The Republican. [volume] (Oakland, Md.) 1877-current, 1878-07-20
A Trade Mark Case.

In a London trade mark case. the
Master of the Rolls has Just given q
decision, which will be of general in
terest, not only to traders, but to man.
ufacturers and merchants in every En-
glish district. A firm claimed to be
registered in respect of an old trade
mark, which had been used in their
business for quarter of a century
namely, a dog with a pot, the dog be-
ing represented as turning the pot over
and licking out of it. The appli-
cants (Jones) claimed that they had
shop in the Blackfriars-road where they
had sign with that mark. That sign
had been hanging there ever since the
reign of Henry VIII. They sought to
register that trade mark in several
classes. The application was opposed
by firm who carry on business in
Sheffield under the name of 81. q Riley
Carr" who used a Sheffield mark of
pointer, with the word staunch''
written underneath. 1t was urged for
this firm that the mark of dog and
porridge pot had never been used in
respect to edge tools, and that as these
things were stamped in outline upon
the blades of saws and general metal
work, unless the die fell with perfect
evenness, the impression was not al
ways very distinct. The difficulty of
distinguishing between marks which
had any close resemblance was, there
fore, increased As regarded general
metal work, the mark had been used
for twenty-five years, and the Master
decided that the applicants were en-
titled to have their mark registered.
In the class of edge tools, etc, he add
mitted the objection, on the ground
that the applicants had not previously
used the mark for such goods, and that
it was not distinctive enough. Arti-
clcs were handed to his lordship to
show him that if the head of dog was
indistinctly marked, it would be very
difficult to tell between the two marks.
In the speciality of files, it was urged
that the directors files were called
'dog files' in the American market
The master was informed that the doc
and porridge-pot was the sign of APP
plicants' shop; they had used it on their
billheadS and invoices, and now want
ed to register it for use on all their
goods. His lordship admitted registra-
ton in the classes of goods where they
had been accustomed to use the mark,
but refused it on those where they had
not used it, as it was distinctive enough
to distinguish between it and the mark
of the directors. Council suggested
that it was hard that the applicants
havingused this mark for great num-
Der of years for their goods should now
be compelled to use two distinct trade
marks. The Masters reply was deci-
sive: "You are going to sell goods
which you never sold before, and you
must not take mark similar to that
used by others for that very class of
goods" His Lordship further instanced
a case in which man had used hand
as a mark for whisky. So far there
was no objection. But the man then
wanted to sell beer, and desired to use
the same mark for his beer, but Messrs
Allsopp stepped in and stopped him by
saying: " That is our mark" The de-
cision is a most valuable one, and in the
main cannot be seriously objected to.
There is a common sense and justice in
it, though it looks at first sight rather
hard on the firm who regarded mark
on their invoices as equivalent to the
right of property in that mark for all
their goods. Scientific AneyIcuR.