IN THE MATTER OF THE PATENT OF KENT AND OTHERS

172', No.5] REPORTS OF PATENT, DESIGN: AND TRADE MARK CASES [Vol. XLI. In the Matter of an Appl.ication for the Rlegistration of a Trade Mark by Brown, Wills & Nicholson. such words are invented words, then they are acceptable for registration under Section 9 of the Acts. I am of opinion that " Sardovy " is a new word not in use in the trade, and that there is sufficient invention to bring it within Section 9 (3). As regards deception, the Applicants have stated their intention of using this word only upon a mixture of sardines and anchovies; and I am 5, unable to hold that such user upon such goods will be in any way deceptive. The Opponent quite properly desires that the term " Sardine " should only be applied to the pilchard, which is the sardine proper, and this was apparently the main ground of his opposition. With the limitation of goods to a sardine and anchovy paste, any possible danger of deception on this ground will he 10 removed, Of the cases referred to, the "Chocaroous" case" may at first sight, a.pp,ear to support the Opponent's view that, " Sardovy " ought not to he considered an invented word. It is, however, clear from the report that the word " Chocaroons ., was refuged registration mainly because tbe action 01 the applicants in using the word as the name of a new article had destroyed its 15 registrability as a trade mark. In the present case the Application is in respect of all goods in Class 42, but, if the goods are restricted as suggested by the Applicants, the registration will be in respect of a mixture or real sardines and anchovies which is not a new- article but, a known mixture. The word " SaJ."dovy," if properly used as a tirade mark will, therefore, denote, the 20 Applicanta' brand of the known mixture. I decide, .t.herefore, to allow registration of the Mark in respecf of a, mixture of sardines and anchovies. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE-CHANCERY DIVISION. Before MR. JUSTICE ASTBURY. 25 November 30th and December 7th, 1923. IN THE MATTER OF THE PATENT OF KENT AND OTHERS. Patent. Application by Originating Surnrnons for extension.-LOS8 due to hostilities.-Evidence.-Four years extension g1:anted.-Patents and Designs Act8 1907 and 1919', Section. 18, Sub-section (6). 30 The owners of a Paieni , granted in respect of an invention of " Improve" mente in Mercury, or other Vapour Electric Lamps," applied by Oriqinatinq * Application by Williams's is; (1917) 34 R.P.C. 197. 173 Vol. XLI.]' REPORTS OF PATENT, DESIGN, AND TRADE MARK CASES [No.5 In the Matter of the Pat6nt of Kent and Oihere. Summons for am extension of the term of the Patent. In support of the Application. evidence uiae filed to the effect tha,t it had been impossible to deoeiop comrnerciallq the patented invention; that coneequerdlq no prOfits had been made; that the Applicants had been- eng'aged on work of nationol. importance ~ during the war and that it had only recently become possible to deve,lop the market. On behalf of the Comptroller-General it was objected tha,t the evidence was not 8ufficiently detailed to show why, the invention had not been developed or what Ioee had been sustained. The eummone uiae adjourned in order to enable the Applicants to file further evidence. A further wffidavit se\tting outl the 10 history of the invention, including the euepeneion. of its development owing to the war, in more detail was filed, and at ih» adjourned hearing' an extension of four yearrs was granted. Letters Patent (No. 5596 of 1908), dated the 12th of March, 1908, were granted to Henry Andrew Kent, Harold George Lacell and The Silica, Syndi15 caie Ld. in respect of an invention of " Improvements in Mercury, or other " Vapour Electric LampSt." On the 12th of June, 1923, The Silica Syndicate Ld. applied by Originating Summons for an extension of the term of the Patient. An affidavit in support of the Application was made by Frederick Reynolds 20 (Beeretary of the Applicant Company) who deposed (inter alia) that the Applicants were manufacturers of (inter alia) mercury and other vapour lamps; that in 1909 the Grantees, H. A. Kent and H. G. LacelL, hadals,signed all their interest in the Patent to the Applicants; that .prior to 1914 the Applicant,s had been " unable. by reason of technical and other difficulties " to develop 25 commercially the patented invention, and that consequently no profits were possible and that the patented lamps had therefore not been put on the market; that from the outbreak of war the work of development had been entirely suspended owing to the Applicants having been wholly engaged in work of national importance; that the Applicants had not, been able to re.30 commence commercial development of the, patented lamps until 1920, when conditions had again be/come normal, and that since 1921 they had sold a number of the lamps, but had made no profit, thereon, and that it had only recently become possible to develop the market. The Hon. R. S. Cripps (Instructed by J. H. and J. Y. Johnson) appeared 35 for the Applicants : Dighton Pollock (instructed by the Solicitor to the Board of Trade) appeared for the Com-ptroller-General, Cripps, for the Applicants.c-Tt is difficult, to cultivate a. market for goods of this kind, The six years prior to the war are lost to the Patentees. I ask for an extension of five yesrs, 4:0 Pollock, for the Com-ptroller-General: -There is nothing in the evidence to show that, the development of the invention was stopped, and there is nothing to show that the Applicants halve lost anything : there is no evidence of any expenditure in connection with the invention. I suggest that the summons should stand over in order thab further evidence may be filed 174 No.5J REPORTS OF PATENT, DESIGN, AND TRADE MARK CASES [Vol. XLI. In the Matter of the Patent of Kent and Others. It, was ordered that the summons should be adjourned for one week. A further affidavit, was made by Frederick Reynolds, who deposed (in,ter al.ia) that during the. years prior to the war the Applicants had been investigating the Quarteindustry, which was then new.vand had been continuously attempting to obtain satisfactory materials; that by about, 1914 the Applicants had 5 completed their experimental work and that the patented lamps had been then practically ready to be. put upon the market; that, butt for the outbreak of war the patented lamps could have been put upon ~he market in a complete form -towards the end of 1914; that during the whole period of the war the Applicants had been engaged in the manufacture of chemical apparatus for 10 use in factories and laboratories engaged in work of national importance, and that they had be-en obliged to give up all other work except that covered by priority certificates issued by the Ministry of Munitions, .and that they had been unable to devote any time to the development, of the patented lamps; t,ha,t after the beginning of the year 1919 the Applicants had been able to carry In on their .ordina (...truncated)