The Trade Marks Question and the Lancashire Cotton Textile Industry, 1870-19141

Textile History

Volumn 27, Issue 2, 1996, Pages 207-228

  Higgins, D M ^a   Tweedale, Geoffrey ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 2742591303     PISSN: 00404969     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1179/tex.1996.27.2.207     Document Type: Article

References (138)

1. The authors are grateful for the help and advice of Dr Douglas Farnie, and the archive office of Manchester Central Library.
2. D. A. Farnie, The English Cotton Industry and the World Market 1815-1896 (Oxford, 1979); W. Lazonick and W. Mass, 'The Performance of the British Cotton Industry, 1870 - 1913', Research in Economic History, 9 (1984), pp. 1-44; A. Redford, Manchester Merchants and Foreign Trade Vol. II 1850-1939 (Manchester: University of Manchester Press, 1956); L. G. Sandberg, 'Movements in the Quality of British Cotton Textile Exports, 1815-1913', Journal of Economic History, 28 (1968), pp. 1-27; L. G. Sandberg, Lancashire in Decline. A Study in Entrepreneurship, Technology and International Trade (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1974); R. E. Tyson, 'The Cotton Industry', in D. Aldcroft (ed.), The Development of British Industry and Foreign Competition 1875-1914 (London: Allen and Unwin, 1968); A. J. Marrison, 'Indian Summer', in M. B. Rose, The Lancashire Cotten Industry: A History Since 1700 (Lancaster: Lancashire County Books, 1996).
3. D. A. Farnie, The English Cotton Industry and the World Market 1815-1896 (Oxford, 1979); W. Lazonick and W. Mass, 'The Performance of the British Cotton Industry, 1870 - 1913', Research in Economic History, 9 (1984), pp. 1-44; A. Redford, Manchester Merchants and Foreign Trade Vol. II 1850-1939 (Manchester: University of Manchester Press, 1956); L. G. Sandberg, 'Movements in the Quality of British Cotton Textile Exports, 1815-1913', Journal of Economic History, 28 (1968), pp. 1-27; L. G. Sandberg, Lancashire in Decline. A Study in Entrepreneurship, Technology and International Trade (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1974); R. E. Tyson, 'The Cotton Industry', in D. Aldcroft (ed.), The Development of British Industry and Foreign Competition 1875-1914 (London: Allen and Unwin, 1968); A. J. Marrison, 'Indian Summer', in M. B. Rose, The Lancashire Cotten Industry: A History Since 1700 (Lancaster: Lancashire County Books, 1996).
4. D. A. Farnie, The English Cotton Industry and the World Market 1815-1896 (Oxford, 1979); W. Lazonick and W. Mass, 'The Performance of the British Cotton Industry, 1870 - 1913', Research in Economic History, 9 (1984), pp. 1-44; A. Redford, Manchester Merchants and Foreign Trade Vol. II 1850-1939 (Manchester: University of Manchester Press, 1956); L. G. Sandberg, 'Movements in the Quality of British Cotton Textile Exports, 1815-1913', Journal of Economic History, 28 (1968), pp. 1-27; L. G. Sandberg, Lancashire in Decline. A Study in Entrepreneurship, Technology and International Trade (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1974); R. E. Tyson, 'The Cotton Industry', in D. Aldcroft (ed.), The Development of British Industry and Foreign Competition 1875-1914 (London: Allen and Unwin, 1968); A. J. Marrison, 'Indian Summer', in M. B. Rose, The Lancashire Cotten Industry: A History Since 1700 (Lancaster: Lancashire County Books, 1996).
5. D. A. Farnie, The English Cotton Industry and the World Market 1815-1896 (Oxford, 1979); W. Lazonick and W. Mass, 'The Performance of the British Cotton Industry, 1870 - 1913', Research in Economic History, 9 (1984), pp. 1-44; A. Redford, Manchester Merchants and Foreign Trade Vol. II 1850-1939 (Manchester: University of Manchester Press, 1956); L. G. Sandberg, 'Movements in the Quality of British Cotton Textile Exports, 1815-1913', Journal of Economic History, 28 (1968), pp. 1-27; L. G. Sandberg, Lancashire in Decline. A Study in Entrepreneurship, Technology and International Trade (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1974); R. E. Tyson, 'The Cotton Industry', in D. Aldcroft (ed.), The Development of British Industry and Foreign Competition 1875-1914 (London: Allen and Unwin, 1968); A. J. Marrison, 'Indian Summer', in M. B. Rose, The Lancashire Cotten Industry: A History Since 1700 (Lancaster: Lancashire County Books, 1996).
6. D. A. Farnie, The English Cotton Industry and the World Market 1815-1896 (Oxford, 1979); W. Lazonick and W. Mass, 'The Performance of the British Cotton Industry, 1870 - 1913', Research in Economic History, 9 (1984), pp. 1-44; A. Redford, Manchester Merchants and Foreign Trade Vol. II 1850-1939 (Manchester: University of Manchester Press, 1956); L. G. Sandberg, 'Movements in the Quality of British Cotton Textile Exports, 1815-1913', Journal of Economic History, 28 (1968), pp. 1-27; L. G. Sandberg, Lancashire in Decline. A Study in Entrepreneurship, Technology and International Trade (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1974); R. E. Tyson, 'The Cotton Industry', in D. Aldcroft (ed.), The Development of British Industry and Foreign Competition 1875-1914 (London: Allen and Unwin, 1968); A. J. Marrison, 'Indian Summer', in M. B. Rose, The Lancashire Cotten Industry: A History Since 1700 (Lancaster: Lancashire County Books, 1996).
7. D. A. Farnie, The English Cotton Industry and the World Market 1815-1896 (Oxford, 1979); W. Lazonick and W. Mass, 'The Performance of the British Cotton Industry, 1870 - 1913', Research in Economic History, 9 (1984), pp. 1-44; A. Redford, Manchester Merchants and Foreign Trade Vol. II 1850-1939 (Manchester: University of Manchester Press, 1956); L. G. Sandberg, 'Movements in the Quality of British Cotton Textile Exports, 1815-1913', Journal of Economic History, 28 (1968), pp. 1-27; L. G. Sandberg, Lancashire in Decline. A Study in Entrepreneurship, Technology and International Trade (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1974); R. E. Tyson, 'The Cotton Industry', in D. Aldcroft (ed.), The Development of British Industry and Foreign Competition 1875-1914 (London: Allen and Unwin, 1968); A. J. Marrison, 'Indian Summer', in M. B. Rose, The Lancashire Cotten Industry: A History Since 1700 (Lancaster: Lancashire County Books, 1996).
8. D. A. Farnie, The English Cotton Industry and the World Market 1815-1896 (Oxford, 1979); W. Lazonick and W. Mass, 'The Performance of the British Cotton Industry, 1870 - 1913', Research in Economic History, 9 (1984), pp. 1-44; A. Redford, Manchester Merchants and Foreign Trade Vol. II 1850-1939 (Manchester: University of Manchester Press, 1956); L. G. Sandberg, 'Movements in the Quality of British Cotton Textile Exports, 1815-1913', Journal of Economic History, 28 (1968), pp. 1-27; L. G. Sandberg, Lancashire in Decline. A Study in Entrepreneurship, Technology and International Trade (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1974); R. E. Tyson, 'The Cotton Industry', in D. Aldcroft (ed.), The Development of British Industry and Foreign Competition 1875-1914 (London: Allen and Unwin, 1968); A. J. Marrison, 'Indian Summer', in M. B. Rose, The Lancashire Cotten Industry: A History Since 1700 (Lancaster: Lancashire County Books, 1996).
9. R. Robson, The Cotton Industry in Britain (London: Macmillan, 1957), p. 333.
10. Redford, Manchester Merchants, pp. 140-45.
11. J. Jewkes and S. Jewkes, 'A Hundred Years of Change in the Structure of the Cotton Industry', Journal of Law and Economics, IX (1966), p. 120.
12. The rise of merchants in the Lancashire textile trade and their importance in the textile industry are discussed in S. D. Chapman, 'The Decline and Rise of Textile Merchanting, 1880-1900', Business History, XXXII (1990), pp. 171-90; S. D. Chapman, 'The Commercial Sector', in M. B. Rose, (ed.), The Lancashire Cotton Industry.
13. The rise of merchants in the Lancashire textile trade and their importance in the textile industry are discussed in S. D. Chapman, 'The Decline and Rise of Textile Merchanting, 1880-1900', Business History, XXXII (1990), pp. 171-90; S. D. Chapman, 'The Commercial Sector', in M. B. Rose, (ed.), The Lancashire Cotton Industry.
14. The link between merchants and the industry was actually more complex than we have outlined. In many cases spinning firms would transact their input purchases and output sales through a multitude of specialised cotton and yarn agents.
15. Board of Trade Working Party Reports: Cotton (HMSO, 1946), p. 44.
16. Redford, Manchester Merchants, p. 299. As far as the industry as a whole was concerned, the number of independent merchanting-converting firms was in excess of 2,000 even as late as the the Second World War. Robson indicated that of 2,215 firms engaged in the merchanting and converting of cotton, rayon, and cotton and rayon piece goods between 1939-40, the biggest single group (772), or some 35 per cent, were engaged solely for the export market; the next largest group (475), or 21 percent, were firms engaged solely in the domestic market, and the next largest group (348), or 16 per cent, were firms engaged in both the domestic and export markets. See Robson, The Cotton Industry, p. 86; Board of Trade Working Party Reports: Cotton, p. 46; S. Chapman, 'The Commercial Sector', p. 89.
17. Redford, Manchester Merchants, p. 299. As far as the industry as a whole was concerned, the number of independent merchanting-converting firms was in excess of 2,000 even as late as the the Second World War. Robson indicated that of 2,215 firms engaged in the merchanting and converting of cotton, rayon, and cotton and rayon piece goods between 1939-40, the biggest single group (772), or some 35 per cent, were engaged solely for the export market; the next largest group (475), or 21 percent, were firms engaged solely in the domestic market, and the next largest group (348), or 16 per cent, were firms engaged in both the domestic and export markets. See Robson, The Cotton Industry, p. 86; Board of Trade Working Party Reports: Cotton, p. 46; S. Chapman, 'The Commercial Sector', p. 89.
18. Redford, Manchester Merchants, p. 299. As far as the industry as a whole was concerned, the number of independent merchanting-converting firms was in excess of 2,000 even as late as the the Second World War. Robson indicated that of 2,215 firms engaged in the merchanting and converting of cotton, rayon, and cotton and rayon piece goods between 1939-40, the biggest single group (772), or some 35 per cent, were engaged solely for the export market; the next largest group (475), or 21 percent, were firms engaged solely in the domestic market, and the next largest group (348), or 16 per cent, were firms engaged in both the domestic and export markets. See Robson, The Cotton Industry, p. 86; Board of Trade Working Party Reports: Cotton, p. 46; S. Chapman, 'The Commercial Sector', p. 89.
19. Redford, Manchester Merchants, p. 299. As far as the industry as a whole was concerned, the number of independent merchanting-converting firms was in excess of 2,000 even as late as the the Second World War. Robson indicated that of 2,215 firms engaged in the merchanting and converting of cotton, rayon, and cotton and rayon piece goods between 1939-40, the biggest single group (772), or some 35 per cent, were engaged solely for the export market; the next largest group (475), or 21 percent, were firms engaged solely in the domestic market, and the next largest group (348), or 16 per cent, were firms engaged in both the domestic and export markets. See Robson, The Cotton Industry, p. 86; Board of Trade Working Party Reports: Cotton, p. 46; S. Chapman, 'The Commercial Sector', p. 89.
20. The following discussion of exports trends is based upon calculations taken from Extracts from Board of Trade Returns showing Exports of Cotton Yarn and Cloth (various years).
21. The issue of changes in the quality of British exports of cotton piece goods during this period are discussed more fully in L. G. Sandberg, 'Movements in the Quality'; W. Lazonick and W. Mass, 'The Performance'; and A. J. Marrison, 'Indian Summer'.
22. The issue of changes in the quality of British exports of cotton piece goods during this period are discussed more fully in L. G. Sandberg, 'Movements in the Quality'; W. Lazonick and W. Mass, 'The Performance'; and A. J. Marrison, 'Indian Summer'.
23. The issue of changes in the quality of British exports of cotton piece goods during this period are discussed more fully in L. G. Sandberg, 'Movements in the Quality'; W. Lazonick and W. Mass, 'The Performance'; and A. J. Marrison, 'Indian Summer'.
24. Excluding the 'cotton marks' (classes 23-25), we define textile marks as those belonging to trade mark classes 26, 27, and 28 (linen and hemp yarns and piece goods); class 29 (articles made of jute); classes 30-32 (all types of silk products); classes 33-35 (all types of products made with wool and hair); and class 38 (articles of clothing).
25. For contemporary views about the relative importance of 'cotton marks', see Report and Special Report from the Select Committee on the Trade Marks Bill (1905), evidence of Mr Bailey, p 54, s. 43 (b); evidence of Mr Moreton Riley, p. 60, s. 4 (i).
26. It should be emphasised that the Manchester Chamber of Commerce was not solely interested in trade marks - it also took a close interest in merchandise marks. The former are concerned with the rights of property in relation to registered trade marks. However, trade marks are only one of the indicia which a manufacturer uses to distinguish his goods from those of others. Other forms of indicia are subject to protection irrespective of any trade mark rights, and are usually protected by legislation governing merchandise marks. Members of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce had given evidence before a number of Select Committees dealing with Merchandise Marks. For example, George Lord, President of the Chamber (1882-83), in Special Report from the Select Committee on Merchandise Marks Act (1862), Amendement Bill (1887); Charles Bailey, a member of the merchandise marks committee of the Chamber, in Report from the Select Committee in Merchandise Marks Act (1887), (1890); and Charles Bailey, and Mr Helm (secretary to the Chamber), in Report from the Select Committee in Merchandise Marks (1897).
27. S. C. Report (1905), evidence of Charles Bailey, p. 53, s. 15.
28. Ibid., s. 12. The issue of whose mark should go on textile goods was particularly vexing. Because of vertical specialisation, the final cotton manufacture was processed by many firms: spinner, weaver, bleacher, printer and piece-good manufacturer. But which producer's name should go on the final cloth? Holden was adamant that every manufacturer of 'grey' cloth should stamp his goods with his name and address because this would prevent quality depreciation. However, merchants would not buy cloth which was stamped with a manufacturer's name or mark upon it. Because merchants were the principal buyers of cloth in Lancashire, they exercised considerable influence and it was estimated by Holden that only five per cent of cloth was marked with the manufacturer's mark and/or name. S. C. Report (1890), QQ. 4201-06; QQ. 4214-15; QQ. 4225-6; QQ. 4278-9; QQ. 4301-03. See also the evidence of Joshua Hoyle, in Report of the Committee Appointed by the Board of Trade to Inquire into the Duties, Organisation, and Arrangements of the Patent Office under the Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Act (1883), so far as relates to Trade Marks and Designs (1888), Q. 1591; Q. 1594; Q. 1599.
29. Ibid., s. 12. The issue of whose mark should go on textile goods was particularly vexing. Because of vertical specialisation, the final cotton manufacture was processed by many firms: spinner, weaver, bleacher, printer and piece-good manufacturer. But which producer's name should go on the final cloth? Holden was adamant that every manufacturer of 'grey' cloth should stamp his goods with his name and address because this would prevent quality depreciation. However, merchants would not buy cloth which was stamped with a manufacturer's name or mark upon it. Because merchants were the principal buyers of cloth in Lancashire, they exercised considerable influence and it was estimated by Holden that only five per cent of cloth was marked with the manufacturer's mark and/or name. S. C. Report (1890), QQ. 4201-06; QQ. 4214-15; QQ. 4225-6; QQ. 4278-9; QQ. 4301-03. See also the evidence of Joshua Hoyle, in Report of the Committee Appointed by the Board of Trade to Inquire into the Duties, Organisation, and Arrangements of the Patent Office under the Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Act (1883), so far as relates to Trade Marks and Designs (1888), Q. 1591; Q. 1594; Q. 1599.
30. Ibid., s. 12. The issue of whose mark should go on textile goods was particularly vexing. Because of vertical specialisation, the final cotton manufacture was processed by many firms: spinner, weaver, bleacher, printer and piece-good manufacturer. But which producer's name should go on the final cloth? Holden was adamant that every manufacturer of 'grey' cloth should stamp his goods with his name and address because this would prevent quality depreciation. However, merchants would not buy cloth which was stamped with a manufacturer's name or mark upon it. Because merchants were the principal buyers of cloth in Lancashire, they exercised considerable influence and it was estimated by Holden that only five per cent of cloth was marked with the manufacturer's mark and/or name. S. C. Report (1890), QQ. 4201-06; QQ. 4214-15; QQ. 4225-6; QQ. 4278-9; QQ. 4301-03. See also the evidence of Joshua Hoyle, in Report of the Committee Appointed by the Board of Trade to Inquire into the Duties, Organisation, and Arrangements of the Patent Office under the Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Act (1883), so far as relates to Trade Marks and Designs (1888), Q. 1591; Q. 1594; Q. 1599.
31. Such was the complexity of many of the 'cotton marks' that the Patent Office did not require such marks to be advertised in the Trade Marks Journal. Normally marks for which registration was being applied had to be advertised in the Journal in order that other trade mark owners could have the opportunity of opposing the proposed mark because, for example, it was too, similar to their own. S. C. Report (1888), Q. 229; QQ. 1458-60; QQ. 2918-19.
32. S. C. Report (1905), evidence of Moreton Riley, p. 60, s. 4 (ii).
33. Redford, Manchester Merchants, pp. 140-41. Although statutory recognition of legal property in trade marks did not come until the passing of the Trade Marks Registration Act (1875), yet there was a well established (if expensive) means of seeking redress in the courts for infringing a competitor's mark. These remedies for infringement (or 'passing off') had possibly been developed from as early as the sixteenth century. T. A. Blanco White, Kerly's Law of Trade Marks and Trade Names (London, 9th edn, 1966), pp. 1-5.
34. Redford, Manchester Merchants, pp. 140-41. Although statutory recognition of legal property in trade marks did not come until the passing of the Trade Marks Registration Act (1875), yet there was a well established (if expensive) means of seeking redress in the courts for infringing a competitor's mark. These remedies for infringement (or 'passing off') had possibly been developed from as early as the sixteenth century. T. A. Blanco White, Kerly's Law of Trade Marks and Trade Names (London, 9th edn, 1966), pp. 1-5.
35. Report from the Select Committee on Trade Marks Bill, and Merchandise Marks Bill (1862). In fact, the Manchester Chamber of Commerce did not send any representatives to give evidence before this Committee.
36. Ibid., Q. 779.
37. S. C. Report (1862), Q. 1622; Q. 1599. Substantial costs had also been incurred by Bass Brewers in their attempts to prevent infringement of their trade mark. Ibid., Q. 2511.
38. Ibid., Q. 743; Q. 844; QQ. 1699-1700. Some witnesses felt that under the existing state of the law the costs of seeking remedy in the Courts were so expensive as to make the remedy useless (Q. 1970).
39. Manchester City Library Archives (hereafter MCLA), M8/2/8, Trade Marks Registration Bill Meeting, 30 June 1873.
40. MCLA, M8/2/8, Trade Marks Registration Bill Meeting, 7 July 1873; S. C. Report (1905), Q. 172.
41. MCLA, M8/2/8, Trade Marks Registration Bill Meeting, 7 July 1873; S. C. Report (1905), Q. 172.
42. MCLA, M8/2/8, Trade Marks Registration Act, 1875, Meeting of Sub Committee, 25 Feb. 1876; S. C. Report (1905), Q. 1252.
43. MCLA, M8/2/8, Trade Marks Registration Act, 1875, Meeting of Sub Committee, 25 Feb. 1876; S. C. Report (1905), Q. 1252.
44. S. C. Report (1905), evidence of Charles Bailey, p. 54, ss. 28-30.
45. In fact, of the 40,000 decisions taken by the Committee, only 170 were appealed against, and the decision reversed. S. C. Report (1888), Q. 180; Q. 577; Q. 582; Q. 775.
46. The issue of distinctiveness was an important prerequisite for registration in the 1875 Act, S. 10; and the 1883 Act, S. 64.
47. S. C. Report (1888), Q. 285.
48. Ibid., QQ. 291-300.
49. S. C. Report (1888), QQ. 321-22; QQ. 366-68; Q. 390; Q. 1316; Q. 1823; S. C. Report (1905), Q. 844. To some extent, therefore, Figure 1 underestimates the relative importance of trade marks in die 'cotton classes' because it deals only with registered trade marks.
50. S. C. Report (1888), QQ. 321-22; QQ. 366-68; Q. 390; Q. 1316; Q. 1823; S. C. Report (1905), Q. 844. To some extent, therefore, Figure 1 underestimates the relative importance of trade marks in die 'cotton classes' because it deals only with registered trade marks.
51. S. C. Report (1888), Q. 1298; Q. 1315; Q. 2256.
52. S. C. Report (1905), evidence of Moreton Riley, p. 61, s. 9.
53. 46 & 47 Vict. Ch. 57 (Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Act, 1883), s. 77. S. C. Report (1905), evidence of Charles Bailey, p. 53, s. 22.
54. S. C. Report (1905), evidence of Charles Bailey, p. 56, s. 61.
55. Ibid., s. 60; QQ. 564-67; QQ. 703-08; Q. 834. A stronger statement of this belief by the same witness is contained in S. C. Report (1888), Q. 760.
56. S. C. Report (1905), evidence of Charles Bailey, p. 53. s. 20; Q. 874. See also the evidence of Ralph Griffen (Registrar of Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks), Q. 924. The Merchandise Marks Act (1887), S. 3, ss. 2, made provision for protection of non-registered trade marks, but Manchester's campaign that this section of merchandise mark legislation should be incorporated in trade mark legislation was not successful. Ibid., evidence of Charles Bailey, p. 53, s. 21.
57. S. C. Report (1905), evidence of Charles Bailey, p. 53. s. 20; Q. 874. See also the evidence of Ralph Griffen (Registrar of Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks), Q. 924. The Merchandise Marks Act (1887), S. 3, ss. 2, made provision for protection of non-registered trade marks, but Manchester's campaign that this section of merchandise mark legislation should be incorporated in trade mark legislation was not successful. Ibid., evidence of Charles Bailey, p. 53, s. 21.
58. 46 & 47 Vict. Ch. 57 (Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Act, 1883), s. 72, ss. 2.
59. S. C. Report (1888), Q. 14.
60. Ibid., Q. 3.
61. Ibid., QQ. 412-13; Q. 4345 Q. 487; Q. 436.
62. Ibid., Q. 414; Q. 470; Q. 472.
63. Ibid., 478.
64. Ibid., 482.
65. Ibid., 487.
66. Ibid., Q. 221.
67. Ibid., Q. 1829; S. C. Report (1905) evidence of Moreton Riley, p. 62, ss. 12-14; QQ. Provision was given to the Registrar, however, to place 'A' marks in the 'B' list and 'B' marks in the 'A' list. Kerly's Law of Trade Marks (London, 9th edn, 1966), p. 204; S. C. Report (1905), Q. 800.
68. Ibid., Q. 1829; S. C. Report (1905) evidence of Moreton Riley, p. 62, ss. 12-14; QQ. Provision was given to the Registrar, however, to place 'A' marks in the 'B' list and 'B' marks in the 'A' list. Kerly's Law of Trade Marks (London, 9th edn, 1966), p. 204; S. C. Report (1905), Q. 800.
69. Ibid., Q. 1829; S. C. Report (1905) evidence of Moreton Riley, p. 62, ss. 12-14; QQ. Provision was given to the Registrar, however, to place 'A' marks in the 'B' list and 'B' marks in the 'A' list. Kerly's Law of Trade Marks (London, 9th edn, 1966), p. 204; S. C. Report (1905), Q. 800.
70. Ibid., Q. 1829; S. C. Report (1905) evidence of Moreton Riley, p. 62, ss. 12-14; QQ. Provision was given to the Registrar, however, to place 'A' marks in the 'B' list and 'B' marks in the 'A' list. Kerly's Law of Trade Marks (London, 9th edn, 1966), p. 204; S. C. Report (1905), Q. 800.
71. S. C. Report (1905), Q. 836.
72. 5. C. Report (1888), Q. 2400.
73. Ibid., Q. 736.
74. Ibid., Q. 782.
75. Ibid., Q. 725.
76. S. C. Report (1905), evidence of Charles Bailey, p. 53, s. 23. It was feared that because of this exhaustion it was more likely, in the future, that cases of intentional or accidental infringement of trade marks would increase. Evidence of Moreton Riley, p. 64, s. 36.
77. S. C. Report (1888), Q. 673.
78. Ibid., Q. 645; Q. 639; Q. 674; Q. 712 1887.
79. Ibid., Q. 662. For example, a group of rifles (private mark) had been combined with a shield (common mark). Ibid., Q. 638.
80. Ibid., Q. 677-78.
81. Ibid., Q. 39.
82. Ibid., Q. 637; Q. 640; Q. 769; QQ. 1263-66; Q. 1279.
83. Ibid., Q. 798. Q. 800; Q. 809.
84. Ibid., Q. 794.
85. 46 & 47 Vict., Ch. 57 (patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Act, 1883), S. 72, ss. 2.
86. S. C. Report (1888), QQ. 801-10.
87. Second Report of the Comptroller General of Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks (1885), p. 7.
88. Ibid., Q. 16; Q. 21. Apparently, the Duke of Richmond had sent instructions stating that the preliminaries of registration were to be held in Manchester to the Manchester Chamber of Commerce on 1 August 1885. S. C. Report (1888), Q. 282.
89. Ibid., Q. 16; Q. 21. Apparently, the Duke of Richmond had sent instructions stating that the preliminaries of registration were to be held in Manchester to the Manchester Chamber of Commerce on 1 August 1885. S. C. Report (1888), Q. 282.
90. Ibid., Q. 1223, Q. 1291.
91. Ibid., QQ. 1225-26.
92. Ibid., Q. 319.
93. Ibid., Q. 709; QQ. 729-30; Q. 735.
94. The Cutlers' Company was incorporated in 1624, by the Act 21 Jac. 1, 0.31, for the government of the cutlery trade in the district of Hallamshire. The Act provided that persons engaged in the business of manufacturing knives, shears, scissors, or other cutlery wares, should strike such marks, and such marks only, as had been assigned to them by the Company. For a full discussion of the statutory powers which have since been granted to the Company see Kerly's Law of Trade Marks (London, 9th edn, 1966), pp. 86-89. S. C. Report (1905), p. iv, s. 9; evidence of Mr Ashworth, p. 57, s. 6; evidence of Moreton Riley, p. 60, ss. 2-3; p. 61, ss. 9-10; Q. 772.
95. The Cutlers' Company was incorporated in 1624, by the Act 21 Jac. 1, 0.31, for the government of the cutlery trade in the district of Hallamshire. The Act provided that persons engaged in the business of manufacturing knives, shears, scissors, or other cutlery wares, should strike such marks, and such marks only, as had been assigned to them by the Company. For a full discussion of the statutory powers which have since been granted to the Company see Kerly's Law of Trade Marks (London, 9th edn, 1966), pp. 86-89. S. C. Report (1905), p. iv, s. 9; evidence of Mr Ashworth, p. 57, s. 6; evidence of Moreton Riley, p. 60, ss. 2-3; p. 61, ss. 9-10; Q. 772.
96. The Trade Marks Bill (Bill 76, 1905). The principal architect of the Bill was Fletcher Moulton, K.C., who was also a member of the Select Committee (1905), and one of its principal witnesses.
97. 5 Edw. 7. Ch. 15 (Trade Marks Act, 1905), S. 64, ss. 1-4.
98. S. C. Report (1888), Q. 1521.
99. Ibid., Q. 2580; Q. 2678.
100. Ibid., Q. 2460; Q. 2574.
101. Ibid., Q. 2575.
102. Ibid., Q. 2659; Q. 2769. Headings were thought especially important for Asian and Mediterranean markets, Q. 3202; Q. 3225; QQ. 2595-97.
103. Ibid., Q. 2688.
104. Ibid., Q. 1498; Q. 2662; Q. 2728.
105. Ibid., Q. 2575.
106. Ibid., Q. 1506-09; Q. 2686. Because of the high degree of vertical specialisation in the Lancashire industry the interests of the merchant could clearly diverge from those of the manufacturer. One way of reconciling these different interests was greater vertical integration. It was recognised that greater vertical integration in the United States compared to Lancashire tended to place the latter at a disadvantage so far as quality was concerned: 'in the United States there is little or no conflict of interest between the manufacturer and the merchant. . . and therefore they are making always a better quality; whereas the tendency of our system is to work down to the lower qualities.' Q. 1599; Q. 1605; Q. 1610; Q. 3274; Q. 3255-57. See also the evidence of John Holden, S. C. Report (1890), Q. 4252.
107. Ibid., Q. 1506-09; Q. 2686. Because of the high degree of vertical specialisation in the Lancashire industry the interests of the merchant could clearly diverge from those of the manufacturer. One way of reconciling these different interests was greater vertical integration. It was recognised that greater vertical integration in the United States compared to Lancashire tended to place the latter at a disadvantage so far as quality was concerned: 'in the United States there is little or no conflict of interest between the manufacturer and the merchant. . . and therefore they are making always a better quality; whereas the tendency of our system is to work down to the lower qualities.' Q. 1599; Q. 1605; Q. 1610; Q. 3274; Q. 3255-57. See also the evidence of John Holden, S. C. Report (1890), Q. 4252.
108. S. C. Report (1888), QQ. 2754-55; QQ. 2575-78. Legal action between merchants over imitation of line headings could prove very expensive: one case between Messrs Carver Bros, and Mr Bowker took about seven years to resolve, cost Carver Broa. about £1,000, and bankrupted Bowker. Q. 2686.
109. Ibid., QQ. 2669-73; QQ. 2732-34.
110. S. C. Report (1890), Q. 4182.
111. Ibid., Q. 4248; Q. 4299.
112. S. C. Report (1888), Q. 2566; QQ. 2577-78; Q. 2580; QQ. 2584-87; QQ. 2589-91; Q. 2595; Q. 2659; Q. 2679; Q. 2661; Q. 2667; Q. 2678; Q. 3203; Q. 3205; Q. 3225.
113. Ibid., Q. 2538.
114. Ibid., Q. 2137; Q. 2688.
115. Ibid., Q. 2662. Before a later Select Committee, Mr Ashworth was to state: 'The infinity of the combinations used to form woven headings renders it impossible to secure the distinctiveness necessary to warrant the registration of any particular heading alone as a trade mark'. S. C. Report (1905), p. 59, s. 25.
116. Ibid., Q. 2662. Before a later Select Committee, Mr Ashworth was to state: 'The infinity of the combinations used to form woven headings renders it impossible to secure the distinctiveness necessary to warrant the registration of any particular heading alone as a trade mark'. S. C. Report (1905), p. 59, s. 25.
117. S. C. Report (1888), Q. 2662.
118. Ibid., Q. 2666; Q. 2752.
119. Ibid., Q. 2753.
120. S. C. Report (1888), p. 1x-x.
121. 50 & 51 Vict. Ch. 28 (Merchandise Marks Act, 1887), S. 5, ss. 2, 'A trade mark or mark, or trade description, shall be deemed to be applied whether it is woven, impressed, or otherwise worked into, or annexed, or affixed to the goods'.
122. S. C. Report (1905), evidence of Mr Ashworth, p. 59, s. 28.
123. 38 & 39 Vict. Ch. 91, S. 10 (An Act to establish a Register of Trade Marks, 1875); 46 & 47 Vict. Ch. 57, S. 64 (Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Act, 1883); 51 & 52 Vict. Ch. 50, S. 10, (I) (d) (e) (Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Act, 1888); 5 Edw. 7. Ch. 15, S. 9, ss. 3-5 (Trade Marks Act, 1905).
124. S. C. Report (1888), Q. 509; S. C. Report (1905), evidence of Mr Ashworth, p. 57, s. 13.
125. S. C. Report (1888), Q. 509; S. C. Report (1905), evidence of Mr Ashworth, p. 57, s. 13.
126. 46 & 47 Vict. Ch. 57 (Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Act, 1883), S. 64 (I) (c).
127. Compare the definition given by Lord Herschell and that of Mr Dehn who was a Manchester merchant. S. C. Report (1888), QQ. 513-14.
128. Ibid., Q. 110; Q. 514, S. C. Report (1905), evidence of Mr Ashworth, p. 57. s. 13.
129. Ibid., Q. 110; Q. 514, S. C. Report (1905), evidence of Mr Ashworth, p. 57. s. 13.
130. S. C. Report (1888), QQ. 431-32.
131. Ibid., Q. 495.
132. S. C. Report (1888), p. xii.
133. 51 & 52 Vict Ch. 50 (Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Act, 1888), S. 10 (I) (d) (e).
134. MCLA, M8/3/I, Trade and Merchandise Marks Committee Meeting, 11 November 1889; Trade and Merchandise Marks Committee Meeting, 10 November 1890.
135. 3 Edw. 7. Trade Marks (Cotton Wares). A Bill to amend the law relating to the registration of trade marks in respect of cotton wares (Bill 239), 1903.
136. 5 Edw. 7. Ch. 15 (Trade Marks Act, 1905), S. 64. s. 10 (a) (b) (c).
137. M. Wilkins, 'The Neglected Intangible Asset: The Influence of the Trade Mark on the Rise of the Modern Corporation', Business History, 34 (1992), pp. 66-95.
138. David Higgins and Geoffrey Tweedale, 'Asset or Liability? Trade Marks in the Sheffield Cutlery and Tool Trades', Business History, 37 (1995), 1-27.