312 



THE INDIA RUBBER WORLD 



[March 1, 1919. 



individual cord is expanded equally and the lire is cured while 

 the cords are stretched to the degree that inflation on the wheel 

 would have stretched them. The tire on the wheel afterward is 

 therefore in the same condition when inflated as it was when 

 cured. (The General Tire & Rubber Co., Akron, Ohio.) 



JUDICIAL DECISIONS. 



LP. L.vRsoxN-. Jr., Co. vs. Wm. Wrigley, Jr., C. Wm. Wrig- 

 • LEV, Jr.. Co. vs. L. P. Larsox, Jr., Co.— Circuit Court of 

 Appeals, Seventh Circuit. July 30, 1918. 



The Wrigley company appealed from a final dismissal of its 

 bill against the Larson company in which il alleged unfair com- 

 petition and the infringement of its trade name "Spearmint." 



The Larson company had on the market a chewing gum 

 called Peptomint. The Court decided that Spearmint, being a 

 proper noun, was not suspcctible of appropriation as a trade- 

 mark and that even if it were, the Larson trade-mark was not 

 an infringement. 



The two brands are put on the market in bundles of 5 sticks 

 each, done up in pink waxed paper bound together so that the 

 Tends stick out of a white outer wrapper printed in red and 

 green. However, when the two are placed side by side they 

 are strikingly different. Wrigley secured an injunction against 

 this brand, pending decision by the court. 



While under this injunction Larson put on the market his 

 "Wintermint" brand and about seven months afterward ^^'rig■- 

 ley put his "Doubleminl" on the market in a package similar 

 to that used by Larson. After the Wrigley product appeared on 

 the market the sales of "Wintermint" decreased. 



The Court of Appeals dismissed the bill against Larson and 

 reversed the dismissal of the counterclaim, orderitig an injunc- 

 tion and an accounting. (Federal Reporter, Volume 253, page 

 914.) 



\\'iLLiAM Wrigley, Jr., Co. vs. J. P. Larson, Jr.. Co. — Supreme 

 Court of the United States, November 25. 1918. 



Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit 

 Court of -Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied. (Supreme 

 Court Reporter, Volume 39, page 22.) 



CUSTOMS APPRAISER'S DECISIONS. 



GuTTA SiAK. — The appeal of Charles H. Demarest (New 

 York) to have gutta siak, which had been classified at 15 per 

 cent, ad valorem under paragraph 385 of the Tariff Act of 1913, 

 admitted free of duty as gutta percha under paragraph 502, was 

 upheld. (Treasurv Decisions, Volume 36, No. 3. January 16, 

 1919.) 



Chicle.— Protests of Wm. Wrigley, Jr., Co., et al., Chicago and 

 New York ; of American Chicle Co., Cleveland, Ohio ; of .Amer- 

 ican Chicle Co., Detroit, Michigan. The question was whether 

 certain chicle was refined, or advanced, or dutiable as crude 

 under the provisions of paragraph 36 of the Tariff Act of 

 1913. It was held properly classified as refined, at 20 cents per 

 pound under paragraph 36. (Treasury Decisions, Volume 36, 

 No. 3, January 16, 1919.) 



Jelutong— Gutta Siak.— Protests of William F. Mullen et al., 

 and of The Rubber Association of America. Gutta siak and 

 jelutong, which had been classified under paragraph 385 of the 

 Tariff Act of 1913, were claimed to be entitled to free entry 

 under paragraphs 502 and 513, respectively. The claims of the 

 Protestants were upheld. (Treasury Decisions, Volume 36. No. 

 4, January 23, 1919.) 



Rubber Brooches.— Protest was made by William H, Stiner & 

 Son, New York City, against the classification as jewelry at 

 60 per cent ad valorem under paragraph 356, Tariflf Act of 1913, 

 •of brooches of vulcanized or hard rubber in imitation of jet. 



The merchandise was held dutiable as manufactures of rubber 

 at 25 per cent under paragraph 369. (Treasury Decisions, 

 Volume 36, No. S, January 30, 1919.) 



Gutta Siak— Gutta Percha— Crude Rubber.— Protest was 

 made by George S. Bush & Co., Inc., et al., Seattle, Washington, 

 against the invoicing as non-enumerated articles under para- 

 graph 385, Tariff Act of 1913, of gutta mieauw, gutla habock, 

 gutta hand kang, kampar gutta percha, and bankok gutta percha. 

 The merchandise was held entitled to free entry under pararaphs 

 502 and 513. (Treasury Decisions, Volume 36, No. 5, January 

 30, 1919.) 



ADJUDICATED PATENTS. 



the united kingdom. 



In the matter of a trade-mark of the New .-Xtlas Rubber 

 Co., Limited. — In the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, 

 October 17-18, 1918. 



The New Atlas Rubber Co., Limited, which had registered 

 in Class 40 a trade-mark. No. 357,844, consisting of the word 

 "Talisman," brought action for infringement of the mark against 

 the .Rubber Heel Manufacturing Co. The plaintiffs had sold to 

 and the defendants had manufactured for the Maison Talbot, 

 Milan, Italy, rubber heels bearing this trade-mark com'bined 

 with the Italian firm's initials. The Maison Talbot owned this 

 trade-mark in Italy and the applicants sought to obtain a mono- 

 poly in the United Kingdom of business with this foreign firm 

 by registering its trade-mark in The United Kingdom as their 

 own when they had acted only as agent for the owner. The 

 testimony brought out that this effort was part of a systematic 

 plan to "jump" customers' trade-marks and that the applicants 

 had registered or attempted to register four other marks under 

 similar circumstances. 



Held, that the respondents (the applicants) had been merely 

 the agents for the foreign firm to stamp goods being made for 

 it with its trade-mark and initials ; that there had been a limited 

 use of the mark in The United Kingdom sufficient to disentitle the 

 respondents to register it; that the intention of the respondents 

 had been to prevent anyone else in The Unitd Kingdom com- 

 peting with them for business for the foreign firm ; and that 

 they were not entitled to do that. The trade-mark was ordered 

 to be removed from the register. 



Phillips vs. Harbro Rubber Co.— In the High Court of Jus- 

 tice, Chancery Division, October 23-24, 1918. 



Registration in Class 3 was obtained for a design of rubber 

 pads or plates for heels of boots and shoes, consisting of a pad 

 in the shape of a heel and having a plain central depression that 

 might be filled in with leather or other material, and ornamented 

 on the surrounding portion with cross lines. The proprietor 

 brought an action for infringement. The defendants had sold 

 rubber heels of the same form as the registered design, except 

 that the ornamentation was different. It was proved, that, from 

 a date prior to that of the registration, the defendants had sold 

 two forms of rubber heels similar in form to the registered de- 

 sign, but having the surrounding portion plain, and, in the one 

 case, a central depression that was plain, and, in the other case, 

 a central portion w-ith a pattern at a slightly lower level than that 

 of the surrounding portion. The defendants contended that, if 

 the parts of the designs were important elements of novelty, the 

 defendants' rubber heels had not those details, and there was 

 no infringement; or, if the parts were not important, the design 

 differed so little from the prior forms of heels that it was not 

 new or original. 



Held, that the importance of the parts of a design is depen- 

 dent on the character of the design ; and that there was no sub- 

 stantial novelty or originality in the plaintiffs' combination of old 

 parts. The action was dismissed with costs, and a certificate as 

 to certain of the particulars of objections was given. (The Il- 

 lustrated Official Journal Supplement, Volume XXV, No. 14.) 



