Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Full Day's HansardDownload Full Day's Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Tuesday, 28 November 1905

Mr WATSON (Bland) - The honorable member for Parramatta apparently assumed that English legislation had confined the use df trade marks to those who owned the goods to which the mark was to be applied. If the honorable member had read the English Act, he would have noticed that it went a great deal further than that. The use of the words " selection " and " certification " in the amendment indicate that the English legislation goes much further than the honorable member would have us believe. There is a special section in the English law which permits trade marks to be applied to goods which are not the property of the owner of the trade mark, that is marks which certify to the quality or the standard of the goods to which they are applied. There are several kinds of marks specially mentioned in the English' law which are beyond the ordinary definition of trade marks -if we are to accept the definition of the ownership of goods to which the mark is to be applied. If the honorable member will look at' the English law, he will see that it goes a long way beyond the contention now put forward. Therefore, there does not seem to be any necessity to make the amendment.

Mr JOSEPH COOK (PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES) - I do not "define " proprietorship " as relating fo the mak ing up or production of the goods. I mean ownership.

Mr WATSON - But does not the honorable member see that a hall-mark which is intended to show the quality of jewellery is applied by the Goldsmiths and Silversmiths' Association, who are not the owners of the goods?

Mr JOSEPH COOK (PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES) - But they produce the quality, which is the very essence of the mark.

Mr WATSON - No, they do not. They merely certify to its existence.

Mr JOSEPH COOK (PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES) - They apply the standard of quality to the goods.

Mr WATSON - No ; thev merely certify that such a standard of quality exists. They merely say : " This watchchain, or this finger-ring, which has been submitted to us by Mr. Brown, or Mr. Jones, is of 18-carat gold, and we have put our legally-protected trade mark upon the jewellery, although we do not own it."

Mr JOSEPH COOK (PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES) - Why is the jewellery taken to be hall-marked in that way? Because the mark affords a guarantee as to quality, and so on?

Mr WATSON - But it is not applied by the owners of the goods - that is the point. Therefore, the English law, both in relation to certification of the kind, and in regard to the Sheffield trade marks upon cutlery, goes a great deal further than the honorable member has assumed.

Mr Wilson - The honorable member's contention is no argument against the amendment, but is rather in favour of it.

Mr WATSON - Not at all. I am argu-' ing against the contention of the honorable member for Parramatta.

Mr JOSEPH COOK (PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES) - It is not against me at all. <.

Mr WATSON - Then the honorable member must abandon his contention that a trade mark should be applied only by the owner of the goods.

Mr JOSEPH COOK (PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES) - I say that the Goldsmiths and Silversmith's Company, for example, has established ownership of some quality in the goods1.

Mr WATSON - There is no ownership in the goods at all. The certificate is given by those who have no proprietary interest. Apart from that, I do not see any necessity for the amendment, because it seems unwise to limit in the manner proposed the meaning of " trade mark."

Mr JOSEPH COOK (PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES) - Would the jewellery referred to be worth as much without the trade mark as with it?

Mr WATSON - It might be; but, of course, the mark is a guarantee to the public as to quality, in the same way that a union trade mark would also be a guarantee to that section of the public that looked for it, that union labour had been employed, and that fair conditions of employment had been observed in the production of the goods.

Mr Wilson - It will also guarantee that no non-union labour has been employed.

Mr WATSON - I am perfectly prepared to arguethe question of boycott from the stand-point of the employer.

Mr JOSEPH COOK (PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES) - The honorable member defends it.

Mr WATSON - I do, under certain circumstances. I say that the employers are just as guilty as are the employes, and the honorable member ought to know it.

Mr JOSEPH COOK (PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES) - I do know it. I do not defend it.

Mr WATSON - Under some circumstances, the boycott is absolutely justifiable, and no community has been able to stop it ; but, as far as I am concerned, I should be very much better pleased if it were not used on either side. I do not see any necessity for the amendment.

Suggest corrections