Amendment to Article XI speaks for itself, and seems to be unobjectionable.

Amendment to Article XIV merely omits an unnecessary reference to the former meeting at Rome.

Amendment to Article XVI defines the procedure in regard to accessions to the Union in a more convenient mode than that in the existing Convention.

None of these amendments appears to give rise to any objection, or to require fresh legislation in the United Kingdom, and we venture to recommend the first Final Protocol for signature on behalf of Her Majesty's Government within the prescribed period of six months.

The second Final Protocol relates to the Madrid Arrangement for the international registration of marks, to which Great Britain is not a party. We did not, therefore, sign it, and it calls for no observation on our part.

At the end of the sittings, the United States Minister gave an invitation for the next meeting of the Union to be held at Washington, at a date to be hereafter fixed. This proposal met with general assent. We reserved the expression of the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, as we had received no instructions on the subject.

As a summary of the above Report, we may state that if the positive results of the Conference are not great, the thorough discussion to which the disputed points have been subjected may possibly clear the ground for the establishment of a general accord.

It is evident that the German Government will not join the Union unless satisfaction is given to them on two points, viz:

(1) Agreement to three years as the minimum period for the forfeiture of patents for nonworking; and

(2) The extension of the period of priority for patents from six to twelve months.

Great Britain could grant the former of these concessions without fresh legislation. Not so, however, as regards the latter.

It will be for Her Majesty's Government to consider whether, if an Agreement can be reached between Great Britain and France and the other contracting States as to Article VI, relative to the registration of a trade-mark "telle quelle," it is desirable or not to undertake the legislation which would be required to give effect to an extension of the period of priority for patents from six to twelve months. If this could be done, every obstacle, so far as Great Britain is concerned, would apparently be removed to the adhesion of Germany to the Union. When the procès-verbaux of the conference are printed in a complete shape we shall have the honor to send copies for the use of the Board of Trade.

As regards the Final Protocol, which we have signed, we venture to express the opinion that it contains some useful amendments to the Convention of 1883, and that none of its stipulations are open to objection as regards British interests. If it be accepted by Her Majesty's Government, it will be necessary at the time of its signature by Her Majesty's minister at Brussels to make a declaration as to the extent of its application to British colonies, of which two, viz, Queensland and New Zealand, are already parties to the Union.

In concluding this dispatch, we desire to record our grateful appreciation of the support afforded to us by Her Majesty's minister, the

Hon. Sir F. Plunkett, who was always ready and able, by his influence and high position, to help us in any difficulty.

We venture also to suggest that the thanks of Her Majesty's Government are due to Mr. Herbert Hughes for his services as Technical Adviser to the British Delegates. The suggestion originally made by him for an amendment of Article VI of the Convention formed the basis of the proposals made by us to the Conference on this difficult point; and his legal knowledge and general counsel proved invaluable during the course of the proceedings.

We have also to express our thanks to Mr. Charles Somers-Cocks for his efficient services as Secretary to the British delegates.

We have, etc.,

CHARLES B. STUART WORTLEY.
H. G. BERGNE.

C. N. DALTON.

[Inclosure 1-Translation.]

Paper presented by the British delegation to the conference.

The application of Article VI and of No. 4 of the Final Protocol has given rise in England to rather serious difficulties. The Conference may be reminded that the true principle of the Union established in Article II of the Convention consists in this, that subjects of each of the contracting States are entitled to enjoy in the other States the same advantages as, and not superior advantages to, nationals.

Article VI in its present form and the interpreting Protocol appear to authorize the foreign depositor to claim protection for a mark for which registration would not be accorded to a national, because the local law does not allow of such a mark being considered as entitled to registration.

The Government of Her Britannic Majesty hesitate to give their assent to a provision in virtue of which a stranger might claim in England advantages superior to those enjoyed by nationals, and it seems difficult to them to make the stipulations of Article II tally with those of Article VI and of No. 4 of the Final Protocol. The British delegates beg the Conference to give due weight to this difficulty.

The Convention, taken as a whole, appears to aim at securing a right of priority for obtaining registration rather than an absolute right to such registration, and at laying down that the depositor ought to submit to local law in every country where he claims registration.

An instance may be quoted which will prove to the Conference the danger of allowing the registration of marks without any restriction; if, for instance, some one succeeded in getting the words "Pig iron" registered as a trade-mark in one of the Contracting States, would all the States of the Union be bound to grant protection to these words, even England and the United States, where no other term exists for designating the substance?

It can, moreover, be affirmed that the principle of the British proposal should be admitted by all the States as resulting from international law.

It would be contrary to the true interests of all Unionists to grant to an individual the exclusive right of using terms bearing on the nature or quality of goods, geographical name, or names of individuals or societies. Such words or names should always remain public property; no one can wish a monopoly in them to be granted to a private person.

Difficulties have already arisen in regard to this matter in England, and the Government of Her Britannic Majesty considers the moment to have come when the real bearing of the provisions on this point should be defined.

Acting on this theory, the British Delegates venture to submit to the favorable consideration of the Conference their proposal, which aims at inserting in the Convention a series of exceptions to the principle which appears to be involved in the present text of Article VI and of No. 4 of the Final Protocol. This proposal keeps in view the amendments proposed by the International Bureau and by the Administration of the Netherlands. Should it be accepted, No. 4 of the Final Protocol would cease to be of use and be suppressed.

*

*

*

*

*

CHAPTER VII.

RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED BY THE PATENT CONGRESS HELD AT VIENNA EXPOSITION, 1873.

The following resolutions were adopted at the patent congress held at Vienna in 1873 in connection with the Vienna exposition:

I. The protection of inventions should be guaranteed by the laws of all civilized nations, because—

(a) The sense of right among civilized nations demands the legal protection of intellectual work.

(b) This protection affords, under the condition of a complete specification and publication of the invention, the only practical and effective means of introducing new technical methods without loss of time and in a reliable manner to the general knowledge of the public.

(c) The protection of invention renders the labor of the inventor remunerative, and induces thereby competent men to devote time and means to the introduction and practical application of new and useful technical methods and improvements and attracts capital from abroad which, in the absence of patent protection, will find means of secure investment elsewhere.

(d) By the obligatory complete publication of the patented invention the great sacrifice of time and of money which the technical application would otherwise impose upon the industry of all countries will be considerably lessened.

(e) By the protection of invention secrecy of manufacture, which is one of the greatest enemies of industrial progress, will lose its chief support.

(ƒ) Great injury will be inflicted upon countries which have no rational patent laws by the native inventive talent emigrating to more congenial countries where their labor is legally protected.

(g) Experience shows that the holder of a patent will make the most effectual exertions for a speedy introduction of his invention.

II. An effective and useful patent law should be based on the following principles: (a) Only the inventor himself, or his legal representative, should be entitled to a patent.

A patent should not be refused to a foreigner.

It is advisable, in carrying out these principles, to introduce a system of preliminary examination.

(d) A patent should be granted either for a term of fifteen years or be permitted to be extended to such a term.

(e) Simultaneously with the issue of a patent a complete publication of the same should take place, rendering the technical application of the invention possible.

(f) The expense of obtaining a patent should be moderate, but in the interest of the inventor progressive scale of fees should be established, enabling him to abandon, when convenient, a useless patent.

(g) Facilities should be given by a well-organized patent office to obtain in an easy manner the specification of a patent, as well as to ascertain what patents are still in force.

(h) It is advisable to establish legal rules, according to which the patentee should be induced, in cases in which the public interest may require it, to allow the use of his invention to all suitable applicants for an adequate compensation.

(i) The nonapplication of an invention in one country shall not involve the forfeiture of the patent if the patented invention has been carried into practice at all, and if it has been rendered possible for the inhabitants of such country to purchase and make use of the invention.

(k) In all other respects, and particularly as regards the proceedings in the granting of patents, the congress refers to the English, American, and Belgian patent laws, and to the draft of a patent law prepared for Germany by the society of German engineers.

III. Considering the great differences in present patent administration and the altered international commercial relations, the necessity of reform is evident; and it is of pressing moment that Governments should endeavor to bring about an international understanding upon patent protection as soon as possible.

IV. The congress empowers the preparatory committee to continue the work commenced by this first international congress, and to use all their influence that the principles adopted be made known as widely as possible and carried into practice. V. The committee is likewise authorized to endeavor to bring about an exchange of opinions on the subject, and to call from time to time meetings and conferences of the friends of patent protection.

VI. To this end the preparatory committee is hereby appointed to act as a permanent executive committee, with power to add other members to their number, and to appoint the time and place for the next meeting of the congress, in case such a meeting should be considered necessary for the promotion of the foregoing resolutions.

COMMENTS BY MR. GREELEY ON THE ABOVE RESOLUTIONS.

A comparison of the statement of the essential principles of an effective and useful patent law contained in these resolutions with the United States laws relating to patents will indicate the extent to which the members of this congress had been impressed with the advantages of our system.

(a) Only the inventor himself or his legal representatives should be entitled to a patent.

This is characteristic of the United States law. In certain European countries, prior to 1873 and for some years thereafter, the right to a patent was not recognized as the distinctive right of the inventor. In some countries to-day anyone who secures a knowledge of an invention may secure a patent, if he is the first to apply, and may thereby obtain an exclusive right to the invention as against the inventor himself.

(b) A patent should not be refused to a foreigner.

Since 1832 the United States has by law recognized the right of a foreign inventor to a patent for his invention, and though by that law the foreign inventor was discriminated against in the matter of fees, a British subject being required to pay $500 and all other foreigners $300 for a patent, instead of the $30 then required of citizens or residents of the United States, this discrimination was done away with by the law of 1861. Since that date the foreign inventor has been accorded the same rights as the citizen of the United States, except only that in determining the question of priority no proof of inventive acts done in any foreign country has been accepted. In many foreign countries prior to very recent years the discrimination against inventors not domiciled in the country amounted to the prohibition of the grant of a patent. In others the conditions under which an inventor not domiciled in the country could take out a patent were so onerous as to practically amount to prohibition. In practically all foreign countries a citizen of the United States may now obtain a patent for his invention on substantially the same conditions which apply in case of inventors domiciled in the country.

(c) It is advisable, in carrying out these principles, to carry out a system of preliminary examination.

Preliminary examination as to novelty has always been a feature of the United States law. In 1873 no European country had adopted such a system. A system of preliminary examination has since been adopted by Germany (law of July 1, 1877), by Sweden (law of May 16, 1884), by Norway (law of June 16, 1885), by Japan (law of 1888), by

Denmark (law of April 13, 1894), and Austria (law of January 11, 1897). Canada also has adopted such a system and in Russia and in Switzerland preliminary examination to a certain extent is made.

(d) A patent should be granted either for a term of fifteen years, or be permitted to be extended to such a term.

Prior to 1870 the term for which a patent was granted in the United States was fourteen years, with the possibility of extension for seven years additional. Since 1870 the term has been seventeen years. In some of the European countries, prior to 1873 the term was as short as five years, and in comparatively few countries was the term longer than ten years. The term is now in practically all of those countries fifteen years or longer. In Great Britain the term is fourteen years. (e) Simultaneously with the issue of a patent a complete publication of the same should take place, rendering the technical application of the invention possible.

By the law of 1861 the Commissioner of Patents was authorized to print copies of patents issued. Prior to that date in very few countries were patents printed and copies readily obtainable. The practice of printing patents as issued is now very general in the more important foreign countries, though in some only an abstract is printed, and in others, patents may on certain conditions be held secret, only the title being published.

(The expense of obtaining a patent should be moderate; but, in the interest of the inventor, progressive scale of fees should be established, enabling him to abandon, when convenient, a useless patent.

The fees for obtaining a United States patent have since 1861 been fixed at $35. In most of the European countries annual taxes increasing in amount are required to be paid on penalty of forfeiture of the patent. In some of these countries the total amount of fees necessary to be paid to keep a patent in force throughout a term of fifteen years is from $800 to $1,600.

(g) Facilities should be given, by a well-organized patent office, to obtain in an easy manner the specification of a patent, as well as to ascertain what patents are still in force.

Through the publication of patents immediately on their issue in the United States these facilities are given. In some of the European countries, as above stated under (e), patents could be kept secret, and in few countries up to 1873 or later were there adequate facilities for obtaining information as to patents granted.

(h) It is advisable to establish legal rules, according to which the patentee should be induced, in cases in which the public interest may require it, to allow the use of his invention to all suitable applicants far an adequate compensation.

This principle has never been adopted by the United States. It was and is carried out in the patent systems of a number of the European countries. It is by no means certain that it is not a wise principle. (i) The nonapplication of an invention in one country shall not involve the forfeiture of the patent, if the patented invention has been carried into practice at all, and if it has been rendered possible for the inhabitants of such country to purchase and make use of the invention. The forfeiture of a patent previously granted in a foreign country for failure to carry it into practice in that country or in the United States has never been held to work a forfeiture of the patent granted here. Up to 1897, the term for which such foreign patent was granted,