812.543 Palmolive Co./7
The Ambassador in Mexico (Morrow) to
the Secretary of State
Mexico, November 12, 1929.
[Received
November 18.]
No. 1994Sir: 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.]
[Enclosure—Translation]
The Chief of the Diplomatic Department of the
Mexican Ministry for Foreign Affairs (Sierra) to the First Secretary of the American Embassy (Johnson)
Mexico, November 11, 1929.
No. 15598My 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.]
