TRADE-MARKS-Continued.

Merrick Thread Co., C. D., 1893, 373; 63 O. G., 1531; 149 U. S., 866, and other authorities cited.) *Meyer v. Dr. B. L. Bull Vegetable Medicine Company, 197. 12. SAME-RIGHT TO USE ONE'S OWN NAME IN TRADE-While the right of no one can be denied to employ his name in connection with his business or with articles of his own production, so as to show the business or product to be his, yet he is not allowed to designate his article by his own name in such way as to cause it to be mistaken for the manufacture or goods of another already on the market under the same or similar name. (Brown Chemical Co. v. Meyer, C. D., 1891, 346; 55 O. G., 287; 139 U. S., 540; Lawrence Mfg. Co. v. Tennessee Mfg. Co., C. D., 1891, 415; 55 O. G., 1528; 138 U. S., 537.) *Id.

18. INTENTION TO ADOPT-Sales of medical preparations in this country by a foreign manufacturer, to a limited extent, npon special orders, to supply particular customers, do not amount to use in such circumstances as to publicity and to such length of use as show an intention to adept a symbol placed upon such preparations as a Trade-Mark. (Kohler Mannfg. Co. v. Beshore, ante, 277; 67 O. G.. 678: 59 Fed. Rep., 572, followed; Richter v. Anchor Remedy Co., 52 Fed. Rep., 455, affirmed.) Richter v. Reynolds et al., 260.

14. REGISTRY AS EVIDENCE OF INTENTION-The registry of a Trade-Mark under the act of March 3, 1881, may be evidence in a snit to restrain infringement of a common-law Trade-Mark used for the same article in domestic commerce to show what complainant really claimed. (Kohler Manufg. Co. v Beshore, ante, 277; 67 O. G., 678; 59 Fed. Rep., 572, followed.) *Id. 15. SAME-The registry of a Trade-Mark, the essential feature of which is described as "the representation of a red anchor in an oval space," is not proof of intention to adopt a Trade-Mark consisting of the word "Anchor" and the symbol of an anchor, irrespective of color and surroundings. (Richter v. Anchor Remedy Co., 52 Fed. Rep., 455, affirmed.) *Id.

16. TREATY WITH GERMANY-CONSTRUCTION-The treaty of 1871, between the United States and Germany, (article 17, 17 Stat., 931,) which provides that, with regard to the marks of labels of goods or of their packages, the citizens of Germany shall enjoy in the United States the same protection as native citizens, does not give to a citizen of Germany who has acquired the right to a Trade-Mark in that country a similar right to the Trade-Mark in the United States. *Id.

17. INTENTION TO ADOPT-Sales of a few dozen bottles of a medicinal preparation, with written labels affixed, bearing a name different from that previously used for such preparation, do not amount to use in such circumstances as ro publicity and to such length of use as to show an intention to adopt the written words as a Trade-Mark. (C. D., 1893, 179; 62 O. G., 592; 53 Fed. Rep., 262, affirmed.) *Kohler Manufacturing Company v. Beshore, 277. 18. REGISTRY AS EVIDENCE OF INTENTION-Although registration of a TradeMark under the act of March 3, 1881, may not prevent the adoption of another device as a common-law Trade-Mark for the same article in domestic markets. such registry may be evidence, in a suit to restrain infringement of such common law Trado-Mark, to show what complainant really claimed. *Id.

19. STATEMENT TO OBTAIN REGISTRATION -In such suit the statement fled to obtain registration and attached to the affidavits on motion for a preliminary injunction may be considered on the final hearing. *Id.

20. INFRINGEMENT—“One Night Cure," used as a Trade-Mark for a cough remedy and for a corn remedy, is not infringed by the use of the words "Beshore's One Night Cough Cure," (C. D., 1893, 179; 62 O. G., 592; 53 Fed. Rep., 262, affirmed.)

Id.

TRADE-MARKS-Continued.

21. INJUNCTION-QUACK MEDICINES-Query whether equity will intervene by injunction to protect the use of words claimed as a Trade-Mark between owners of quack medicines. *Id.

22. WORDS MAKING FALSE ASSERTION-It seems that an injunction should not be granted to protect the use of words as the Trade-Mark of a medicinal preparation which assert a manifest falsehood or physiological impossibility. *Id. 23. APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION— DIVISION-ONE REGISTRATION MAY EMBRACE SEVeral Different ARTICLES-There is no authority for requiring division of an application for the registration of a Trade-Mark to accord with the subdivisions of the Office classification. Ex parte Silvers, 54. 24. TRADE-MARKS-RIGHT TO-ALIENS MAY SUE IN UNITED STATES COURTS— Citizens of Canada who are engaged in the manufacture of trade-marked articles and who have a place of business in the State of New York, where they make and ship such articles for sale in the United States, are within the International Convention of March 20, 1883, for the protection of industrial property, and they may sue in the United States courts for the infringement of their Trade-Marks by its citizens. *Kerry et al. v. Toupin, 302. 25. SAME-WHAT CONSTITUTES—INFRINGEMENT-Complainants manufactured a medicinal compound under the name of "Syrup of Red Spruce Gum," and for some twenty years or more that name was placed conspicuously on the package in which the compound was sold, and in connection therewith appeared a cut of an Indian against a background of spruce-trees and a waterfall. Held that the adoption and continuous use of this distinctive name and device entitle complainants to claim it as a Trade-Mark and to be protected against its infringement by persons making similar goods. *Id. 26. IN AN APPLICATION FOR THE REGISTRATION OF A TRADE-MARK the Value Of THE REGISTRATION DETERMINES THE AMOUNT OF MONEY INVOLVED-The refusal of the Commissioner of Patents to register a Trade-Mark does not involve the right to the Trade-Mark, but the registration of the Mark, and it is the value of the registration and not the value of the Trade-Mark that determines the sum of money involved. *Cnited States ex rel. the State of South Carolina v. Commissioner of Patents, 318.

27 CONTROVERSY AS TO THE EXTENT OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS UNDER THE TRADE-MARK LAW-DOES NOT INVOLVE THE VALIDITY OF AN AUTHORITY EXERCISED THEREUNDER-Where upon the refusal of the Commissioner to register a Trade-Mark a writ of mandamus was unsuccessfully sought against him, upon the ground that upon the facts submitted his duty was ministerial and not discretionary, no objection to the validity of the Trade-Mark law under which the Commissioner acted being made, nor the existence or lawfulness of his authority thereunder being drawn in question, and the only controversy upon the proceedings being as to the construction of the law as to the extent of the Commissioner's authority, Held that such controversy did not draw into question the validity of an authority exercised under the United States. *Id. 28. NUMERALS APPLIED TO SPECIFIC REMEDIES-Numerals used by a medicine company to identify specific remedies for various ailments are in effect descriptive terms, and their use will not be protected as a Trade-Mark. *Humphreys Homeopathic Medicine Company v. Hilton, 324. "BROMO-QUININE" — DESCRIPTION MISREPRESENTATION REGISTRATION REFUSED "Bromo-Quinine" is a compound word descriptive of the preparation to which it is applied, indicating that it contains bromine or a bromide and quinine. If it does not contain bromide, the description is false, and in either case the term is not a valid Trado-Mark. Ex parte Grove, 69. 30. INFRINGEMENT-SOCIAL REGISTER-The words "Social Register," as applied to a list of persons resident in a certain locality, compiled by its publisher 10693 PAT-48

29.

TRADE-MARKS-Continued.

with reference to the personal and social standing of such persons, consti-
tute a valid Trade-Mark, and their use by the publisher of a competing list
will be restrained. *Social Register Association v. Howard, 336.

31. TRADE-MARK-INFRINGEMENT-One who dresses up his goods to imitate the
principal label and trade-mark of another to deceive the consumer into the
belief that he is purchasing the article of another, Held to be an infringer,
and that he may be enjoined. *Von Mumm et al. v. Frash et al., 374.
32. EVIDENCE OF ATTEMPT TO DECEIVE THE PUBLIC-When the evidence war-
rants the conclusion that the dress of the article is only used in order to
deceive purchasers into the belief that the goods are those of another,
Held it is not required to establish that any particular person had been so
deceived.

Id.

33. SAME-COMPARISON OF DEVICES BY THE COURT-The court may compare
the trade-mark of complainant with the device used by the respondent to
determine their identity, and does not necessarily require the testimony of
witnesses to prove the likeness. *Id. .

34. OWNERSHIP-When the complainants applied a name to a small lot of cigars
made to a special order in 1878, and did not again apply the name to cigars
until 1884, and then for the purpose of competing with another party who
had applied the same name to cigars in 1881, and not again until 1889, and
when the defendants, in 1885. without knowledge of what had been done
by complainants, and in good faith, applied the name to cigars of their
own manufacture, and made continued and extensive sales and advertise-
ments thereof for five years without objection, Held that the complainants
are not entitled to assert a right to a trade mark in the name as against the
defendants. *Levy et al. v. Waitt et al., 489.

35. HOSTETTER'S BITTERS-INFRINGEMENT-Selling an imitation, as such, with-
out any suggestion or arrangement that it be sold again for the genuine
article, although with assent to such suggestions from others, does not
infringe the right of the manufacturer of the genuine. *Hostetter Company
v. Van Vorst, 688.

USE AND SALE OF PATENTED ARTICLES. See Apparatus and Product; Infringe-
ment, 3, 4; Public Recognition Evidence of Invention; Witnesses.
RENEWED USE-Where the defendant purchased of the patentee an apparatus
for toilet paper with which the latter was accustomed to send a roll of
paper used in the same, Held that the sale of the apparatus carried with it
the right to use and sell the apparatus upon a replenishment of the paper.
*Morgan Envelope Company v. Albany Perforated Wrapping Paper Company, 238.
USE OF PATENTED ARTICLES BY THE UNITED STATES. See Suits for
Infringement Against the United States.

UTILITY. See Invention, 13.

VALIDITY OF PATENT. Seo Assignments, 8, 9, 10; Construction of Specifications
and Patents, 1, 3, 5, 6, 7; Final Fees; Priority of Invention, 5; Public Apprecia-
tion Evidence of Invention; Suits for Infringement, 1, 5.

ABANDONMENT-The failure of a patentee for some years to manufacture his device
does not defeat the rights vested in him by the patent. *Masseth v. John-
ston et al., 233.

VALIDITY OF PATENTS AFFECTED BY DELAY IN PROSECUTION. See

Laches

VALID PATENTS. See Construction of Specifications and Patents, 22; Particular

Patents, 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 12. 13, 14, 16, 24, 27, 28, 32, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 51,
54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60, 62, 63, 64, 65, 74, 75, 77, 78, 80, 81, 82, 85, 86, 88, 89, 92, 95.

VOID PATENTS. See Invention, 18; Particular Patents, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 15, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 33, 34, 37, 38, 39, 44, 50, 52, 53, 58, 66, 68, 69, 73, 76, 79, 83, 84, 87,90, 93, 94; Public Appreciation Evidence of Invention, 4: Reissue, 1,7; Subsequent Patents, 1, 11.

WAIVER. See Suits for Infringement, 4; Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, 1. WITNESSES. See Priority of Invention, 2; Trade-Marks, 1, 2, 3, 19, 20, 21.

ACTIONS-WITNESSES-CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-The vendor of an infringing device, who is not a party to the suit, may be compelled to testify to the purchase and use thereof by the defendant without violating the constitutional provision that no witness shall be compelled to testify against himself in any criminal case, for Revised Statutes, sections 4919, 4921, do not subject an infringer to penalties or forfeitures, but merely authorize the court in its discretion, and "according to the circumstances of the case," to impose additional damages. *Masseth v. Johnston et al., 233.