invented according to law, yet no old manufacture in 5. Nor mischievous to the State by raising of prices of 6. Nor to hurt of trade. This is very material and evident. 7. Nor generally inconvenient." Bircot's Case is not now law, having been again and again expressly overruled; therefore, the above remarks as to additions in number four above do not now apply. The gist of four, five, six, and seven, are expressed in the form of letters patent in the first schedule to the Act, form D. "Provided that these our letters patent are on this condition, that if at any time during the said term, it be made to appear to us, our heirs, or successors, or any six or more of our Privy Council, that this our grant is contrary to law or prejudicial or inconvenient to our subjects in general, or that the said invention is not a new invention as to the public use and exercise thereof within our United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the Isle of Man, or that the said patentee is not the first and true inventor thereof within the realm as aforesaid, these, our letters patent, shall forthwith determine and be void to all intents and purposes, notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained." PART III. DESIGNS. Registration of Designs. for regis 47. (1.) The comptroller may, on1 application (c) Application by or on behalf of any person claiming to be the tration of proprietor (a) of any new or original (d) design (b) designs. Form of application. not previously published in the United Kingdom, register the design under this part of this Act. (2.) The application1 must be made in the form set forth in the first schedule to this Act, or in such other form as may be from time to time prescribed, and must be left at, or sent by post to,2 the patent office in the prescribed manner (c). (3.) The application must contain a statement of the nature of the design (e), and the class or classes of goods1 in which the applicant desires that the design be registered (ƒ). (4.) The same design may be registered in more than one class. (5.) In case of doubt as to the class in which a design ought to be registered, the comptroller may decide the question.5 (6.) The comptroller may,5 if he thinks fit, refuse to register any design presented to him for registration, but any person aggrieved by any such refusal may appeal therefrom to the Board of Trade. 6 (7.) The Board of Trade shall, if required, hear the applicant and the comptroller, and may make an order determining whether, and subject to what conditions (if any), registration is to be permitted.s 1 By the designs rules the application for the registration of a design must be made in the form E, in the second schedule thereof. See page 256. And the size of the papers, etc., must be of the dimensions required by rule 8, unless the comptroller in any particular case may vary the requirements of the rule. See page 243. Ap plications must be signed by applicants (see rule 8, page 243); or by agent of applicant (see rule 6, page 242). 2 For rule as to applications sent by post, see rule 12, Post. page 244. 3 In describing the nature of the design the applicant Nature of must state whether it is applicable for the pattern or for design. the shape or configuration of the design, and the means by which it is applicable. See rule 9, page 243. tion of 4 For purposes of the registration of designs and of the Classificarules, goods are classified in the manner appearing in the third schedule to these rules, see page 255. of decision. 5 The decision or determination of the comptroller in the Notification exercise of these discretionary powers must be notified to the applicant. See rule 15. 6 For rules as to hearing by comptroller, and notice Hearing by comptroller. required to be given, see rules 13-15. appeal and 7 Notice of appeal to the Board of Trade upon the deci- Notice of sion of the comptroller must be left at the patent office statement (designs branch), within a month of the date of the decision of case. appealed against, and must be in the form F in the second schedule to the rules (see page 257), and be accompanied with a statement of the case written upon foolscap paper (on one side only), with a margin of two inches on the lefthand side. A copy must also be sent to the Secretary of the Board of Trade, No. 7, Whitehall Gardens, London. 8 For rules as to appeal to and hearing by the Board of Rules as to Trade, see rules 16-20, pp. 245, 246. (a) For definition of "proprietor," sce s. 61. (b) For definition of "design," see s. 60. hearing of Proprietors. may be sent (c) Application may be sent by a prepaid letter through Application the post, and if so sent shall be deemed to have been left, by post. made, or given respectively at the time when the letter containing the same would be delivered in the ordinary course of post. In proving such sending it shall be sufficient to prove that the letter was properly addressed and put into the post. H New and original combination of old designs. (d) Combinations of old designs may be new and original. In the case of Harrison and another v. Taylor, 3 H. & N. 301, the plaintiffs registered under 5 & 6 Vict. c. 100, a design for ornamenting woven fabrics. The design was applied to a fabric woven in cells, called the honeycomb pattern, and consisted of a combination of the large and small honeycomb, so as to form a large honeycomb stripe on a small honeycomb ground. The large honeycomb was not new, and the small honeycomb was not new, but they had never been used in combination before the plaintiffs registered their design. Other fabrics had been woven with a similar combination of large and small pattern. The defendants having infringed the plaintiff's copyright an action was brought against them by the plaintiffs, and it was held that the design was not new and original within the meaning of 5 & 6 Vict. c. 100. This decision was, however, reversed on appeal, on the ground that it was a question for the jury, who had found that the design was new and original, and that they were warranted in so doing. In giving judgment in this case, Chief Justice Cockburn pointed out that the "5 & 6 Vict. c. 100 (the same words, 'new and original design,' are retained in the above section) applies to matters adapted to the ornamentation of any article of manufacture; but the Court of Exchequer seems to have dealt with the subject upon the assumption that there was an analogy between copyright in a design and a patent for an invention. This is a question to be determined by the eye. Is it a design in the sense of a drawing? That is a question for a jury. It is true that in this case the design consists in using the honeycomb pattern alternately in small and large proportions, and I agree that it would not have been competent for the plaintiff to register this design as against a person having a copyright in the honeycomb pattern; but no person has a copyright, and as the matter is simply one in which the public at large are interested, there is nothing to prevent the plaintiff from taking the original pattern, and varying it to a certain extent, and registering the whole as a new design. That leads to the question-Is it in its present shape-viz., the combination of large and small patterns-a new design? That is a matter of which anybody may satisfy himself by looking at it. There is a new combination, which is, in substance, a new design." (29 L. J. Ex. 3). See also The Queen v. Firmin, 15th Vol. Justice of the Peace. A combination, to be protected, must be one design, and not a multiplicity of designs. Norton v. Nicholls, 28 L. J. Q. B. 225. A design consisting of six pointed stars on an Albert chain, arranged in a particular manner, and shaded, can be protected as a combination, although each part is old. Holdsworth v. M'Crea, L. R. 2 H. L. 380. The subject of registration is a design, and not the article to which it is applied. Norton v. Nicholls, 28 L. J. Q. B. 225. Where there were four old designs respectively applied to three ribbons and a button, and the three ribbons were then united by the button so as to form a badge, which was registered under the Act, Vice-Chancellor Wood held that the union did not amount to a new design within the statute, and an injunction to restrain the manufacture and sale of a similar combination was refused. Mulloney v. Stevens, 10 L. T. (N. S.) 190. The plaintiff registered, under 5 & 6 Vict. c. 100, a design consisting of a double card-basket, formed of a combination of two baskets, admitted to be separately old in design. The plaintiffs were not the designers, but had contracted to purchase the articles in Germany, and imported them to England. Held, upon motion for an injunction to restrain the sale of an imitation basket, that the articles were not new and original within the meaning of the Act, and that the plaintiffs, not being the designers, and not having purchased the design for value, were not entitled to the protection of the statute. Lazarus v. Charles, L. R. 16 Eq. 117. Lazarus v. |