For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER 309 17 887 999 1919, Oct. 28, ch, 85, tit. 2, $8 21-23, 41 694 916 .35, 916 916 317 286 352 1919, Oct. 28, ch. 85, tit. 2, $ 35, 41 Stat. 973 319 .916, 973 124 234 1919, Oct. 29, ch. 89, § 4, 41 Stat. 325. 444 986 433 1920, June 5, ch. 250, 41 Stat. 988... 47 1920, June 5, ch. 250, $ 33, 41 Stat. 1007.. 799 433, 980 1921, Nov. 23, ch. 134, § 2, 42 Stat. 222.. 339 309 788 1922, Sept. 21, ch. 356, § 593(b), 42 Stat. 982 339 585 585 289 1924, May 19, ch. 157, 43 Stat. 121.. 893 Stat. 164, 166, 169. 980 606 1924, June 2, ch. 234, § 1014(a), 43 Stat. 343 390 Amended 1925, March 4, ch. 553, § 2, 43 Stat. 1302.. 807 515 1925, Feb. 11, ch. 204, 43 Stat. 857. 148 560 1925, Feb. 13, ch. 229, § Se, 43 Stat. 940.. 657 433 1925, March 4, ch. 521, 43 Stat. 1259.. 567, 762 JOINT RESOLUTIONS. 390 648 648 352 REVISED STATUTES. 648 807 .447, 807 447 339 618 148 455 35 15 1007..... 96 8 10311.. 139, 759 $ 10547. .504, 657 88 8569, 8572.... 225 950 102 74, 132 132 132 74 124 88 8657-8665.. .47, 132, 140 106 768 .96, 212, 851, 872 212 96 150 405 384 838 .625, 656 .646, 904 96 Š 9587. .333, 396, 478, 612 119 275 838 778 790 156 502 301 .153, 778, 926 688 648 . 124, 339, 409 675 370 .3.35, 401 231 .401, 409 .220, 222, 272 .572, 711 339 455 657 401, 711 .156, 690 . 372 358 60 COMPILED STATUTES 1918. 657 416 751 363 467 .19, 872 872 799 g 311542e .19, 606, 872 .38, 433 433 433, 980 560 788 378 433 788 .124, 352 515 736 570 788 585 COMPILED STATUTES ANNOTATED SUP. .560, 585 PLEMENT 1919. 41 1246. ..355, 492 799 751 363 467 19, 872 872 606 424 $ 3115420 .19, 606, 872 606 .49, 214, 681, 801 Š 428914b 433 433, 980 500 788 352 390 390 230 433 515 38, 339 $ 1608.. $ 101961 a et seq. 736 CALIFORNIA. 570 CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. 721 448 214 PENAL CODE. 455 $ 1278.. 371 989 COLORADO. 585 339 COMPILED LAWS. 116 47 $š7256, 7334, 7352–7354, 7447, 7463, 7465 506 234 799 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 622 CODE OF LAWS 1924. 648 642 916 798. 645 .339, 916 648 993 17 887 GEORGIA. 694 CIVIL CODE 1910. 916 218 .35, 916 916 HAWAII, 286 916 REVISED LAWS 1925. 474 460 444 IDAHO. 372 COMPILED STATUTES 1919. 106 ILLINOIS. 657 HURD'S REVISED STATUTES 1921. 148 781 .38, 980 Ch. 38, § 220. 781 390 CAHILL'S REVISED STATUTES 1921. 813 3 893 IOWA. 807 807 CODE 1924. 542 KENTUCKY. STATUTES 1922. 268 LOUISIANA. 19 CONSTITUTION 1913. 751 236 CODE OF PRACTICE. 236 LAWS. 1913, No. 1 236 236 236 306 MARYLAND. CODE OF PUBLIC GENERAL LAWS. 606 450 MASSACHUSETTS. REVISED LAWS 1902. 995 450 GENERAL AW 450 352 Ch. 4, § 10. Amended by Laws 1921, ch. 145 LAWS. 515 ... 515 MINNESOTA. TENNESSEE. LAWS. ... 141 747 TEXAS. CONSTITUTION. 149 .. 252 REVISED STATUTES 1911. Art. 6625 .... . 496, 500 443 REVISED STATUTES 1925. 356 810 437 VERNON'S SAYLES' ANNOTATED CIVIL STATUTES 1914. Art. 4694. Amended by Laws 1921, ch. 412 412 721 730 VERNON'S ANNOTATED CIVIL STAT- UTES SUPPLEMENT 1918. 972 730 VERNON'S ANNOTATED CIVIL STAT- UTES SUPPLEMENT 1922. 412 LAWS. 412 WASHINGTON. REMINGTON'S COMPILED STATUTES. 699 483 LAWS. 483 ... 764 STIPULATIONS. Em 3 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Stipulation as to mean- ing of language in reclamation petition not binding on court.-In re Gubelman, 10 F.(20) STREET RAILROADS. II. REGULATION AND OPERATION. 501 73 (App.D.C.) Car remodeled in 1905 held 759 not compliance with statutory requirements re- 329 specting vestibule for motorman.-Washington Ry, & Electric Co. v. District of Columbia, 10 501 F.(20) 999. Statute relating to motorman's yestibule held not impliedly repealed.-Id. SURETYSHIP. .... 804 See Principal and Surety. TARIFF. 558 See Customs Duties. 335 TAXATION. See Customs Duties; Internal Revenue. 390 V. LEVY AND ASSESSMENT. 387 (G) Review, Correction, or Setting Aside of Assessment. 480 (U.S.D.C.Colo.) Curative statute held .... 387 not to validate increase in assessment.-Holly Sugar Corporation v. Board of Com'rs of Mesa County, 10 F.(23) 506, ww482(1) (U.S.D.C.Colo.) Taxpayer must take notice at his peril of procedure prescribed by 322 taxation statutes.-Holly Sugar Corporation 510 v. Board of Com’rs of Mesa County, 10 F.(20) 322 506. Increase in assessment by board of equali- zation after statutory time for action held a 322 nullity.-Id. . .139, 759 926. Trade-Marks, etc. For cases in Dec.Dig, & Am.Dig. Key-No-Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER Om485(4) (U.S.D.C.Colo.) Boards of equaliza- him.-Booth Fisheries Co. v. Adams & Sons tion need not examine witnesses, or base ac- Grocer Co., 10 F.(20) 1007. tion on particular kind of evidence.-Holly Sugar Corporation v. Board of Com’rs of Mesa II. TITLE, CONVEYANCES, AND CONCounty, 10 F.(20) 506. TRACTS. VII. PAYMENT AND REFUNDING OR RE 31 (App.D.C.) Toilet preparations and prepCOVERY OF TAX PAID. arations for treatment of hair and hair dressings 542 (U.S.D.C.Colo.) Remedy against exces are goods of same descriptive properties.-Hosive tax levy is to pay under protest and sue Ro-Co Mfg. Co. v. Malone, 10 F.(20) 625. to recover.-Holly Sugar Corporation v. Board ww3l (App.D.C.) User, but not originator, of of Com’rs of Mesa County, 10 F.(20) 506. word “Palm," not entitled to same rights as originator.-Goodall Worsted Co. v. Palm KnitTIME. ting Co., 10 F.(20) 1013. Om2 (U.S.D.C.Mass.) Federal Standard Time Act held not exclusive of state action on same III. REGISTRATION, REGULATION, AND OFFENSES. subject-matter and not in conflict with daylight saving law of Massachusetts.-Massachu Om43 (App.D.C.) When trade-marks are apsetts State Grange v. Benton, 10 F.(20) 515. propriated to merchandise of same descriptive Omall (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Exceptions to fiction qualities stated. - American Tobacco Co. v. Gorthat day is an indivisible period of time stated. don, 10 F.(20) 646. -In re Gubelman, 10 F.(2d) 926. Registration of mark will not deprive opposer Account will not be taken of fractions of day, of any rights, and cases involving unfair competo defeat bankrupt's title to property.-Id. tition not pertinent.-Id. Cigarette holders and like merchandise held TORTS. not possessed of same "descriptive properties" See Collision; Negligence, On 18–136; Trover as cigarettes, within Trade-Mark Act.-Id. and Conversion. 43 (App.D.C.) "Cookieland" held not de scriptive, within meaning of Trade-Mark Act.TOWAGE. Loose-Wiles Biscuit Co. v. Johnson Educator Cum 3 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Libelant, having knowl-43 (App.D.C.) Men's hats and caps and Food Co., 10 F.(20) 656. edge of practice of shifting floats when oppor; suits and overcoats held to possess same detunity presented, is deemed to have consented scriptive qualities.-Kassman & Kessner v. Roto its float being shifted, without having given senberg Bros. Co., 10 F.(20) 904. formal order on failure to have its own tug ww43 (App.D.C.) Registration of trade-mark present.-The Cutchogue, 10 F.(20) 671. "Black Diamond” held not to preclude registracm3 (U.S.D.C.01.) Vessel held liable for tow tion of "Diamond A."-Booth Fisheries Co. v. age, where owner did not disavow service on Adams & Sons Grocer Co., 10 F.(23) 1007. being informed thereof.-The Trinidad, 10 Om 43 (App.D.C.) Registration of “Palm F.(21) 849. C8 (U.S.D.C.Or.) Evidence held to Beach” held not to preclude another's registrashow tion of “Palın-Knit" for use on similar goods. that agreed rate for services of tug in towing -Goodall Worsted Co. v. Palm Knitting Co., vessel was $250 per day.—The Trinidad, 10 10 F.(20) 1013. F.(20) 849. Oll(1) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Tug held not an insur Caw 43 (App.D.C.) Registration of mark “Puber.-The Morning Star, 10 F.(20) 538. lic Service Bond” precluded another's registra tion of "Public Safety Bond” for use on goods Tug only bound to exercise reasonable skill and care in performance of tow.-Id. of same descriptive properties.-Harlem Card Owll (4) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Evidence held to show & Paper Co. v. Taylor-Logan Co., Papermakers, master of tug made up tow in ordinary and 10 F.(20) 1014. customary method a prudent sea-going man m44 (App.D.C.) Question of similarity of would have employed under like conditions. trade-marks held not before court of appeal in The Morning Star, 10 F.(20) 538. registration proceedings.-Ho-Ro-Co Mfg. Co. 14 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Libelant, failing to an v. Malone, 10 F.(20) 625. In registration proceedings, question of opswer tug owner's letter exempting itself from liability for damages, after having previously poser's title, first raised on appeal, not con sidered.refused to accede to such conditions, is deemed to have consented.-The Cutchogue,' 10 F.(20) 44 (App.D.C.) Doubt as to whether goods 671. possess same descriptive qualities as other Owner cannot recover for damage to float, Kessner v. Rosenberg Bros. Co., 10 F.(20) 904. goods resolved against newcomer.-Kassman & after having failed to answer letter of tug owner exempting itself from liability, although own 44 (App.D.C.) Decision of Patent Office, er had first refused to accede to such condi- held res judicata.-Malone v. Hay, 10 F.(20) denying registration of particular trade-mark, tion.-Id. Cmw 14 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.). One who availed himself 44 (App.D.C.) Appellant in opposition pro 905. of services after refusing conditions thereof ceeding should bear costs of bringing. omitted assented to terms on which services were rendered.-The Cutchogue, 10 F.(2) 513. registrations into record by certiorari.-Booth One who has knowledge of custom of rail Fisheries Co. v. Adams & Sons Grocer Co., 10 road company to shift floats from bridge, by F.(20) 1007. failing to have tug ready to do shifting, au ww45 (App.D.C.) Registration of trade-mark thorized railroad company to do so.-Id. for use of various condiments held to preclude on salt.aww 15(2) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Tug not insurer, and registration of same mark for use loss of tow raises no presumption of fault E. A. Zatarain & Sons v. Ohio Salt Co., 10 against tug.-The Morning Star, 10 F.(20) 538. F.(2d) 655. Burden on libelant to show negligence of tug IV. INFRINGEMENT AND UNFAIR COMPEcaused loss of lighter.-Id. TITION. Evidence held to show loss of lighter was due to lighter's unseaworthiness.-Id. (B) What Competition Unlawful. TRADE-MARKS AND TRADE-NAMES Cm70(1). (App.D.C.) Rule affecting examinaAND UNFAIR COMPETITION. tion of similar marks stated.--Guggenheim v. Cantrell & Cochrane, 10 F.(20) 895. 1. MARKS AND NAMES SUBJECTS OF Cm70(2) (App.D.C.) “G & G” trade-mark for OWNERSHIP. ginger ale held to infringe established mark “C m2! (App.D.C.) One not originator of mark & C."--Guggenheim v. Cantrell & Cochrane, 10 entitled only to distinctive features added by F.(20) 895. |