824 REPORT ON COOPERATION IN AMERICAN EXPORT TRADE.
Charles M. Woodruff, secretary of the National Association of
Manufacturers of Medicinal Products. Detroit, Mich., said:
The undersigned has seen packages put up by Japanese for trade in the
Hawaiian Islands, the Philippine Islands, and the Pacific coast cities, as well
as for sale in Japan that so closely imitated the original as to deceive the
victim’s salesman.’ In these cases even the trade name of the American
manufacturer was used.
Another condition is the fraudulent registration of trade-marks in countries
where priority of registration is conclusive instead of prima facie evidence
of ownership. The condition can hardly be called competitive, and yet it may
be proper to mention it in this connection, since we are about to suggest
remedies for all of them.
A. C. Loring, president of the Pillsbury Flour Milling Co., Minneapolis,
 Minn., stated:
The laws of the various countries permit fraud, and it is one of the things
that we are very desirous to overcome. A great many of the countries permit
the filing of brands and corporations’ names by anyone who meets the specifications.
 We have at times, much to our surprise, found that our own full
name and brands had been asked for registration, and, where they are, we have
no means of protecting ourselves.
+ = » Jt would be serious if we had much business in these countries.
Up to the present time there has been comparatively little business, and we
have not felt the danger, but our company has during the past year expended
thousands of dollars in filing registrations for brands in the countries in
which there is any possibility of developing business.
Herbert H. Bigelow, of Brown &amp; Bigelow, St. Paul, Minn., manufacturers
 of advertising specialties, was asked whether he found
any tendency to violate his trade-mark rights in foreign fields. He
replied :

We have found violations of our copyright. Of course we make no claim for
copyright protection outside of the United States, and of course it is not
respected, and our rights are not respected on our reproductions any more
than they would be in this country, any more than the fact that it is the
practice to make a reproduction from a reproduction. }
We sent a small line of calendars to Australia a number of years ago, and
almost as quickly as the mails could bring it back and allow a short time for
reproduction one of our copyrighted reproductions appeared on the program of
one of the leading theaters of Melbourne.
Of course the reproduction was poor, because it was made from a reproduction,
 If they had had the original there, they could have spoiled our sale
entirely of that subject in that territory. But we make no claim for trademark
 protection, such as we hear of being infringed in the South American
territory.

Harry Edward Freund, managing director of the National Association
 of Makers, Chicago, Ill, thinks that the use of the trademark
 “ Made in U. S. A.” should be regulated, as is shown in the following
 statement:

The matter that I consider of great importance to bring before the Federal
Trade Commission is the unregulated use of the national trade-mark * Made
in the U. S. A,” as it will do inestimable injury to American commerce
anless used in connection with the maker's name and trade-mark under an
adequate system of safeguards. The point being that at the present time
“ Made in the U. S. A.” can be used by any manufacturer, and he can put that
on any kind of goods, inferior shoddy, for instance, without any guaranty as
to quality, the result being that the United States is afforded to-day an unparalleled
 opportunity in its entire history for the progress and development
of its foreign trade. And the greater that development becomes and the larger
that foreign trade becomes, unless there is a safeguard that “Made in the
U. S. A.” means quality, something of which the Nation can be proud, it is
going to prove a big boomerang, and the larger the trade the greater the re-