Mr. EATON. Mr. Chairman, may I ask the witness a question?

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Eaton.

Mr. EATON. How long have you been wrestling with this problem? Mr. HUGHES. I, personally?

Mr. EATON. NO; the organization, seeking legal redress.

Mr. HUGHES. I assume it has been wrestling with it, perhaps, since 1914, or in several instances before that.

Mr. EATON. How long have you been seeking legal redress against these people?

Mr. HUGHES. Do you mean in the courts, or where?

Mr. EATON. Naturally, that is where it would be.

Mr. HUGHES. I can only testify with respect to my connection with the organization, which spans 23 years, and during that 23 years we have presented case after case, serious cases, to the Department of Justice.

Mr. EATON. Have you succeeded in any case?

Mr. HUGHES. I think in a considerable number of cases the Department of Justice has been able to correct obvious violations and gotten a discontinuance.

However, we will be able to cite other cases where border-line cases have not been controlled and the offense is being continued. Mr. EATON. Just one more question.

Mr. HUGHES. If you do not mind, I would like to finish my statement so that you can get the picture as a whole, and then if you want to ask any questions I may be able to answer; I will be delighted to do so; but if everybody breaks in, you are going to have a little difficult situation, and I see a great many of my friends and associates on the other side of this picture who would probably like to ask me questions, too.

Mr. EATON. You would be as bad off as if you were on the floor of the House making a speech.

Mr. HUGHES. I do not know. I have never been before a congressional committee. I would like to finish this statement.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair understands that you would like not to be interrupted. You want to continue making your statement, and you would then be glad to answer any questions?

Mr. HUGHES. Yes. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. All right; proceed, please.

Mr. HUGHES (reading):

A concern having the claimed right to use the name on toilet paper indulges in widespread Nation-wide advertisement of paper towels simply because the basic ingredient of both articles is wood pulp. A concern having the claimed right to use the name of the Red Cross on women's shoes institutes or authorizes the separate incorporation of "Red Cross Shoe Shops" and causes sections of wellknown department stores to be designated as 'Red Cross Shops."

A concern having the claimed right to use the words "Red Cross" in connection with a drug store develops its establishment to the point where it occupies the most prominent site in Miami, Fla., and operates therein an extensive food, novelty, and general department store.

I will interpolate there by saying the same concern

The CHAIRMAN. I must insist upon your observing the rule just laid down at your own suggestion. You can finish your statement and then make any further statement you wish.

Mr. HUGHES. All right. [Reading:]

-the gutters of Washington have been filled with match covers bearing the Red Cross emblem distributed in the greatest profusion by the manufacturers of cough drops.

An aggregation of doctors having no right whatsoever to use the Red Cross emblem but seeing it used by us in the general field of health and nursing have claimed the right to distinguish their private automobiles by a display of the Red Cross.

A famous manufacturer of surgical dressings having no right to use the Red Cross emblem on its recently manufactured product, tooth brushes, sponsors a Nation-wide broadcast to aid in the sale of these brushes, and causes at each broadcast the announcer to refer to the tooth brushes as being manufactured by the "makers of Red Cross products."

Many instances exist where an unjustified use of the name and emblem of the Red Cross was initiated because the manufacturer had seen other articles displayed under this emblem and believed he likewise had the right to batten on its popularity. A paper corporation ineffectively caused a registration of the Red Cross trade-mark to be issued by the secretary of state of the State of New York because, as their attorney stated, "You can no doubt see that my client's reason for using the words 'Red Cross' was due to the fact that other products under the same name have been, and are, being sold.'"

In all of the principal countries, parties to the Geneva Treaty, the use of the name and emblem for commercial purposes is prohibited by law, and the right thereto is preserved exclusively to the use of the governments themselves for the medical, nursing, and sanitary corps and their authorized Red Cross societies.

A partial list of those who have registered trade-marks in the United States Patent Office in which it is claimed that they or their predecessors used the Red Cross is attached hereto.

Of course a large number of advertisers have used the increased importance of the medical and sanitary services and the growth of the American National Red Cross to advertise their products, and in that way attempt to benefit by the good will of the Red Cross emblem. In other words, they have attempted to increase the value of their product by associating it with the Red Cross name. That the use of the name and emb`em is not necessary is demonstrated by the fact that a number of those concerns who have the technical right to use the name or emblem in the United States under the existing law have no right to use them in any of the important countries that have carried out the treaty obligations, and their goods, when sold in those countries, are marketed under a trade-mark or emblem other than the Red Cross.

3. The small merchant or manufacturer who would like to use the emblem for commercial purposes cannot understand why some of the larger manufacturers are permitted to use it, and this feeling of favoritism to some of the large advertisers is difficult to dissipate and to explain.

4. The use of the name and emblem for commercial purposes tends to create the impression that the Red Cross society in some way has some commercial interest in the products sold or that it has approved from a medicinal or sanitary point of view the product of the manufacturer, all of which is, of course, untrue and tends to deceive and confuse the public.

5. In wartime, under the provisions of the treaty the Medical and Sanitary Corps of the Army and Navy, and the Red Cross societies, are entitled to certain protection. The use of the name and emblem for commercial purposes tends to impair the respect that it was intended by the treaty the Red Cross name and emblem should have under wartime conditions.

The Red Cross is in receipt of communications from other Red Cross societies inquiring why there is permitted to be used in this country for commercial purposes the name and emblem of the Red Cross when no such use is permitted in the country of the inquiring society.

6. For all of the above reasons, we agree with the State Department and the Department of Justice that the treaty obligations are plain and unambiguous and this country ought not to longer refuse to carry out its obligations to the other signatory powers.