For some time consideration was given in the Far Eastern Commission to the formulation of a policy decision with regard to Japanese-owned patents, utility models and designs in territories of countries at war with Japan. On March 17, 1949, however, the representative of the U.S.S.R. vetoed a proposed policy decision which had met with the approval of the majority of the other members of the Far Eastern Commission. Due to this opposition on the part of the Soviets there has not been any further attempt in the Far Eastern Commission to reach a policy decision on the subject.

2. The United States Government, however, recently proposed that an informal meeting be held among the members of Committee No. 1 whose governments had approved FEC-31 1/7, the document containing the proposed policy decision vetoed by the U.S.S.R., to discuss the possibility of obtaining international agreement to a modified version of FEC-31 117.

3. The first meeting, at which we were represented, was held on October 5. A report on the proceedings of this meeting is contained in teletype No. WA-2809 dated October 7 from Washington, a copy of which is attached.†

4. In paragraph 5 of this teletype it is stated that according to present thinking in the State Department and to the consensus of opinion on the part of the representatives of the other countries attending the meetings it would be unnecessary to go through the formalities of convening a conference for the purpose of obtaining an international agreement along the lines of accord on German patents of July 27, 1946. The suggestion is that the United States Government might address notes to all countries represented on the Far Eastern Commission with the exception of the U.S.S.R., proposing that their governments agree to apply the provisions of any draft agreement which is reached on the treatment of Japanese patents outside Japan. It is then proposed that on the basis of the formal replies to this initial exchange of notes the United States Government could then notify other countries included in the non-enemy category and invite them to agree to the application of similar provisions.

5. I would be grateful if you would give me your opinion as to the legal implications of the proposed procedure outlined in the above paragraph.¹⁸ I think that there is a very good chance of reaching a mutually satisfactory agreement with respect to the technical aspects of the question in the discussions now taking place. If, however, a full scale conference were called to include countries in the non-enemy category, there is then a definite possibility that negotiations might drag on indefinitely and that no satisfactory policy would be agreed upon. Consequently, I believe that the procedure under consideration, from the political point of view, is the one most likely to achieve positive results, although it may prove distasteful to some countries who are not represented on the Far Eastern Commission.

6. Copies of the teletype under covering letters have been sent to Trade and Commerce and the Commissioner of Patents, requesting their views on the changes outlined in paragraph 2 of the teletype.

A.R. MENZIES

¹⁸ Selon le point de vue du conseiller juridique par intérim (K.T. Burbridge), la procédure ne soulevait aucune objection, quoiqu'elle ne tombait pas sous 1'égide des attributions de In Commission de 1'Extrême-Orient (mémorandum du 31 octobre 1949&dagger ;).
The view of the Acting Legal Adviser (K.T. Burbridge) was that there was no legal objection to the procedure, though it did not come within the Terms of Reference of the Far Eastern Commission (memorandum, October 31, 1949†).