'الملف 10/7 III البيع والتجارة. تسجيل العلامات التجارية وحماية الابتكارات في جزيرة البحرين' [و‎‎٢‎٧] (٢٠٨/٥٣)

CONFIDENTIAL .
S.0,No.C/R-99.
POLITICAL AGENCY,
BAHRAIN,
Dated 19th March, 1949.
Dear Sir Rupert,
I am sorry for being such a long time in reply
ing to your semi-official letter No.(86/7/49), dated
the 26th January, 1949, asking whether I think it would
be possible to obtain a conviction under the procedure
described in Article 44 of the Bahrain Order-in-Council
if a British firm were to bring a crse against a Bahrain
subject under Section 487 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. As you may well imagine, it would te vain to
expect that a Joint Court could try such case with the
formality and procedure just recently demanded, and more
particularly as a trial would probably involve the deter
mination of some fine points of law. There remains the
District Court. But in my experience the procedure des-
#
cribed in Section 44 (a) has never been enforced, and,
in these times, its enforcement might not \e free from
difficulty.
3. Even supposing that procedural requirements were
satisfied, it seems very doubtful whether such a prose
cution would succeed. The section seems primarily to
/
contemplate deception of a ^ullic servant 1 or other
specific person and to prove the intention required in
the case of an infringement of a patent (as seems con
templated by your letter) might well be difficult.
4. The application of a law to protect patents in Bahrain
with other similar questions might perhaps be left to the
legal expert whom it is proposed to post here.
Yours sincerely.
His Excellency Sir Rupert Hay, KCIE, CSI,
Political Resident, Persian Gulf,
BAHRAIN.
if *
v*