Advertisement
Advertisement
South China Sea
Get more with myNEWS
A personalised news feed of stories that matter to you
Learn more

Letters

Trademark law change a complex issue

I refer to the letter from Steven Birt ('Time to change law on trademarks', June 3).

Although Mr Birt alleges that the government is not doing enough, as I stressed in my letter ('Trademark law has limitations', May 21), we have to work within the existing statutory framework.

Mr Birt alleges the impossibility of enforcing court judgments given in favour of plaintiff companies against infringing companies. However, in a recent case, when the infringing company did not change its name in accordance with the court's decision, the court appointed a representative of the plaintiff company to change the name and lodge a change of name form with the Companies Registry. Given this success, other plaintiff companies would no doubt consider this course of action.

He also criticises the government for failing to take action on his proposal to make a 'very simple' amendment to the Companies Ordinance in advance of the proposals to be considered in the content of the Companies Ordinance rewrite exercise. As we propose to consult the public on, inter-alia, the issue of company names in early 2008, the introduction of such an amendment would pre-empt the public consultation. Mr Birt should appreciate that, in considering this complex issue, interests other than those of intellectual property practitioners need to be considered. It would be neither possible nor responsible to introduce such an amendment without proper research and consultation.

Finally, in order to deal with the issue of company names pending statutory reform, I have formed a liaison committee with intellectual property practitioners which will meet regularly to brainstorm and implement interim solutions. We had a very successful first meeting on May 14 and, if Mr Birt wishes to contribute positively in this respect, he is welcome to join.

G. W. E. Jones, Registrar of Companies

Harbour issue a hot potato

I fully understand but do not totally agree with Winston Chu's complaints regarding the Hong Kong government (''Basic flaws in planning system'', May 31).

He seems to misunderstand a government's basic role. Its role is to manage social resources, facilitate urban development and protect Hong Kong's environment. The administration works for the whole of society, hence the term civil servant.

There will always be conflicts between urban developments and the need for environmental protection. Take the protection of the harbour as an example.

Hong Kong people want improvements in their living conditions, but we must also think about the environment and so any change to the harbour can become a controversial issue. Therefore, there are those who have been opposed to reclamation in the harbour and others who have supported it. It is not always clear what is in the public interest. It is difficult for any administration to meet the demands of all parties. But even when it makes mistakes, it does not mean that the government was not acting in the public interest or 'placing its own interests first'.

I fail to understand the point Mr Chu is trying to make.

How do the concerns of government differ from what is perceived as being in the public interest?

Is Mr Chu implying there is corruption within the administration in Hong Kong?

Only when people stop blaming the government blindly and try to make a contribution to society, will Hong Kong be a harmonious society, which puts public interests first.

Taylor Chan Kan-hei, Tung Tau

Today's bosses set bad example

It is all very well for business leaders to have their say about what is lacking in preparing a new generation of leaders in Hong Kong ('Younger generation lacking key leadership skills, survey finds', June 4).

What needs pointing out, however, is that the primitive leadership styles of present-day entrepreneurs are a significant factor in the deficiencies they point out.

Top-down management actively stifles creativity, innovation and determination.

In preparing for a knowledge-based economy, it is suggested that educational institutions have the greatest responsibility. Unfortunately, education is the sector which is least responsive to changes that are required by the economy.

Those people in the upper echelons behave like royalty while everybody else is reduced to servility. Therefore, students at the bottom of this sorry pile can be excused for concluding that there is little point in being innovative nor should they act any differently from the sheep-like behaviour such hierarchies reward.

Without any change in our present manner of leadership, Hong Kong's bid to compete as a knowledge-based economy is going nowhere.

Robert Verburg, Central

Tough job being so well-heeled

I was intrigued to see that Devyani Raman, chief executive of the India chapter of the Luxury Goods Council, is finding difficulty 'educating' Indian consumers to buy luxury goods ('Label of love', June 1).

She asks how she is to convince consumers to buy a US$400 bag when compared with 'a much cheaper leather bag that functions perfectly well?'. Ah, the difficulties that the human spirit must overcome, Devyani.

One of the reasons the world is in the mess it is in, is that humans seem to have an insatiable demand for pointlessly expensive products, products whose only function is to feed that strange creature called 'status'.

I would advise the gentleman in the photograph accompanying the article, ensconced in the flashy Rolls-Royce, to buy a Toyota and build a hospital wing. He could even put his name on it.

David Ollerearnshaw, Kam Tin

Over the top and out of order

I read with interest Norimitsu Onsihi's article on Japan's police interrogation tactics ('Law and disorder', May 29).

In my view police harassment also exists in Hong Kong in the abuse of stop and search under Chapter 232 Section 54 of the Police Ordinance which permits a police officer to stop and search anyone whom he believes is 'acting in a suspicious manner'.

A nephew of mine who is visiting Hong Kong has been stopped 10 times to date.

On the seventh occasion, although in possession of a valid visa, he was frog-marched into a closed police van and driven around Hong Kong with four policemen holding him in custody for no apparent justified reason.

He was later released from the van without comment in a different location.The police in this instance undertaking the stop and search were the ones who look like combat soldiers and who are deployed for riot control.

This incident prompted a complaint to the police and a Complaints Against the Police Office review said these officers were redeployed to stop and search tourists to check their visa status.

Regretfully they had not been properly trained for this new role. It was confirmed by police at this review that of 1,000 people no one was actually found to be overstaying or was arrested.

The ordinance allows a stop and search only when a suspect is seen to be acting in a suspicious manner and this law is being abused by the police. Such heavy-handed techniques, which produce minimal results, are tantamount to harassment of the public and deter tourists from coming to Hong Kong.

I know my nephew will not be coming back and he will pass on his dreadful experience in Hong Kong to others.

Rod Buckell, Happy Valley

Post