1 These provisions were as follows (Laws of Puerto Rico, 1936, pp. 610, 644, 646):

“ (g) No holder of a permit under this title shall manufacture, distill, rectify, or bottle, either for himself or for others, any distilled spirit locally or nationally known under a brand, trade name, or trade-mark previously used on similar products manufactured in a foreign country, or in any other place outside Puerto Rico; Provided, (1) That such limitation, aimed at protecting the industry already existing in Puerto Rico, shall not apply to any brand, trade name, or trade-mark used by a manufacturer, rectifier, distiller, or bottler of distilled spirits manufactured in Puerto Rico on February 1,1936; and (2) such restrictions shall not apply to any new brand, trade name, or trade-mark which may in the future be used in Puerto Rico.”

“ (h) If any kind, type, or brand of distilled spirits of a foreign origin becomes nationally or internationally known by reason of its bearing or showing as its brand, trade name, or trade-mark, the proper name of the manufacturer thereof, such name shall not, in any manner or form whatever, appear on the labels for any distilled spirit of said kind or type manufactured, distilled, rectified, or bottled in Puerto Rico.”

2 Laws of Puerto Rico, Third Special Session, 1936, p. 78.

3 Laws of Puerto Rico, 1937, p. 392.

4 This declaration is as follows:

“ Section 1 (b). Declaration of Policy. It has been and is the intention and the policy of this Legislature to protect the renascent liquor industry of Puerto Rico from all competition by foreign capital so as to avoid the increase and growth of financial absenteeism and to favor said domestic industry so that it may receive adequate protection against any unfair competition in the Puerto Rican market, the continental American market, and in any other possible purchasing market.”

5 There followed in Section 44(b), after the provision quoted in the text, a proviso relating to the liquidation of a stock of rum where a rectifier wishes to withdraw from business.

6 Section 7 is as follows: “ In regard to trade marks, the provisions of the Proviso of Section 44 of Act No. 6, approved June 30,1936, and which is hereby amended, shall be applicable only to such trade marks as shall have been used exclusively in the continental United States by any distiller, rectifier, manufacturer, bottler, or canner of distilled spirits prior to February 1,1936, provided such trade marks have not been used, in whole or in part, by a distiller, rectifier, manufacturer, bottler, or canner of distilled spirits outside of the continental United States, at any time prior to said date.”

7 The Convention was ratified by the United States on February 11,1931, and proclaimed February 27, 1931. 46 Stat. 2907. It was ratified by Cuba in 1930. Id., p. 2976. It has also been ratified by Colombia, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama and Peru. Bulletin, U. S. Trade-Mark Association, 1936, p. 174.

8 Ladas, The International Protection of Trade Marks by the American Republics, p. 11 et seq.; Derenberg, Trade-Mark Protection and Unfair Trading, p. 779 et seq.

9 “Chapter I. Equality of Citizens and Aliens as to Trade Mark and Commercial Protection.

“Article 1. The contracting states bind themselves to grant to the nationals of the other contracting states and to domiciled foreigners who own a manufacturing or commercial establishment or an agricultural development in any of the states which have ratified or adhered to the present convention the same rights and remedies which their laws extend to their own nationals or domiciled persons with respect to trade marks, trade names, and the repression of unfair competition and false indications of geographical origin or source.”

“Chapter II. Trade Mark Protection.

“Article 2. The person who desires to obtain protection for his marks in a country other than his own, in which this convention is in force, can obtain protection either by applying directly to the proper office of the state in which he desires to obtain protection, or through the Inter-American Trade Mark Bureau referred to in the Protocol on the Inter-American Registration of Trade Marks, if this protocol has been accepted by his country and the country in which he seeks protection.”

“Article 3. Every mark duly registered or legally protected in one of the contracting states shall be admitted to registration or deposit and legally protected in the other contracting states, upon compliance with the formal provisions of the domestic law of such states.

“Registration or deposit may be refused or canceled of marks:

“1 . The distinguishing elements of which infringe rights already acquired by another person in the country where registration or deposit is claimed.

“2. Which lack any distinctive character or consist exclusively of words, symbols, or signs which serve in trade to designate the class, kind, quality, quantity, use, value, place of origin of the products, time of production, or which are or have become at the time registration or deposit is sought, generic or usual terms in current language or in the commercial usage of the country where registration or deposit is sought, when the owner of the marks seek to appropriate them as a distinguishing element of his mark.

“In determining the distinctive character of a mark, all the circumstances existing should be taken into account, particularly the duration of the use of the mark and if in fact it has acquired in the country where deposit, registration or protection is sought, a significance distinctive of the applicant’s goods.

“3. Which offend public morals or which may be contrary to public order.

“4. Which tend to expose persons, institutions, beliefs, national symbols or those of associations of public interest, to ridicule or contempt.

“5. Which contain representations of racial types or scenes typical or characteristic of any of the contracting states, other than that of the origin of the mark.

“6. Which have as a principal distinguishing element, phrases, names or slogans which constitute the trade name or an essential or characteristic part thereof, belonging to some person engaged in any of the other contracting states in the manufacture, trade or production of articles or merchandise of the same class as that to which the mark is applied.” . . .

“Article 5. Labels, industrial designs, slogans, prints, catalogues or advertisements used to identify or to advertise goods, shall receive the same protection accorded to trade marks in countries where they are considered as such, upon complying with the requirements of the domestic trade mark law.” . . .

“Article 7. Any owner of a mark protected in one of the contracting states in accordance with its domestic law, who may know that some other person is using or applying to register or deposit an interfering mark in any other of the contracting states, shall have the right to oppose such use, registration or deposit and shall have the right to employ all legal means, procedure or recourse provided in the country in which such interfering mark is being used or where its registration or deposit is being sought, and upon proof that the person who is using such mark or applying to register or deposit it, had knowledge of the existence and continuous use in any of the contracting states of the mark on which opposition is based upon goods of the same class, the opposer may claim for himself the preferential right to use such mark in the country where the opposition is made or priority to register or deposit it in such country, upon compliance with the requirements established by the domestic legislation in such country and by this convention.

“Article 8. When the owner of a mark seeks the registration or deposit of the mark in a contracting state other than that of origin of the mark and such registration or deposit is refused because of the previous registration or deposit of an interfering mark, he shall have the right to apply for and obtain the cancellation or annulment of the interfering mark upon proving, in accordance with the legal procedure of the country in which cancellation is sought, the stipulations in Paragraph (a) and those of either Paragraph (b) or (c) below:

“(a) That he enjoyed legal protection for his mark in another of the contracting states prior to the date of the application for the registration or deposit which he seeks to cancel; and

“(b) that the claimant of the interfering mark, the cancellation of which is sought, had knowledge of the use, employment, registration or deposit in any of the contracting states of the mark for the specific goods to which said interfering mark is applied, prior to adoption and use thereof or prior to the filing of the application or deposit of the mark which is sought to be cancelled; or

“(c) that the owner of the mark who seeks cancellation based on a prior right to the ownership and use of such mark, has traded or trades with or in the country in which cancellation is sought, and that goods designated by his mark have circulated and circulate in said country from a date prior to the filing of the application for registration or deposit for the mark, the cancellation which is claimed, or prior to the adoption and use of the same.” . . .

“Article 11. The transfer of the ownership of a registered or deposited mark in the country of its original registration shall be effective and shall be recognized in the other contracting states, provided that reliable proof be furnished that such transfer has been executed and registered in accordance with the internal law of the state in which such transfer took place. Such transfer shall be recorded in accordance with the legislation of the country in which it is to be effective.

“The use and exploitation of trade marks may be transferred separately for each country, and such transfer shall be recorded upon the production of reliable proof that such transfer has been executed in accordance with the internal law of the state in which such transfer took place. Such transfer shall be recorded in accordance with the legislation of the country in which it is to be effective.”

10 Derenberg, op. cit., p. 788.

11 See Bulletin, U. S. Trade Mark Association, 1931, p. 173; Derenberg, op. cit., p. 788.

12 The Solicitor General has submitted to the court a communication by the Cuban Embassy in Washington to the Secretary of State of the United States relating to the interest of Cuban nationals and the Cuban Government in the question here presented.

13 Section 40 was embraced in the decree of the District Court but is not the subject of attack in this court.