years. A surplus can be maintained only through increased production; but production is now below the pre-war rate, and for a variety of reasons this situation is not soon to be remedied. It would seem, therefore, that for some time after the present transitional period is past the capacity of the home market will be lower, and that the manufacturer's chief compensation lies in the fact that imports will be less from countries whose resources have been depleted by the war.

GOVERNMENT SALES.

Before a manufacturer can be expected to put his full energy into the production of goods he must have a good prospect of selling his output. Yet the British manufacturer, desirous of resuming operations on a peace basis, finds that as a result of the war the Government owns large quantities of a great variety of finished and semifinished goods which it proposes to sell to the public. Early in June the Surplus Government Property Disposal Board began the issue of a bimonthly catalogue, "Surplus," which sets forth a bewildering array of items which will be sold to the public, thereby diluting the market for the manufacturer. Moreover, while the re

tailer's market is protected to some extent by the necessary limitations as to the minimum quantities of certain commodities offered for sale, the manufacturer has no such protection, and he stands to benefit from the Government sales only as he can thus obtain certain semifinished materials that he may need. There is no ground for complaint on this score, however, and the price policy of the Government is such as to constitute little or no menace to industry.

The largest single transaction made by the disposal board was the sale of an enormous stock of aeroplane linen. In April an attempt. was made to sell directly to the public, but the minimum quantity for which tenders would be received was a bale of 1,500 yards. In June single pieces of 80 yards were offered, and a few hundred thousand yards were thus disposed of. In the meantime negotiations were under way with the Belfast manufacturers and with the distributive agencies, but without result. Finally, on June 19, it was announced that the remaining stock, amounting to nearly 43,000,000 yards, had been sold for £4,000,000 to a man not in the trade.

This linen is of 16 varieties and of various unusual widths. The plan is to distribute it through the regular trade channels throughout the world. As there is now a dearth of linen cloth in the hands of the trade, and as cotton goods are held at high prices, the effect of this transaction is certain to be felt by Belfast and Manchester manufacturers, although the Belfast interests, which have already profited through the manufacture of these goods for the Government, profess to have no fears as to the outcome.

At the cessation of hostilities, the War Office was in possession of 115,000 motor vehicles, of which about 82,000 were motor cars and tractors. Even before the armistice some cars had been sold, and an increasing number were disposed of during the early months of the present year. In March the disposal board inaugurated a series of auction sales, at which motor cars and motorcycles in all stages of repair have been sold at high prices.

It is the policy of the Government, however, to make needed repairs before sale, thus using up its large stock of spare parts and accessories and the reclaimable parts of vehicles that must be broken up, and profiting from the increased price. To this end it has continued the construction of immense storage and repair works at Chippenham, work on which was under way at the signing of the armistice. In May the Ministry of Munitions took over the works from the War Office, and in June repair work was begun.

The magnitude of the task is indicated by the estimate that three years will be required to repair the foreign cars alone, and seven years to repair all of them. The capital outlay required is equally impressive. In May a joint committee of Parliament began a searching inquiry into the matter, but there is no evidence that the Government contemplates abandoning its policy at a time when results are beginning to appear.

Up to June 24, according to an announcement made on that date before the House of Commons, sales of motor vehicles had amounted to £1,108,000. In this there is little menace to the domestic manufacturers, for so urgent is the demand that second-hand motor cars are bringing high prices. Moreover, the manufacturer has an opportunity to place on the market improved models, while the cars that the Government has to sell are generally of pre-war types.

IMPORT RESTRICTIONS.

As a war measure Great Britain, like the United States, found it necessary to assume control over imports. This was effected through royal proclamations or orders in council prohibiting the importation of certain goods, not of Empire origin, except as specifically licensed. The motive behind these orders varied. At first it was generally to give priority to shipments of foodstuffs and articles and materials needed in the production of foodstuffs or munitions, the result sometimes being to increase the volume of imports. Later, as enemy submarine activity increased, the policy developed to one of exclusion of the less essential and bulkier goods, with the idea of conserving shipping space and incidentally developing home resources. This policy may be said to have been introduced in February, 1916; and in April of that year the department of import restrictions was organized under the Board of Trade to administer the licensing authority conferred by the various orders. Additional restrictions were imposed from time to time as necessity required. It was the practice to limit the issuance of licenses to certain applicants for a classified percentage of each type of goods imported by them during a certain prior year or series of years. That the result was unfair as between countries of origin was recognized in the decision that excluded the Dominions and the colonies from the system. That it was unfair as between individuals, is equally obvious, for a newly established business house could not import at all.

Another method of restriction of imports was to issue an order under the defense of the realm acts prohibiting dealings in certain goods. This was adopted in the case of raw materials, notably wool and certain metals.1

Immediately after the signing of the armistice, certain temporary relaxations were announced, but March 1, 1919, a revised list of restricted and prohibited articles went into force, in accordance with the transitional policy of the Government. This list was designed as a means of protecting the home manufacturer during the inevitable period of confusion incident to a transfer to a peace basis. It imposed no restrictions that had not been in force at the signing of the armistice, and in the case of certain commodities it introduced a more liberal policy. It was modified from time to time, and on September 1, 1919, it expired by limitation.

The following excerpts from a statement made to the House of Commons, March 10, 1919, on behalf of the Board of Trade, set forth the intentions of the Government in the matter:

Goods which have their origin or their manufacture or are produced within the Empire will come in without restriction. * * * Semimanufactured articles which are necessary for the manufactures of this country are to be admitted free from restriction, except so far as they are produced by industries which it is essential to foster in this country and which require shielding, in which case they will be restricted. * * Manufactured articles shall be subject to restriction when not necessary for consumption in this country. That means that when they are not essential for consumption, or when they are produced by industries which require to be shielded from foreign competition-industries which were disorganized for the purposes of

*

1 Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, British control of exports and imports, Tariff Series No. 39 (May, 1918).