« PreviousContinue »
To this class may be added such geographical names as are SECT. 64. actually used to indicate the source whence the articles are supplied. These are either descriptive if they are truly indicative of the source of supply, or are deceptive if they are such as to afford a delusive representation of quality by indicating a source whence the articles might be, but actually are not derived. (As to such deceptive trade marks, see sect. 73, post.) In either case they cannot be protected, e.g., " Angostura Bitters" in Siegert v. Findlater, Fry, J., 1878, 7 Ch. D. 801; 47 L. J. Ch. 233; 38 L. T. N. S. 349; 26 W. R. 459; "Anglo-Portuguese Oysters" in Re Saunion & Co., Jessel, M.R., 1878, Seb. Dig. No. 625; “India and China Tea" in India and China Tea Co. v. Teede, Romilly, M.R., 1871, W. N., p. 241; Radstock Coals" in Braham v. Beachim, Fry, J., 1878, 7 Ch. D. 848; 47 L. J. Ch. 348; 38 L. T. N. S. 640; 26 W. R. 654; where an injunction was only granted unless and until the defendant should acquire a colliery within the parish of Radstock, and be thus justified in using the name.
There are some names, however, which, though actually geographical, cannot be understood as indicating a source of supply, but were from the first used merely as fancy names; consequently they are not descriptive of the origin of the goods to which they are attached, and may therefore be appropriated. Such are the terms, "Persian Thread" in Taylor v. Taylor, Wood, V.-C., 1854, 2 Eq. Rep. 290; 23 L. J. Ch. 255; 22 L. T. 271; 'Ethiopian Stockings" in Hine v. Lart, Shadwell, V.-C., 1846, 10 Jur. 106; 7 L. T. 41; "Medicated Mexican Balm" in Perry v. Truefitt, Langdale, M. R., 1842, 6 Beav. 66; 1 L. T. 384; "Turin" and "Liverpool Shirts" in Hirst v. Denham, Bacon, V.-C., 1872, L. R. 14 Eq. 542; 41 L. J. Ch. 752; 27 L. T. N. S. 56; "Anatolia Liquorice" in M'Andrew v. Bassett, Westbury, L.C., 1864, 4 De G. J. & S. 380; 33 L. J. Ch. 566; 10 Jur. N. S. 550; 10 L. T. N. S. 442; 12 W. R. 777; "Glenfield Starch" in Wotherspoon v. Currie, H. L. 1872, L. R. 5 H. L. 508; 42 L. J. Ch. 130; 27 L. T. N. S. 393; "Strathmore Whisky" in Blair v. Stock, Kay, J., 1884, 52 L. T. N. S. 123.
As with all fancy names, the more extravagant the geographical name adopted the better; for then the most credulous will not be deceived by regarding it as indicating a certain source of supply or as furnishing a guarantee of quality see Young v. Macrae, Wood, V.-C., 1862, 9 Jur. N. S. 322.
The Merchandise Marks Act, 1862, sects. 7 and 8, renders liable to penalties every person who, with intent to defraud, places upon or sells any article with a false description of the place or country in which such article has been made or produced. And by sect. 20 a vendor of an article with a description thereon of the place or country where it has been made or produced is deemed to warrant that the description is true.
(iii.) Names of Inventors which have become descriptive.— 66 Liebig's Extract" in Liebig's Extract of Meat Co. v. Hanbury, Wood, V.-C., 1867, 17 L. T. N. S. 298; "Lieutenant James' Horse Blister" in James v. James, Romilly, M.R., 1872, L. R. 13 Eq. 421; 41 L. J. Ch. 353; 26 L. T. N. S. 568; 20 W. R. 434; 'Harvey's Sauce" in Lazenby v. White, C. A. 1871, 41 L. J. Ch. 354; "Allcock's Porous Plasters" in Re Brandreth, Jessel, M.R., 1878, Seb. Dig. No. 626; "Condy's Fluid" in Condy v. Mitchell, C. A. 1877, 37 L. T. N. S. 766; 26 W. R. 269; "Velno's Vegetable Syrup" in Canham v. Jones, Plumer, V.-C., 1813, 2 V. & B. 218; "Dr Johnson's Golden Ointment" in Singleton v. Bolton, K. B. 1783, 3 Doug. 293; "Burgess' Essence of Anchovies" in Burgess v. Burgess, C. A. 1853, 3 De G. M. & G. 896; 22 L. J. Ch. 675; 17 Jur. 292; 21 L. T. 53; "Tayler's Patent Solidheaded Pins" in Edelsten v. Vick, Wood, V.-C., 1853, 11 Hare 78; 18 Jur. 7; "Wheeler & Wilson" and "Singer" used to indicate sewing-machines of special contruction in Wheeler & Wilson Manufacturing Co. v. Shakespear, James, V.-C., 1869, 39 L. J. Ch. 36; and Singer Manufacturing Co. v. Loog, H. L. 1882, 8 App. Cas. 15; 52 L. J. Ch. 481; 48 L. T. N. S. 3; 31 W. R. 325; "Thorley's Food for Cattle" in Massam v. Thorley's Cattle Food Co., Malins, V.-C., 1877, 6 Ch. D. 574; 46 L. J. Ch. 707; 36 L. T. N. S. 848.
A trade mark consisting of an inventor's name may be “ completely personal as of necessity to import that the goods sold under it have been manufactured by a particular individual :” per Turner, L.J., Bury v. Bedford, 1864, 4 De G. J. & S. 352; 33 L. J. Ch. 465; 10 Jur. N. S. 503; 10 L. T. N. S. 470; 12 W. R. 726. In which case, if the business changed hands, the use of such a trade mark might become deceptive: see sect. 73.
But, on the other hand, "a name, though originally the name of the first maker, may in time become a mere trade mark or sign
of quality, and cease to denote or to be current as indicating that SECT. 64. any particular person is the maker. In many cases a name once affixed to a manufactured article continues to be used for generations after the death of the individual who first affixed it. In such cases the name is accepted in the market either as a brand of quality, or it becomes the denomination of the article itself, and is no longer a representation that the article is the manufacture of any particular person:" per Westbury, L.C., Hall v. Barrows, 1863, 4 De G. J. & S. 150; 33 L. J. Ch. 204; 10 Jur. N. S. 55; 9 L. T. N. S. 561; 12 W. R. 322; and in Leather Cloth Co. v. American Leather Cloth Co., 4 De G. J. & S. 137; 33 L. J. Ch. 199; 10 Jur. N. S. 81; 9 L. T. N. S. 558; 12 W. R. 289: see Singer Machine Manufacturers v. Wilson, H. L. 1878, 3 App. Cas. 376; 47 L. J. Ch. 481 ; 38 L. T. N. S. 303; 26 W. R. 664.
It has been held that the name of an inventor, which by judicial decision has been declared open to the trade as the proper description of an article made in accordance with the original recipe, cannot be registered even in combination with the portrait of the original inventor, for the portrait itself is not under the circumstances a sufficiently distinctive device: In re Anderson's Trade Mark, Chitty, J., 1884, 26 Ch. D. 409; 53 L. J. Ch. 664; 32 W. R. 677.
Letters.-Under the Act of 1875 a single letter could not be registered: In re Mitchell's Trade Mark, Hall, V.-C., 1877, 7 Ch. D. 36; 46 L. J. Ch. 876; 26 W. R. 326.
In the case of new marks a combination of letters can only be registered in conjunction with an essential particular as described in sub-sect. I; in the case of old marks such combinations of letters alone have always been regarded as good trade marks and are registrable.
Illustrative Cases.—(i.) “H. H.” and a number denoting size for use on plough-shares: Ransome v. Bentall, Shadwell, V.-C., 1833, 3 L. J. Ch. 161.
(ii.) “M. C." for use on tin-plates: Motley v. Downman, Cottenham, L.C., 3 My. & C. 1; 6 L. J. Ch. 308.
(iii.) "J. H." for use on steel: Millington v. Fox, Cottenham, L.C., 1838, 3 My. & C. 338.
(iv.) "W. C." for use on iron: Crawshay v. Thompson, C. P. 1842, 4 Man. & G. 357; 11 L. J. C. P. 301.
It is more usual, however, to find letters printed in some distinctive manner or in conjunction with an additional device. Illustrative Cases.—(i.) "C. B." in conjunction with a cross upon labels for cotton: Cartier v. Carlile, Romilly, M.R., 1862, 31 Beav. 292; 8 Jur. N. S. 183.
(ii.) “B. B. H.” with a crown upon iron: Hall v. Barrows, Westbury, L.C., 1863, 4 De G. J. & S. 150; 33 L. J. Ch. 204; 10 Jur. N. S. 55; 9 L. T. N. S. 561; 12 W. R. 322; In re Barrows' Trade Mark, C. A. 1877, 5 Ch. D. 364; 46 L. J. Ch. 725; 36 L. T. N. S. 780; 25 W. R. 564.
(iii.) “J. O. B. S.” inscribed in the spaces formed by crossed arrows with a lion couchant beneath, used upon steel goods: Bury v. Bedford, C. A. 1864, 4 De G. J. & S. 352; 33 L. J. Ch. 465; 10 Jur. N. S. 503; 10 L. T. N. S. 470 ; 12 W. R. 726. .
(iv.) "M. & C." in a circle upon champagne bottles: Moet v. Clybouw, Jessel, M.R., 1877, Seb. Dig. No. 533; Moet v. Pickering, C. A. 1878, 8 Ch. D. 372; 47 L. J. Ch. 527; 38 L. T. N. S. 799; 26 W. R. 637.
Trade marks consisting wholly of a letter or letters, or of a combination of letters, can only be registered provided they are old marks; but trade marks composed of letters in combination with a distinctive device may be registered whether they be old or new see sub-sect. 2.
In the case of new marks, however, the device only is the essential particular, and there is nothing to prevent the same letters being registered with another device: see In re Horsburgh, Jessel, M.R., 1878, 53 L. J. Ch. 237; 50 L. T. N. S. 23; 32 W. R. 530. As to representative registration, see sect. 66. As to registration of a trade mark with disclaimer of so much thereof as is common to the trade, see sect. 74.
Figures here mean numerical figures: Ex parte Stephens, Jessel, M.R., 1876, 3 Ch. D. 659; 46 L. J. Ch. 46; 24 W. R. 963.
65. A trade mark must be registered for particular
mark with goods or classes of goods.
This is taken from sect. 2 of the Act of 1875. As to the classification of goods, see Rule 6 and the third schedule there referred
to. A guide to the classification of goods under the rules may be SECT. 66. obtained at the Patent Office: see Instruction 20.
The Act of 1875, sect. 6, and Rule 19 thereunder, contained a prohibition against the registration without leave of the court in respect of the same goods or classes of goods of a trade mark identical with one already registered in respect of such goods or classes of goods. The restriction in future will relate only to "the same goods or description of goods," see sect. 72; and there is nothing to prevent the registration of identical marks for goods in the same class, provided such goods are not the same nor of the same description. Consequently the value of the division of goods into the classes specified in Rule 6 and the third schedule is not very evident.
Subdivision of Classes.-Under the Act of 1875 the registration of a trade mark similar to one already on the register for goods essentially different though belonging to the same class was sometimes permitted by the court both in the case of old marks (In re Lysaght, Jessel, M.R., 1878, Seb. Dig. No. 623; In re Rabone, Jessel, M.R., 1879, Seb. Dig. No. 643; Ex parte Barrow & Co., Jessel, M.R., 1877, W. N., p. 119), and in the case of new marks (In re Jelley, Son, & Jones' Trade Mark, Jessel, M.R., 1878, 51 L. J. Ch. 639; 46 L. T. N. S. 381; Re Braby & Co.'s Trade Mark, North, J., 1882, 21 Ch. D. 223; 51 L. J. Ch. 637 ; 46 L. T. N. S. 380; 30 W. R. 675; but see Re Hargreaves' Trade Mark, Hall, V.-C., 1879, 11 Ch. D. 669; 27 W. R. 550). See further, as to subdivision of classes, sect. 72; the subdivision is effected by inserting on the register an undertaking restricting the user of the trade mark: see notes to sect. 62; In re Rabone & Co., ubi supra; and In re Mitchell and Houghton and Hall-mark's Trade Marks, Chitty, J., 1885, 28 Ch. D. 666; 33 W. R. 408.
of a series
66. When a person claiming to be the proprietor Registration of several trade marks which, while resembling each of marks. other in the material particulars thereof, yet differ in respect of (a.) the statement of the goods for which they are respectively used or proposed to be used, or (b.) statements of numbers, or (c.) statements of price, or