August 1, 1917.] 



THE INDIA RUBBER WORLD 



661 



official for the different concerns with which he was connected. 

 He is survived by two sons, James, now with the Reading Rub- 

 ber Manufacturing Co., and Harry K., who was formerly with 

 the International Rubber Co., and two daughters, his wife having 

 died seven years ago. 



A RAINCOAT MANUFACTURER. 



William O. Anderson, president of the L. M. Anderson Co., 

 manufacturer of rainproof garments, Trenton, New Jersey, 

 was drowned in the Delaware and Raritan Canal, which is near 

 the factory of the company, July 7. It is thought that his mind 

 became temporarily unbalanced, as he brooded over the auto- 

 mobile accident of a day or two previous, for which he might 

 have considered himself responsible, and in which three persons 

 were severely injured. Tlie deceased was at the head of the 

 above named company, and was active in its management. He 

 was 60 years of age at the time of his death. He leaves a 

 widow, and one son, A. J. Anderson, who is vice-president of 

 the same manufacturing company. 



A POPULAR SALESMAN AND EFFICIENT MANAGER. 



John P. Stockton, president of The Globe-Gibraltar Rubber 

 Co., Cleveland, Ohio, died July 19 at St. Luke's Hospital in that 

 city, as the result of an automobile accident six days previous. 

 Mr. Stockton was about 36 years of age, and was a very suc- 

 cessful tire salesman. He had a large acquaintance in the trade 

 and gained many friends wherever he traveled. It was through 

 his genial disposition that he made a success of the Armstrong 

 Rubber Co., which is now the Globe-Gibraltar company. He was 

 a lineal descendant of Richard Stockton, a signer of the Declara- 

 tion of Independence, and of Commodore Stockton, U. S. N. 

 He leaves a widow and two children. 



OFFICIAL OF AN AKRON ESTABLISHMENT. 



A. L. Neiswanger, vice-president of the India Rubber Co., 

 Akron, Ohio, was fatally injured in a street car collision in that 

 city, July 3. He was born and reared in Orrville, Ohio, 40 years 

 ago. He is survived by a widow, two brothers and a sister. 



TRADE-MARK DECISIONS. 



A A. Waterman & Co., v. L. E. Waterman Company. A 

 • history of the litigation regarding the use of the name 

 "Waterman" by makers of fountain pens would fill several 

 columns. The latest decisions uiclude that in a suit in the 

 New York Supreme Court, and in an appeal in the Appellate 

 Division of the court. The former was instituted by Isaac E. 

 and William L. Chipman, doing business as A. A. Waterman 

 & Co., to restrict the L. E. Waterman Co. from interfering with 

 their rights in the use of the w-ords "A. A. Waterman & Com- 

 pany" and from bringing any suit for damages or injunction 

 against any person by reason of the manufacture or sale by 

 such person of any fountain pen bearing these words. The 

 Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, provided, however that 

 the words "Not connected with the L. E. Waterman Company" 

 were added to the words "A. A. Waterman & Company." An 

 appeal was taken by the L. E. Waterman Co. and the Appellate 

 Division of the Court reversed the above ruling. (Trade-Mark 

 Bulletin, May 1, 1917.] 



Ex P.\RTE. The Miller Rubber Co. The goods sought to be 

 covered by one registry include virtually everything made of 

 rubber as, for example, vehicle tires, bathing caps, rubber heels, 

 rubber tubing, barber's bibs, balloons and rubber sponges 

 among others. Obviously these could not all be included in any 

 existing class of goods ; the applicant's virtual proposition is that 

 a new class of goods could be formed to include everything 

 made of rubber and it points out certain undoubted hardships 



in having to make several registrations at heavy expense. The 

 convenience of the applicant cannot be paramount to the con- 

 venience of the public. The applicant does not make rubber, 

 but various articles of rubber. If the applicant wishes to use 

 the same mark on tires and on bathing caps, it must make 

 separate registration ; there is no possible way to avoid it. 

 [Trade-Mark Bulletin, June 1, 1917.] 



Stork Co. vs. Sterling Co. The defendant company applied 

 for registration for maternity frocks, a design representing 

 two storks holding a banner bearing the words "La Mere." 

 The plaintiff filed an opposition as owner of a trade-mark 

 of the same description except with the name "Stork" in place 

 of "La Merc, "for waterproof fabrics and articles made there- 

 from. [Trade-Mark Bulletin, May 1, 1917.] 



Ex Parte L. Candee & Co. The trade-mark "Unika" was 

 refused registration on the ground that it is similar to the 

 previously registered "Unico" trade-mark for boots and shoes. 

 This latter trade-mark, however, was registered for leather 

 boots and shoes, and the decision is that reference be withdrawn 

 and trade-mark allowed. [Trade-Mark Bulletin, May 1, 1917.] 



Boston Rubber Shoe Co. v. Abramowitz. An interference 

 proceeding where application was made to register the words 

 "The Hub" with a picture of a hub between them for leather 

 shoes. Another applied for registration of the word "Hub" as 

 a trade-mark for shoes with canvas uppers and leather or rub- 

 ber soles. The latter could show no proof of use except on 

 tennis shoes with leather insoles and on rubber shoes. Hence 

 the commissioner decided there could be no interference. 

 [Trade-Mark Bulletin, May 1, 1917.] 



Ex Parte, India Rubber, Gutta Percha & Telegraph Works, 

 Limited. The trade-mark "Silver King" for golf balls was re- 

 jected because of prior registration of the trade-mark "Kin^' 

 for the same goods. The commissioner held there was no likeli- 

 hood of confusion, as the word "Silver" is the most prominent 

 part of the proposed trade-mark and it has a suggestiveness 

 different from the word "King." [Trade-Mark Bulletin, June 

 1, 1917.] 



The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. The Firestone Tire & 

 Rubber Co. The Firestone company filed on November 4, 1915, 

 an application for registration of a trade-mark for rubber tires 

 and casings for vehicles, originally said to consist in a black 

 tread and red side walls, but later defined as a circumferential 

 band of black intermediate between two circumferential bands of 

 red, disclaiming the picture of the tire itself. The application 

 was rejected on reference to registration No. 85,434 to the 

 Goodyear company, dated February 20, 1912, of a central cir- 

 cumferential band or stripe of blue; but on argument that 

 rejection was withdrawn. Upon allowance and publication an 

 opposition was filed by the Goodyear company and sustained, 

 from which ruling appeal is taken by the Firestone company. 



Assistant Commissioner Clay in his argument sustaining the 

 decision of the Examiner of Trade-Marks, concludes as follows : 



"Broadly considered, I think the applicant's mark fails to 

 come within the proper definition of a trade-mark, and especial- 

 ly it is not a 'mark by which the goods of the owner of the 

 mark may be distinguished' in the sense of the Trade-Mark 

 Act." [Decisions of the Commissioner of Patents, May 22, 1917.] 



CUSTOM HOUSE DECISION. 



Crude Chicle. The Board of General Appraisers sustained 

 the protest of Schutte, Bunemann & Co., New York City, regard- 

 ing the assessment of duty of 20 cents per pound as refined chicle. 

 Claim was entered that it was crude chicle and dutiable at IS 

 cents per pound, in accordance with another provision of the 

 same paragraph of the tariff act. On the authority of Abstract 

 39.077 the chicle in question was held dutiable at 15 cents per 

 pound, under paragraph ,% of tariff act of 1913. 



