Society of Accountants and Auditors v. Goodway.

ciation thereupon issued a circular in which they (after stating that they had had that section under their consideration and expressing an opinion that the Association is an Incorporated Society of Accountants within the meaning of the section, and that members of the Association are entitled to the privileges thereby conferred) proceeded to state that they were of opinion that "the most 5 "correct designation which members can adopt, especially having regard to "the Act of Parliament quoted above, is that of Incorporated Accountant; but "in view of the fact that this decription has been adopted by many of the "members of another body, the Council recommend that the abbreviation 'London "Association' should be added. In the opinion of the Council the body 10 "referred to " that is the Plaintiff Society-"has no exclusive right to the title "in question" that is Incorporated Accountant-which can be used by the "members of the Association with the addition of the abbreviation mentioned." They have asserted here, as I understand it, without doubt, the right to use the title "Incorporated Accountant" without the addition of "London Association"; 15 but I do not think that very much matters, because it seems to me, having heard all the evidence I have, that the addition "London Association really makes very little difference if the words " Incorporated Accountant " have that meaning which I think they have. People probably do not know the exact name of the Society the membership of which confers the right to use the 20 name "Incorporated Accountant," and the addition of the words "London Association" would tell those persons nothing. The important thing is that they recommend the use of the term "Incorporated Accountant." Are they justified in doing that? First I desire to deal with the Defendant George Albert Goodway who uses that term. He uses the term "Incorporated Accountant" 25 on his letter paper and other business documents, and he puts "London "Association "in very small letters indeed afterwards; and I think on that there is no question that he is doing that which is calculated to lead people to believe that he is a member of the Plaintiff Society.

Now can the Plaintiff Society complain? That is the next question I come 30 to. Is Goodway, by doing that, inflicting an injury on the Plaintiff Society? That is a new point in England. I know of no case, and no case has been cited to me, in which the question has been decided whether an incorporated body such as the Plaintiffs can be regarded as suffering a legal injury from someone else, who is not entitled to call himself a member of the 35 Society, representing himself to be a inember. A case of that nature did come before the Court of Session in Scotland. It was decided first by the Lord Ordinary-Lord Kyllachy-in the Outer House, and it afterwards went into the Inner House, which is equivalent to our Court of Appeal, where it was dealt with by the Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Young, Lord Rutherford Clarke and Lord 40 Traynor. The Lord Ordinary and all the learned Judges of the Inner House agreed that the plaintiffs in that case were entitled to the interdict (equivalent to an English injunction), which they sought, and the interdict which they sought was this. The Plaintiffs were three Chartered Societies of Accountants in Scotland-one in Edinboro', one in Glasgow, and one in Aberdeen. Their 45 members were accustomed to use, as their professional designation, the letters "C.A." after their names, indicating that they were Chartered Accountants; and it was established that those letters, when used after a person's name, denoted that he was a member of one or other of those Societies. The Defendants were a limited company called "The Corporation of Accountants," and 50 two individual persons who were members of that Company. The two individual defendants asserted a right to call themselves "Corporate Accountants as being members of the Corporation of Accountants and (this was the point) to use the letters "C.A." as the abbreviation of "Corporate Accountant." The Lord Ordinary and the Lords of the Inner House unanimously came to the 55

Society of Accountants and Auditors v. Goodway.

conclusion that the Chartered Societies, which were Plaintiffs, were entitled to prevent the Defendants from using the letters "C.A.," or any other similar designation which would lead the people to believe that they were members of those Chartered Societies. It is quite true that in arriving at that decision, the Lord 5 Ordinary emphasises the fact that the Plaintiff Societies there were Chartered Societies, and that it might be said that what the Defendants were doing was an infringement of the Charter; but I think that the judgments of the Court there -not only of the Lord Ordinary, but especially the judgments of the Inner House-were put on a much wider ground, namely, that a body, however 10 incorporated, has a right to prevent persons who are not members of it from representing themselves to be members of it. In this particular case it seems to me that there is very little difficulty in coming to that conclusion, and for this reason. It is established by the evidence that membership of the body confers a status-a valuable privilege therefore to its members. It is a pecuniary 15 value to the Society that it should have as many members as possible. Obviously the possession of this definite status arising from the fact of membership is an inducement to persons to become members; and anything, which would reduce the value of that status, would tend to remove some of the inducement which would actuate people in becoming members of the Society. It seems to me, 20 therefore, that, looked at in that way, there is a pecuniary interest in the Society in preventing persons who are not its members, and not entitled to the status it confers, from representing that they are its members and that they are entitled to that status. Therefore on the authority of the case to which I have referred (which is reported in the 20th volume of the Fourth Series of 25 the Court of Session cases in Scotland), and on principle, it seems to me that the unauthorised use of the term "Incorporated Accountant," representing, as I think it does on the facts, that the person who uses it is a member of the Society, does inflict a legal injury on the Plaintiff Society for which they are entitled to relief.

30

With regard to the Association, the matter stands on a somewhat different footing. The Association of course are not themselves practising as accountants, and in that sense using the term; but they are, for the purpose of advantage to themselves-namely, to induce as many people to become members of their Association as may be-holding out to accountants at large that 35 if they become members of their Society they will be entitled to the use of the words "Incorporated Accountant," with such advantage as the use of that term will confer. If I am right in saying that the Plaintiffs have a pecuniary interest in maintaining the term as a term of membership of their Society, then it seems to me that they have a pecuniary interest in preventing 40 the Defendant Association from striving, by means of those representations and inducements which it is holding out to members of the profession, to attempt to reduce the status of members of the Plaintiffs' Society by conferring improperly an indication of that status-I do not say the status itself, but an indication of that status-by the use of the term with which I have to deal.

45

It seems to me, therefore, on the whole, that the Plaintiffs are entitled to an injunction against the Defendant Goodway to restrain him from using the words, practically in the terms (which I need not read) of the first paragraph of the claiming part of the Statement of Claim; and, against the Association, in the terms of the second claiming paragraph of the Statement of Claim. But 50 I think in order to make that second paragraph quite plain, and to make sure that it does not go too far, there ought to be added to it the same words that are added at the end of the first paragraph, namely, "entitled to use any such “designation as aforesaid in such way as to represent or lead to the belief that "their members are members of the Plaintiff Society." With that the injunction 55 will be right.

Society of Accountants and Auditors v. Goodway.

After some discussion,

WARRINGTON J.-I think the proper thing to do is to give the Plaintiffs the general costs of the action, except so far as they have been increased by the allegation contained in the last sentence of paragraph 11 of the Statement of Claim; and, so far as the costs have been increased by that allegation, the 5 Plaintiffs ought to pay the costs.

Terrell K.C. asked for a stay of execution in view of an appeal.

WARRINGTON J.-I do not think the suspension of the injunction will hurt the Plaintiffs. The fact that this injunction has been granted will to some extent operate.

Rowden K.C.-I shall not object, but the Defendants must be prompt. WARRINGTON J.-I will suspend the injunction against both the Defendants on their undertaking to give notice of appeal within fourteen days, and to prosecute the appeal with due diligence.

10

In the Matter of Van Gelder's Patents.

IN THE PRIVY COUNCIL.

Present: LORDS MACNAGHTEN, DAVEY, ROBERTSON, and ATKINSON.

November 20th, 1906, and February 14th, 1907.

IN THE MATTER OF VAN GELDER'S PATENTS.

5

Patent.-Petition for prolongation.—Invention not possessing exceptional merit.-Absolute assignment by Patentee. - Death of Patentee. - Petition presented by assignee.-Petition dismissed.

Two Patents were granted in 1892 to G. for improvements in machines for separating dust from air. In 1893 these Patents were absolutely assigned by G., 10 and in 1906 the assignee presented a Petition for prolongation of both Patents. G. had after the assignment become bankrupt and died, and would have derived no advantage from the prolongation if he had been alive. The Petitioner alleged that he had incurred considerable expenses in endeavouring to procure the adoption of the inventions and otherwise in relation to the Patents, and had 15 received no adequate return, partly owing to the opposition of the manufacturers of a machine made under a previous Patent and partly owing to licensees not sufficiently pushing the inventions.

Held, that the inventions were not shown to possess that exceptional merit which would justify prolongation, and on this ground, as well as on the 20 ground that neither the Patentee nor his estate would reap any advantage from the prolongation, the Petition was dismissed.

25

30

On the 22nd of November 1892 Letters Patent (No. 21,218 of 1892) were granted to Pieter Van Gelder for an invention of "Improvements in or "appertaining to machines for separating dust or like particles from air or "other gases. On the 13th of December of the same year Letters Patent (No. 22,919 of 1892) were granted to the same Patentee for an invention having a substantially similar title. The Patents were on the 31st of January 1893 assigned to W. P. Thompson, who on the 21st of May 1906 presented a Petition for prolongation of both Patents.

The Petition, after stating the above facts, and that the Patentee, or the Petitioner, had at the expense of the latter obtained Patents in several foreign countries for the inventions, all of which Patents had lapsed with the exception

In the Matter of Van Gelder's Patents.

of the United States Patents, and that the Petitioner had received no return for any of them except in one case in which the amount received in royalties had not reimbursed him for the expenses and fees relating to the same, and, after alleging a reason why the foreign Patents generally were unsuccessful, contained (inter alia) the following statements :

5

"4. The inventions for which the said Letters Patent were granted related "to improvements in machines for freeing air and other gases from dust. The principal use of such machine is for cleaning the air of mills and factories, "more especially flour mills. Before the introduction of machines of this type "the air of mills had been systematically cleansed by being passed through 10 filtering cloths at great expense or passed into enormous chambers at the top "of the building where the dust in large part gradually settled. An efficient "machine for this purpose is a great public benefit, since such dust-laden air is "injurious to the workers in the mill, and is also a frequent cause of fires. It "is also extremely important that a machine for this purpose should be of 15 "small bulk and be able to be fitted to existing mills with the minimum "amount of interference with the structure. The principle of the said "machines is the introduction of a chamber through which the air of the "mill must pass, in which chamber the air forms a vortex, and the centrifugal "force of the vortex causes the dust to fly to the outer walls and slide down 20 "them, the air returning in a central vortex, and flying out at the top. The "choice of the most efficient and convenient form of chamber for this purpose "and the arrangement of the same was a matter of great difficulty, since the "theory regarding the direction and velocity of the current under different "conditions was imperfectly developed. Very small changes in the form and 25 66 arrangement of the chamber make very great differences in the practical "result, and long and careful experiment was needed to determine the form of "the machine, which should be efficient in cleansing and at the same time be "of small bulk and convenient both for manufacture and installation. At the "date when the said Pieter Van Gelder applied for the said Letters Patent 30 "the only machine of the same type on the market was that known as the "Cyclone.' This was a machine in which the vortex separating chamber was "conical in shape. The said Pieter Van Gelder had also made certain applica"tions for Letters Patent, No. 20,030 of the year 1889, and No. 1911 and "No. 9398 of the year 1891, in which it was proposed to use a settling 35 "chamber of a conical or pyramidal shape. In these machines the smaller end "of the cone or pyramid was at the bottom, where the dust exit was, the air "entering tangentially at the larger end. In the said Letters Patent, No. 21,218 "of the year 1892, the said Pieter Van Gelder proposed to make the vortex "chamber of a cylindrical or prismatic shape, and to provide a flat bottom for 40 "the same, having ribs on it so placed as to guide the dust to a central exit, "the cleansed air escaping as usual from the top. This form is covered by the "first claiming clause of the said Letters Patent. As an alternative he mentioned 66 a cone or pyramid with the larger end downwards, and this also is included "in the second claiming clause, but was never used except experimentally, as 45 "the parallel chamber was just as good, easier to make, and took up less room. "In Letters Patent No. 22,919 of the year 1892 a variant form of machine was "described, in which the dust in the cylindrical or prismatic vortex chamber "passed down the walls of the chamber into a small circumferential opening "made in the floor of this chamber into a quiescent chamber below, while the 50 "air free from the dust made a second upward vortex in the central portion "not coming near the separated dust as it would if there were a cone, and escaping at the top. The lower chamber was provided with means for "removing the dust. In the said Letters Patent means were also provided for "cleansing the chambers. These two Patents were one complementary in a 55 "great measure of the other, and almost every machine made, and your

66