did not allow the acceptance of any special agreement which would anticipate the legislation in course of enactment by his Government.1 Regarding the rights of foreigners, section 282 of the German unfair competition law of 1909 provides: Whoever does not possess a principal place of business within the country has a claim to the protection of this law only in so far as in the State in which his principal place of business is found. German manufacturers enjoy a corresponding protection, according to an announcement contained in the Imperial Gazette. However, this section no longer applies to the members of the Paris Union, since the adoption of article 10bls. The German courts have repeatedly upheld article 10bis of the Paris Convention as amended at Brussels. In the case of the Eagle Oil Co. of New York v. Vacuum Oil Co., the Imperial Court 3 considered the question: Whether a stock company, which is located and has its main office in the United States, may invoke the protection of the German unfair competition law of May 27, 1896, even if it maintains no branch establishment in the German Empire. The court held as follows: According to article 10bis of the Paris Convention, together with the Brussels amendment of December 14, 1900, all contracting parties enjoy the protection against unfair competition which exists in each of the individual States. As regards Germany it must be taken into account also that section 16 of the unfair competition law of 1896 (sec. 28 of the law of 1909), requiring a main establishment, was drafted mainly from the viewpoint of reciprocity, and that therefore its maintenance is irreconcilable with the purpose of article 10bis. Henceforth, a German whose main establishment is not located in the German Empire, but in one of the other States belonging to the Paris Union, may also invoke the protection of the unfair competition law in Germany, which he was unable to do before. The appellate court has rightfully held that, according to article 10" of the Paris Convention, the plaintiff, a stock company whose establishment is located in the United States of America, enjoys in Germany the protection of the unfair competition law, even if it has no branch establishment in the German Empire. In a case where a British concern brought suit against a German company for infringing upon the trade name "Liebig," to which the former claimed the exclusive right of use, the Imperial Court held that, since the British concern had been denied the exclusive use by the courts of its own country on the grounds that the name in dispute had become a matter of public ownership, no grounds for an action existed in a German court." 1 "Actes de la Conference réunie à Washington," Berne, 1911, p. 305. 3 2 Section 16 of the law of 1896. Urt. v. 3. März 1905; Entsch. d. Reichsgerichts in Zivilsachen, 1905, Bd. 60, S. 217 fol. Urt. v. 13. Nov. 1897; Entsch, d. Reichsgerichts in Civilsachen, Bd. 40, 1898, S. 61. See also ibid., Bd. 46, S. 125. In the case of an Austrian merchant, whose place of business was located in Austria, and who brought suit against a German compețitor for unfair acts of competition committed in Berlin, the Imperial Court decided that since Austria had become a member of the Paris Union the German unfair competition law of 1909, as well as the German Civil Code, were applicable to the case at issue, and that to Austrian citizens the same rights were accorded as to citizens of the German Empire.1 INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT FOR THE PREVENTION OF FALSE INDICATION OF ORIGIN ON GOODS.-On April 14, 1891, an international agreement for the prevention of false indications of origin on goods was entered into at Madrid and revised at Washington June 2, 1911, by the following countries: Brazil, Cuba, Spain, France, Great Britain. Portugal, Switzerland, and Tunis. This agreement contains the following provisions: ART. 1. All goods bearing a false indication of origin in which one of the Coptracting Countries, or a place situated therein, shall be directly or indirectly indicated as being the country or place of origin, shall be seized on importation into any of the said countries. The seizure shall also take place either in the country where the false indica tion of origin has been applied, or in that into which the goods bearing the fal indication may have been imported. If the law of any country does not permit seizure on importation, such seizure shall be replaced by prohibition of importation. If the law of any country does not permit seizure in the interior, such seizure shall be replaced by the remedies assured in such case to natives by the law of such country. ART. 2. The seizure shall take place at the request either of the proper Government Department or of any competent authority, such, for example, as the Customs Administration or of an interested party, whether individual or society. in conformity with the domestic law of each country. The authorities are not bound to effect the seizure of goods in transit. ART. 3. The present stipulations are not intended to prevent the vendor fre indicating his name or address upon goods coming from a country other thin where the sale takes place; but in such case the address or the name must be accompanied by a clear indication in legible characters of the country or place of manufacture or production. ART. 4. The Tribunals of each country will decide what appellations, on ac count of their generic character, do not fall within the provisions of the present Arrangement, regional appellations concerning the origin of products of the vine being, however, not comprised in the reserve specified by the present article. INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT REGARDING THE REGISTRATION OF TRADEMARKS.—An international agreement for the registration of trade 1 Reichsgericht, Urt. v. 16. Mai, 1911; Zeitschrift für Internat. Recht., Bd. 23, 1911 S. 350. 2 Papers and Correspondence relative to the Recent Conference at Washington for the revision of the International Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property and the Arrangement for the Prevention of False Indications of Origin on Goods, London, 1912 p. 114. marks was established at Madrid, April 14, 1891.1 It was revised at Brussels December 14, 1900, and at Washington June 2, 1911. The following countries are parties to this agreement: Austria, Hungary, Belgium, Brazil, Cuba, Spain, France, Italy, Mexico, Holland, Portugal, Switzerland, and Tunis. Articles 1 and 4 are of special interest. ART. 1. The subjects or citizens of each of the contracting countries may secure protection for their trade-marks of industry or commerce, providing they have been admitted for registry in the country of origin, in all the other countries by registering said marks with the international bureau at Berne through the agency of the country of origin. ART. 4. Upon the registration of the mark at the international bureau being made, the protection of the mark in each of the contracting countries will be the same as if said marks had been directly registered there. ASSOCIATION FOR CREATING A WORLD TRADE-MARK.-On October 8, 1911, the Association for Creating a World Trade-Mark (Gesellschaft für Weltmarkenrecht) was organized at Berlin, with cooperating branches in 19 countries. The purpose of this association is to create a uniform trade-mark law which will be recognized and afford protection in all parts of the world." BERNE AGREEMENT FOR THE PROTECTION OF WORKS OF LITERATURE AND ART.-An international agreement for the protection of works of literature and art was established at Berne on September 9, 1886, and amended at Paris, May 4, 1896, and on November 13, 1908. The following countries were parties to this agreement: Belgium; Denmark, with its colonies; Germany; France, with its colonies; Great Britain, with its colonies and possessions; Italy; Japan; Liberia; Luxemburg; Monaco; Norway; Sweden; Switzerland; Spain, with its colonies; Tunis; and Portugal, with its colonies.3 According to articles 1 and 2, the contracting countries constitute a league for protecting the copyright of works of literature, art, and science, including books, brochures, and other literary works, dramatic, musical, choreographic, and pantomime productions. To authors who are citizens of one of those countries such protection is guaranteed in all the other countries except the country of origin of the works, as the respective laws grant to domestic authors or shall grant in the future, as well as the rights especially stipulated in this agreement (art. 4). Protection is granted not only for nonpublished works, but also for works published for the first time in one of the countries belonging to the league. MIDDLE-EUROPEAN ECONOMIC ASSOCIATION.-The Middle-European Economic Association, formed by the delegates from Germany, Austria, Hungary, and Belgium, at its seventh conference in Brussels, 1 Arrangement de Madrid pour l'enregistrement international des marques. * Markenschutz und Wettbewerb, Bd. XI., pp. 28, 129. Katz; Textausgabe der gesamten deutschen Gesetzgebung und der internationalen und Sonderverträge des deutschen Reiches auf dem Gebiete des Patent, Muster und Zeichenwesens und des Urheberrechts. Berlin, 1912, S. 198. April, 19123 and its eighth conference at Budapest January, 1914, discussed and formulated plans for simplifying and making more uniform the laws relating to unfair competition in the countries comprising this association. At the Budapest meeting it was recommended by several delegates that the Governments of the different States represented enact uniform legislation for the suppression of such unfair practices of competition, as false advertisements regarding quantity and quality, misappropriation and misuse of distinguishing marks for the purpose of enticing customers, disparaging competitors, betrayal or other violation of trust or spying out of business and trade secrets and fraudulent clearance sales. In addition to this casuistic enumeration of certain practices of unfair competition, the adoption of a supplementary general clause was also recommended which would enable the courts to reach other practices of unfair competition that are grossly repugnant to good morals. SIXTH INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE AND COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ASSOCIATIONS.-At the Sixth International Congress of Chambers of Commerce and of Commercial and Industrial Associations at Paris, June, 1914, one of the leading subjects on the program was "The advisability of international action against unfair competition in the sense of the existing laws." Several special reports on this subject were embodied in the proceedings of the special committee on unfair competition. The "Association des Anciens Élèves de l'École des Hautes Études Commerciales," in a special report submitted by it, proposed that the congress should inaugurate an international action for the suppres sion of unfair competition on the basis of the following program: 1. Legislation: (a) The general adoption internationally of the French system of article 1382 of the Civil Code. (b) Recognition of unfair competition in all countries as a penal offense, in order to permit the public ministry to initiate action. 2. Procedure: Installation at Berne of a service for the suppression of unfair competition, whose duty it shall be (a) to furnish information to merchants regarding everything that relates to bringing suit in any tribunal of a country signatory to the conventions of Paris, Brussels, and Washington; (b) to notify the public ministry, that has jurisdiction, of cases of unfair competition." 1 Verhandlungen der Mitteleuropäischen Wirtschafts-Konferenz in Brüssel, 1912, p. 2×9: Budapest, 1914, pp. 39, 301. 2 Pester Lloyd, Jan. 4, 1914. 3 Rapport présenté au nom de l'Association des Anciens Élèves de l'École des Hautes Études Commerciales, par M. Depuichault, Liége, 1914. The subcommittee on unfair competition in its report recommended1 that every nation should make an effort to render efficacious the resolutions of the Washington convention and proposed that the congress should restrict itself to one special phase of unfair competition, viz, corruption and corruptive practices, which affect not only the countries where they are carried on, but international commerce equally, and therefore require international intervention for their suppression. The subcommittee submitted resolutions to the effect that (1) the congress should name a special committee to study the different phases of unfair competition which require legislative intervention; (2) the congress should insist upon the necessity of special legislation, as uniform as possible, in all countries for the suppression of corruption. It recommended further that prohibited acts should be made punishable as a crime by the penal code of each country, but that civil prosecution should be allowed, which would enable the victims of bribery to procure compensation for injuries sustained, The congress held that such special legislation should facilitate the prosecution of corrupt practices and should confer the right of initiative not only upon the public ministry, but also upon associations and individuals.2 FOURTH INTERNATIONAL AMERICAN CONFERENCE AT BUENOS AIRES. At the Fourth International American Conference at Buenos Aires, June 9 to August 30, 1910, the following three conventions relating to industrial property were entered into, subject to ratification by the proper authorities of the countries represented, viz, United States of America, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Salvador, Uruguay, and Venezuela: 3 (1) The convention relating to inventions, patents, designs, and industrial models. This convention was signed by the President of the United States on July 29, 1914. Article IX relates to liability incurred for injuring the rights of inventors. ART. IX. Persons who incur civil or criminal liabilities, because of injuries or damage to the rights of inventors, shall be prosecuted and punished in accordance with the laws of the countries wherein the offense has been committed or the damage occasioned. (2) The convention relating to protection of trade-marks of August 20, 1910. Article VIII of this convention relates to falsifica 1 Sous-Comité de la concurrence déloyale, Rapport. Patent and Trade-Mark Review, Vol. IX, p. 3442, fol. |