Reports of Patent, Design, and Trade Mark Cases, Volume 36Published at the Patent Office Sales Branch, 1919 - Design protection |
Other editions - View all
Common terms and phrases
action Aktiengesellschaft alleged invention aluminium Alundum amendment Applicants Avery Board of Trade British British Thomson-Houston Company Burford Company of Western Complete Specification cyanogen bromide Defendants described DESIGN device distinctive evidence extraction fact Fleming valve front wheels Gold Ore Treat Gold Ore Treatment Golden Horseshoe Estates granted Gray K.C. guard ILLUSTRATED OFFICIAL JOURNAL infringement injunction Interrogatories invalid judgment Letters Patent Liquidation London General Omnibus Lords machine Mann manufacture Marconi Company MARK CASES Vol matter milk motor vehicles OFFICIAL JOURNAL PATENTS paragraph Particulars of Breaches Particulars of Objections Patent Agents Petition Petitioners Plaintiff Company potassium cyanide Power Flexible Tubing prior user Pullman question rear wheels referred registered Registrar of Trade remuneration REPORTS OF PATENT Rito Shoe sold solution solvent Statement of Claim stitch-down boots subject-matter substantially Sulman surname TRADE MARK tramcar Treatment Company tungsten upper valve Western Australia Ld word XXXVI Y-TO zinc
Popular passages
Page 263 - provided that no amendment shall be allowed that would make the Specification as amended claim an invention substantially larger than, or substantially different from, the invention claimed by the Specification as it stood before the amendment. On the construction of this Section two things are clear, first, that the allowance or
Page 146 - served to distinguish the goods of the proprietor of the Trade Mark from those of other persons, and it was desired to extend the advantage gained by registration to those surnames which the Court might consider " distinctive marks," on a review of all the circumstances of the case.
Page 263 - because, in his opinion, the proposed amendment makes the Specification as amended claim an invention substantially different from the invention claimed by the Specification as it stood before the amendment, and, secondly, because in the exercise of his discretion he did not think fit to allow it.
Page 147 - any other distinctive mark," that is " a mark adapted to distinguish the goods " of the proprietor of the Trade Mark from those of other persons." The Section further provides that any name, signature, or word or words, which does not fall
Page 264 - point." The question is whether the Specification after that amendment would claim an invention substantially different from the invention claimed by the Specification as it stood before the amendment. The proposed amendment is carefully drawn so as to be in form by way of disclaimer. In my opinion, however, the real effect of it is to import into the Specification for the first time the element
Page 206 - infringement of which complaint is made." Then Rule 21 provides that : " At ' the hearing of any action, petition, or counterclaim relating to a Patent no ' evidence shall, except by leave of the Court, .... be admitted in proof of ' any alleged infringement. . . not raised in the Particulars of Breaches." The Plaintiffs by paragraph 2 of their Particulars of Breaches do give
Page 263 - disallowance of an amendment is in the discretion of the Court, and, secondly, that no amendment, even if it be in form by way of disclaimer, is to be allowed if it would make the Specification as amended claim an invention substantially different from the invention claimed by the Specification as it stood before the amendment. The
Page 263 - amended claim an invention substantially different from the invention claimed by the Specification as it stood before the amendment. The learned Judge has refused to allow the amendment, first,
Page 263 - subject to such terms as to costs or otherwise as the Court may think fit, provided that no amendment shall be allowed that would make the Specification as amended claim an invention substantially
Page 172 - himself in relation to the matters to be investigated as to create in the mind of a reasonable man a suspicion that he may have such a bias. Applying that principle to the facts of this case, it is in my opinion impossible to deny that the conduct of the Council in preferring and supporting the charges