Leary et al. v. Hohenstein ... M. 541 646 646 650 674 482 263 498 Magee Furnace Company. Low v (Limited) v. Martien ...... States, (Limited) v....... Company v. 498 481 291 657 441 344 303 380 627 592 592 N. way Company .... et al. v..... Nichols, Shepherd & Company. Marsh et al. v..... N. O. Nelson Manufacturing Company. Huber et al. v 596 263 501 0. Oregon Improvement Company v. Excelsior Coal Company .... 568 P. Pattee Plow Coinpany v. Kingman & Company et al 357 559 -453, 473 444 603 669 Preston v. Fire Extinguisher Manufacturing Company et al Putnam et al. v. Keystone Bottle Stopper Company et al. Rand-Avery Supply Company. Thompson et al. v.... Raymond et al. v. Boston Woven Hose Company Rodebaugh et al. v. Jackson et al Roemer v. Headley.. Sargent et al. v. Jenkins et al Schlicht & Field Company v. Chicago Sewing Machine Company et al Schlicht & Field Company u. Sherwood Letter File Company.. Seibert Cylinder Oil Cup Company v. William Powell Company Sheldon Axle Company r. Standard Axle Works........ Sherwood Letter File Company. Schlicht & Field Company Shuler et al. J. B. Browster & Co. v... ...... Simpson et al. Pennsylvania Diamond Drill Company r.. Smith Feed Water Heater and Purifier Company. Heine Safety Boiler Com- S. S. White Dental Manufacturing Company v. Cauton Surgical and Dental 627 Stachelberg et al. r. Ponce... Standard Axle Works. Sheldon Axle Company v .... Standard Oil Company. Leggett v .... Taft r. Stephens Lithographing and Engraving Company. Tbird Avenge Railroad Company. Root v Thompson et al. v. American Bank Note Company 427 553 431 370 364 U. Page Underwood et al v. Gerber et al .519, 538 United States v. Koch ..... 634 United States ex rel. Pollok v. Commissiouer of Patents..... 582 United States of America v. American Bell Telephone Company and Alexander Graham Bell... 563 United States of America v. American Bell Telephone Company et al.... 615 Untermeyer v. Freund et al..... 424 Ury et al. Carson v .... 617 W. Walter. Grant o 476 677 573 543 276 594 291 472 690 Y. Yale & Towne Manufacturing Company et al. v. Consolidated Time Lock Com pany Young et al. v. Foerster.. 590 483 DECISIONS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS, FOR THE YEAR 1889. EX PARTE KING. Decided December 17, 1888. 46 O. G., 119. a 1. EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY IN EMBLEMS USED BY SOCIETIES. The fact that the Grand Army of the Republic have adopted a certain design for their badge, or for the letter-head of writing-paper used by them, does not secure to such organization such exclusive property in the particular representation as would deprive an applicant who has complied with all the requirements of the statuto of his right to register the same as a Trade-Mark. It is well settled that emblems which have been used by societies possess no sancity or sacred ness which precludes their being used and applied as Trade-Marks. 2. TRAUE-MARKS WHICH EMBELLISH. The objection of the Examiner that the Trade-Mark embellishes the paper is not approved. It may be said that scarcely any Trade-Mark can be applied to paper without incidentally embellishing it. If the design is a legitimate subject of a Trade-Mark and is not prohibited by law, the fact that it incidentally embellishes the page on which it appears cannot deprive it of its lawful quality as a Trade-Mark, 3. REPRESENTATIONS PATENTED AS DESIGNS NOT BARRED FROM REGISTRATION AS TRADE-MARKS. The fact that the Grand Army of the Republic have previously obtained a Design patent for this representation, the term of which has expired, does not constitute a legitimate bar to the employment of this design as a Trade-Mark in commerce with foreign nations. The mere fact that the organization originated the design would make no difference whatever if the design has been donated to the world to be used in all the ways of which it is capable. The Grand Army of the Republic retained no proprietary right after the term of their Design patent expired. There is no property in the design itself vested in any one. Any person may apply the design as a Trade-Mark to a certain class of merchandise, and when thus applied it acquires the quality of property and becomes vested in him who first makes such now and distinct application of the design, and registration will 3 be granted, provided the applicant has complied with all the reyuirements of the statute and the mark is used in commerce with foreign nations. 4. OFFICE BOUND BY THE OATH OF APPLICANT. The Patent Office has not the means to investigate the question whether the applicant in the present case is simply seeking to obtain the guise of security round his Trade-Mark, when he really means to use it as an attractive embellishment for a particular class of persons in this country. The Office is bound by the oath of the applicant, and such a question as the above must be settled by the courts. APPEAL froin Primary Examiner. TRADE-MARK FOR WRITING-PAPER. APPLICATION of David King filed May 14, 1888. Mr. H. A. Toulmin for the applicant. STATEMENT. Applicant has presented for registration as a Trade Mark an exact representation of the well-known badge of the Grand Army of the Republic, wbich be proposes to use as a water-mark on writing-paper. HALL, Commissioner: Applicant has presented as his Trade-Mark for writing-paper a design, which he uses as a water-mark, consisting, essentially, of the letters“ G. A. R." and the representation of an eagle, a flag, and a star. It is proper to add that this design, which the applicant claims to have applied to his goods as a Trade-Mark, is an exact representation of the well-known badge of the Grand Army of the Republic. Although the applicant in his argument has attempted to draw some distinctions between the Trade Mark exhibited by him and the badge of the Grand Army of the Republic, there can be no doubt that the similarity is such that the distinctions alluded to make no difference whatever. This application for registration has been refused by the Examiner, for the reason that the design has been heretofore adopted and employed by the Grand Army of the Republic upon badges worn by its members, and has been printed as a letter-bead upon the writing-paper used by that organization in its correspondence. The Examiner bas also insisted that this design, when applied by way of a watermark upon the paper, embellishes and consequently enhances the value of it, and this, having another use than that of a Trade Mark, is not the proper sub. ject of a Trade Mark registration. It is also proper to add that heretofore this desigu was patented as a Design, but the term for which this security was obtained has expired, so that it is no longer protected. No objection is made to its registration on account of the fact that it is incorporated in the paper as a water-mark in the process of manufacture, for it is conceded that the water-mark is one of the ancient and wellknown means of applying a Trade Mark to writing paper, and no reason is conceived for objecting to it on that ground. The question then arises |
0 Resensi Ulasan tidak diverifikasi, tetapi Google akan memeriksa dan menghapus konten palsu jika konten tersebut teridentifikasi Tulis resensi |