SEPTKMBtR 1. 1016] 



THE INDIA RUBBER WORLD 



667 



TRADE OPPORTUNITIES FEOM CONSULAR REPORTS. 



A tirm in France wishes to be placed in communication with 

 American maiuifacturcrs of washing machines and wringers 

 with riibhcr rollers. Report No. 21,933. 



.Xgencic. arc <lcsired lor Chile and Argentina troni American 

 manufacturers of rubber goods. Report No. 21,941. 



Commercial relations arc desired in Denmark with .American 

 manufacturers of rubber tires. Report No. 21,953. 



.A. physical culture instructor in Brazil wishes hi receive cat- 

 alogs, price lists, etc., of footballs and other athletic and sport- 

 ing goods. Report No. 22,090. 



A manufacturer in Spain is desirous of imiiortin.iJ tires for 

 bicycles. Report No. 22,092. 



A newspaper in the l"ar Mast with stationery and jnli pniitinj; 

 departments desires to obtain connections in the United States 

 with dealers iii rubber stamp.s. Report No. 22,131 



A dealer in France desires to purchase gold nibs and barrels 

 with necessary parts for the manufacture of fountain pens. Rc- 

 p..rt No. 22.139. 



.\ tirm in Spain i^ in the market lor ruljber erasers. Report 

 No. 22,150 



.\ firm in ihe L'nited Stales wishes to secure for transmittal 

 to correspondents in Japan, quotations and literature covering 

 cotton and .silk elastic for garters and braces. Report No. 22,158. 



.Additional agencies are sought in .Argentina for the sale of 

 rubber heefs and soles and other American products. Report 

 No. 22,173. 



.\ lirm in tlie -Xetlu-rlands desires to get in touch with .American 

 manufacturers and exporters of rubber nipples and tubes for 

 nursing bottles. Report No. 22,190. 



A Norwegian import firm wishes to communicate with .Amer- 

 ican manufacturers of automobile tires an<l accessories. Report 

 No 22,195. 



JUDICIAL DECISIONS. 



D'jFK.xui Si'ECi.\LTV Co. V. Van Cleefe. In an action for the 

 '-' wrongful use of the plaintiff's trade-mark name "Xever- 

 leak," in coimection with the manufacture and sale of "tire 

 fluids," it appeared that the plaintiff manufactured the tire fluid 

 according to a secret formula. .Another party obtained a patent 

 for a vehicle tire, which consisted of a combination of a pneu- 

 matic tire and a free-flowing sealing agent within the air chamber. 

 The plaintiff purchased this patent, and thereafter used, in con- 

 nettion with its tire fluid, a label on which appeared a circle 

 presenting a pneumatic tire within which were the words : 

 "Patented U. S. A. Foundation patent No. 578,551." Below 

 the circle were .stateme'nts that this was the foundation patent, 

 and covered the use of any liquid, semi-liquid, paste, powder, 

 or compound, capable of being converted into or used in con- 

 nection with any liquid in any pneumatic tire for closing punc- 

 tures; that the plaintiff's tire fluid was manufactured and sold 

 under and by the owner of such patent, and that persons making, 

 soiling, or using any other such fluid were infringers. The 

 Circuit Court of .Appeals held that the plaintiff was justified in 

 buying the patent to avoid infringing it. and the label in question 

 was not such an abu.sc of its patent rights as deprived it of its 

 pre-existing property right in its trade-name. If, as the court 

 as5umed,^the patented tire had no generic name, and all pneu- 

 inatic tires, whether containing a free flowing sealing agent or 

 not, were made and sold under the marks and names of their 

 manufacturers, the expiration of the patent could not authorize 

 the public to use the trade-name of the unpatented element, 

 under the rule that the expiration of the patent authorizes the 

 use of the name of llie patented article, where it has become a 

 generic name. 



All that could be said from the face of the lal)el was that the 



plaintilf needlessly gave true Milormation of the fact that prior 

 to March 9. 1914, the patent was in force, and inferentially that 

 it had been owned by the plaintift' and used in some way not 

 disclosed by the label. This, it was held, did not deprive the 

 plaintiff of its right to equitable relief against piracy of its trade- 

 name and unfair competition. [The Federal Reporter. Vol. 

 227-page 391. | 



Perlm.\n v. St.\nii.\ki> W'eldi.ng Co. The Perlman patent No. 

 1,052,270. for a wheel for automobiles, the special feature of 

 which is a demountable rim. Held not anticipated, valid, and 

 infringed. [The Federal Reporter, Vol. 231 — page 734.] 



This case was reported at length in the May 1916 issue of 

 The I.\i)i.\ Rubber VVori.i). 



.\I.\cDo.\NELI. v. VoRHEES RlBHER .M.\N IK.VtTl Ri.sc. Co. The 



Federal District Court D, New Jersey, holds that the MacDon- 

 nell patent. No. 981,208, for an improvement in pneumatic tires, 

 which consists in rendering the inner tube .self-healing in case 

 of puncture, by means of a wrapping or stay strip of canvas, 

 which is incapable of stretching transversely, but capable of 

 stretching in a direction longitudinally of the tire, was not air- 

 ticipated, and discloses invention: and also that it was infringed 

 by the tubes made in accordance with Brown's application for 

 patent, serial No. 704,637. [The Federal Reporter. Vol. 227— page 

 898.] 



Sp.^ldi.m, v. (Ia.mac.k. The case in which .A. (i. Spalding S: 

 Bros,, the well-known .\merican sporting goods concern, claimed 

 damages against .A. W. Gamage, Limited, the large London 

 sporting goods firm, in respect to passing off condemned foot- 

 balls which had been sold by the plaintiffs as waste rubber, as 

 "Spalding's Improved Sewn Orb Balls, ' which was reported in 

 the May 1915 issue of The Indi.\ Rubber World, came recently 

 before one of the official referees of the High Courts of Justice, 

 in London, for assessment of damages. 



-After hearing evidence which lasted many days, the official 

 referee made his report to the judge, who found on the whole 

 of the evidence that the plaintiffs were injured by the acts of 

 the defendants, and that they were entitled to recover the sum 

 of x2,000 [$9,733] for injury to their reputation. 



Lovell-McCoxnell M.vnufacturing Co. v. Oriental Rub- 

 ber SUPPLV Co. This suit- was brought under the patent laws 

 of the United States for infringement of the United States letters 

 patent No. 1,120,057, for a diaphragm horn for automobiles. 



The United States Circuit Court of -Appeals, Second Circuit, 

 held that the taking of two steps in changing a prior device, both 

 obvious and not involving invention, and unpatentable when taken 

 separately, does not involve invention and become patentable 

 when taken in unison. A combination of old elements, to be 

 patentable, must produce a new result or effect in the combined 

 forces or processes from that given by their separate parts. 



Patent No. 1,120,057 was therefore void for lack of invention, 

 in view of the prior art. 



Though a rubber company was involved in this case, the dis- 

 puted patent contained no rubber. | The Federal Reporter Vol 

 231-page 391.] 



MiCHEMN TiRF. Co. V. R0B8INS AND OTHERS. This case was 

 an appeal l)y the defendant party from a judgment for plaintiff. 

 Judgment as against the defendant was reversed, and complaint 

 dismissed as to him, the court of appeal holding that where a 

 tire company knew that a garage business was transferred to 

 new proprietors, and accepted them as the persons with whom 

 it would fulfill its contract, intending to release the old pro- 

 prietor from further performance of the contract, and accept the 

 new in his place as parties, there was a "novation." [New York 

 Supplement, Vol. 159— page 256.] 



(A'oi'afieii (ill law), the siibsHliiliou of a nctv obligation for an old 

 i.uc. III this case the substitution of a ne-.i- contraaing l-any for Rofcfri.i.t, 



