DROLT BOARD OF TRADE MERCHANDISE MARKS ACT, 1926 Report of the on WOVEN LABELS Presented by the President of the Board of Trade LONDON: PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY HIS MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE To be purchased directly from H.M. STATIONERY OFFICE at the following addresses: Adastral House, Kingsway, London, W.C.2; 120, George Street, Edinburgh; York Street, Manchester; 1, St. Andrew's Crescent, Cardiff; 15, Donegall Square West, Belfast; or through any Bookseller. 1927 Price 2d. Net Cmd. 2909 NOTE. The estimated cost of this Report, exclusive of the salaries of the Committee, is £17 10s. 10d., of which £4 represents the cost of printing and publishing. The Committee are paid salaries amounting in the aggregate to £3,250 per annum. BOARD OF TRADE. REPORT OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON WOVEN LABELS. THE RIGHT HONOURABLE SIR PHILIP CUNLIFFE-LISTER, SIR, PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE. ON the 9th May, 1927, the Board of Trade made a reference to us in respect of Woven Labels of Textile Materials for enquiry under Section 2, Sub-section 1, of the Merchandise Marks Act, 1926. In pursuance of this reference it has become our duty, in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section 6 of Section 2 of the Act, to make a report to the Board of Trade as to whether, in our opinion, an Order-in-Council ought to be made under Section 2 of the Act requiring imported Woven Labels of Textile Materials to bear an indication of origin at the time of sale or exposure for sale in the United Kingdom; and also whether these goods should bear an indication of origin at the time of importation into the United Kingdom. 2. We held our Enquiry on the 20th and 21st June, the whole of the evidence being given in public. The Applicants, who were represented by Counsel-Mr. W. B. Faraday, were the Coventry and District Textile Manufacturers' Association, and the Opponents were a group of importers and dealers, who were represented by Counsel-Mr. Russell Vick. 3. The labels which are the subject of the application are manufactured of silk, cotton, artificial silk, and of other textile fibres, either separately or in combination. They are used for attachment to garments, boots, underwear, and other goods for the purpose of displaying the name of the manufacturer, merchant or other trader, or his trade mark or other advertising matter. 4. An argument was put forward by the Opponents, that in view of Sub-section 4 of Section 1 of the Act which excludes coverings, labels, reels, &c., from the operation of that Section, it was the evident intention of Parliament to exclude such goods from the requirement of marking, and that consequently it would be contrary to the spirit if not the letter of the Act, to make an Order under Section 2 in respect of such goods. We are unable to accept this view. It seems clear to us that the exception referred to is [16388] B 2 strictly limited to Section 1 of the Act which operates automatically and has no bearing on enquiries under Section 2. Had the exclusion been intended to apply generally it would have been quite easy to give effect to the intention by a slight change of wording. 5. The Applicants asked that an Order should be made requiring the indication of origin to appear not only at the time of sale or exposure for sale, but also at the time of importation. 6. Three methods of marking were put before us (a) that the indication of origin should be woven in the face of the label in such a way that it is visible when the label is sewn into the garment; (b) that the indication of origin should be woven in the cutting space between the labels in such a way that the indication of origin is either cut off or sewn in when the label is attached to the garment; (c) that the indication of origin should be indelibly marked at the end of the roll of labels and on the container. The first of these methods is that asked for by the Applicants, and corresponds roughly to the requirements of the United States law. The second method is that which appears to be usually adopted to meet the requirements of the French law. The third method was put forward by Opponents as being the least unacceptable to them in the event of some form of marking being recommended. 7. We do not think that a case has been made out by the Applicants for a mark at the time of importation, nor can we, on the evidence before us, recommend the method of marking which they proposed. We think that there is force in the argument that any indication of origin on a label which will be visible when it is attached to the goods, will give rise to confusion as to whether the indication refers to the label or to the goods, and that the confusion will be harmful to trade. It was suggested that the indication of origin might be so worded as to make it clear that it referred to the label. We do not, however, think that all risk of confusion could be avoided in this way, and as users would be disinclined to take any risk merely to effect a small saving in the cost of the label, we consider that the adoption of this method of marking would in effect amount to a prohibition of importation. The second method of marking referred to in the preceding paragraph avoids this particular danger, but it would in our opinion give rise to an increase in the cost of the imported label, which though very small in relation to the total price of the goods labelled, must nevertheless be an appreciable percentage of the price of the label itself. We do not see that, for the purpose of protecting users, this method has any substantial advantage over the third method, which can be applied without difficulty and at a negligible cost. 8. There is evidence that, in the absence of marking, there is a possibility that a purchaser of labels through a factor or other dealer may not be aware whether they are imported or not. We consequently recommend that imported Woven Labels of Textile Materials should bear an indication of origin indelibly marked at the end of the roll and on the container in such a manner as to be conspicuous at the time of sale or exposure for sale. In the case of labels known as "cut downs" which are imported in the piece, each piece should be similarly marked near the edge and on the container. We consider that such an indication of origin can be applied effectively and without injury to the goods. 9. In order to avoid difficulties which might arise in the interpretation of the term "Woven Labels of Textile Materials," we consider that the Order should make it clear that the marking requirement does not apply in the case of labels of woven material on which the design, name, trade mark, &c., is printed or stamped. 10. We recommend that the date on which the Order shall take effect shall be the 1st January, 1928, or three months from the date of the Order, whichever is the later date. (Signed) H. LLEWELLYN SMITH. E. W. REARDON (Secretary). July 5th, 1927. (63202-22) Wt. 1000 7/27 H.S!. G.71 16388 |