812.543 Palmolive Co./7

The Ambassador in Mexico ( Morrow ) to the Secretary of State

No. 1994

Sir: I have the honor to refer to my telegram No. 351 of November 5th, 6 p.m., and to the Department’s telegram in reply No. 505 of November 7th, 7 p.m., relative to the complaint of the Palmolive Company that the Mexican courts had not taken into consideration the Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property revised at Washington June 2, 1911, to which both the United States and Mexico are signatories, in their decision in a suit which was brought by the Palmolive Company against a Mexican Company for an infringement of their trade-mark rights. As stated in my telegram No. 351 of November 5th, this case was taken up informally with the Foreign Office, which promised to investigate the point which had been raised of possible violation of Article 2 of the Convention above cited. I have the honor to forward herewith enclosed for the Department’s information a copy and a translation of a note under date of November 11, 1929, which the Embassy has received from the Foreign Office in reply to its informal representations in this matter. The information contained in this letter will be communicated to Basham & Ringe, counsel in Mexico City of the Palmolive Company.

I have [etc.]

Dwight W. Morrow

The Chief of the Diplomatic Department of the Mexican Ministry for Foreign Affairs ( Sierra ) to the First Secretary of the American Embassy ( Johnson )

No. 15598

My Dear Mr. Johnson: I refer to the case of the Palmolive Company, of which we recently spoke, you having informed me that [Page 562] apparently the Supreme Court of Justice had not taken into account, in the respective decision, the Convention on industrial property of June 2, 1911.

I have read the decision rendered by the Third Chamber of the Court in the suit of amparo brought by the Company above mentioned by reason of the falsification of their trademark, and I have noted that the decision expressly examines the Convention on the Protection of Industrial Property signed at Washington on June 2, 1911, and declares that Article 2 is not applicable because it is not a question of domicile nor of establishment of the Company in Mexico, and considers that this Company has no legal personality because it has not inscribed itself in the Commercial Register nor complied with the other requirements which the Mercantile Code demands of foreign companies; and states, lastly, that if the Company has no legal status (Spanish—no tiene personalidad) in the Republic, it cannot bring any legal action so long as it does not meet said requirements.

As you see, in the thesis maintained by the Third Chamber, the Convention was taken into consideration and the Magistrates interpreted it in the manner above indicated.

I remain [etc.]

M. J. Sierra