IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY COLGATE & CO. FOR THE REGISTRATION OF A TRADE MARK

S'Upplemefl,t.~ 262 THE ILLUSTRATED OFFICIAL JOURNAL (PATENTS). REPORTS OF PATENT, DESIGN AND TR'ADE MARK CASES [May 21,1913 [Vol. XXX]. Layland v. Boldy &: Sons Ld. are the leading examples, and that in the Patent of the Plaintiffs there was no real invention, either in the popular sense of the word, or in the sense in which it is used in Patent law. But there is another view of the. matter which was very much pressed upon me, and which I cannot disregard. It was said, and, I suppose, correctly, that 5 Claim 1, as it now stands, is for a combination of the apparatus A., with the so-called device V, the object of which is to economise heat and to save fuel, and that the entire machine, composed of those two parts, is most useful and popular, in fact an enormous success, and, as a whole, better than any machine for drying wool after back-washing that was in the market before. This 10 appears to me to be the result of the evidence. Still I ask myself :-What was it that the Patentees found out that was not known before? Have they not merely added to an old and well-known apparatus, A, an old and well-known device V, for the same old and ","ell-known purpose of economising heat or fuel? There is no special arrangement of the old component parts. Each per- 15 forms its own function separately; a!!,9:,J,g~:q.:qot ~ee tgJ1t~:9-y"~p§9iaIIJ}SJJ,lte-.ari§~§. from. combining thetn. The conclusion at which, riglitly or wrongly, I have arrived is what I understand to be Mr. Surinburne's view of this case, namely, that t:Qy;r:~~~jsnothing in the Patentees'. Invention that is not the natural . ?onsequence of/putting together two old or well-known things,~ eacll,perf()l'riiirig its own 20 well-known function, and nothing more; the result being, in "my opinion', that there is not sufficient subject-matter or in vention to support the Patent. The consequence is that this action must be dismissed with costs. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.-CHANCERY DIVISION. Before MR. JUSTICE PARKER. 25 February 27th, 1913. IN THE MATTER OF AN ApPLICATION" BY COLGATE & CO. FOR THE REGISTRATION OF A TRADE MARK. Trade Mark. - A1Jplication for reqistration, _." Ribbon:" - Word having direct refer.ence to the character or quality of the goods.-Application refused.- 30 Appeal dismissed.-Trade Marks Act 1905, Section 9 (4). An Application was made to register the word "Ribbon" in Class 48 in respect of a dentifrice. The Applicants contended that the word ioas one which had no direct reference to the character or quality of the goods. It was intended to be used in connection with a dental cream sold as < Icibbon Dental 35 "Cream," and on the carton, in which the cream was sold, uiere the words "Gomes out a ribbon" and "Lies flat on the brush." It was held by the Comptroller, that the uiord had a direct reference to the character and quality of the goods. The Applicants appealed. Supplement.] May 21,1913] THE ILLUSTRATED OFFICIAL JOURNAL (PATENTS). 263 REPORTS·OF PATENT, DESIGN AND TRADE MARK CASES [Vol. XXX]. In the Matter of an Application by Colgate &; 00. for the Registration 01 a Trade Ma1"k. Held, that it was shown by the manner in which the Applicants put up their goods that the word was descriptive of the form of the goods and had direct reference to their character or quality. The appeal was diemissed with costs. On the 24th of July 1912 Oolgate &; 00. of New York, U.S.A., manufacturers, 5 made an Application (No. 344,334) for the registration in Class 48 in respect of a dentifrice of a Trade Mark consisting of the word "Ribbon." The Applicants offered the following disclaimer :-" No claim is made to the exclusive use of " the word 'Ribbon' as applied to any mode of packing, wrapping, or enclosing " the preparation by means of a ribbon or ribbons." 10 The Application was refused by Mr. Ralph Griffin, acting for the ComptrollerGeneral. He gave his reasons as follows :-" The mark applied for is a word " mark and the word is 'Ribbon.' Now, that is a word of very general appli" cation because anything tied up with a ribbon or closed with a strip of ribbon " might be known as ' Ribbon Brand.' On looking at a specimen of the cream 15 "sold it says that it ' Comes out a ribbon' and' Lies flat on the brush.' Words " having direct reference to the character or quality of the goods are excluded " from registration by the terms of the Trade Marks Act 1905 (Subsection 4 " of Section 9), and I suppose those words are intended to exclude words " describing the mode of packing an article, or describing the colour of a label 20 "upon the article, or describing any characteristic of the article. The Appli" cation has accordingly been refused. It should be added that the word has " already been refused to these Applicants for these goods and on appeal by " the Board of Trade. Therefore, as far as this Office is concerned, the matter " cannot be reopened seeing that, sitting here, I am bound by the decision on 25 " appeal." The previous Application referred to was an Application, in respect of dental cream being a toilet article, for a label with a border containing the words " Colgate & CO.'s Ribbon Dental Cream." That Application was refused by Mr. Hodges, acting for the Oomptroller, and, on appeal, by the Board of Trade.. 30 In support of the appeal in the present Application the following affidavit . was made by John Morgan Richards, a director of a Company representing the Applicants in this country :-" (1) I have read the statement by the Registrar " of Trade Marks, dated the 24th day of October 1912, in this matter and wish to " explain that the Registrar appears to have been under a misconception with 35 "regard to the intentions of the Applicants. The Application is for registration " of the word' Ribbon' in respect to dentifrice in Class 48, and the Registrar 4' appears to have supposed that the intention of the Applicants was to confine the " Application of the mark (w hich is already their registered property in the United " States being the country of origin) to a particular dentifrice in the form of a •40 "paste or cream. This is quite a mistake. It is the fact that the first variety " of dentifrice which has been issued by the Applicants under this mark is in " the form of a paste or cream, but the Applicants have never intended and are ' " not intending to confine the use of the mark to this article but have always " intended and now intend to apply it to various other toilet articles, shaving 45 "cream and cold cream. (2) With regard to the reference to the earlier Applica"tion I wish further to explain that the present Application differs from the " former Application in three very material respects :-(a) the mark applied for " is not the same inasmuch as the former Application was for a label bearing the " words' Colgate & Co.'s Ribbon Dental Cream'; (b) the goods in respect of 5C ""\vhich registration is sought are not the same inasmuch as on the earlier " occasion they were described (...truncated)