38 
The  Trade-Mark  Act  of  1020.        f  Al?-  J°ur'  Pharm. 
3     y  \     January,  1921. 
Thus  the  Trade-Mark  Act  of  1920  does  not  exclude  marks 
which  are  merely  geographical,  as  for  example  the  word  "Cleve- 
land," which  has  become  widely  known  in  connection  with  a  line 
of  tractors. 
Cleveland 
This  trade-mark  represents  big  values  in  the  form  of  good 
will,  resulting  from  persistent  publicity  and  its  logical  accompani- 
ment, good  craftsmanship  and  uniform  quality. 
It  was  refused  registration  under  the  law  of  1905,  but  has 
been  granted  Federal  recognition  under  the  more  liberal  provisions 
of  the  Trade-Mark  Act  of  1920. 
Other  marks,  descriptive  in  character,  were  rejected  under  the 
old  law  for  the  reason  that  they  consisted  principally  of  a  repre- 
sentation of  the  goods  upon  which  they  were  used. 
A  case  in  point  is  that  of  a  picture  of  a  pair  of  children's 
garters,  employed  as  a  trade-mark  for  garters. 
It  is  true  that  a  measure  of  relief  was  granted  by  the  Act  of 
1905  in  its  "ten-year"  proviso,  which  permitted  the  registration  of 
a  common-law  mark  which  had  been  in  exclusive  use  by  the  appli- 
cant for  ten  years  preceding  February  20,  1905. 
But  it  made  no  arrangement  for  the  protection  of  common-law 
marks  which  were  adopted  at  any  time  after  February  20,  1905,  or 
which  might  be  adopted  at  any  time  in  the  future. 
In  the  circumstances  prevailing  prior  to  the  passage  of  the 
Trade-Mark  Act  of  1920,  any  of  the  common-law  trade  emblems — 
as,  for  example,  "Kitchen  Klenzer" — could  be  stolen  outright  by  a 
citizen  of  another  country  and  registered  in  that  country  as  his  ex- 
clusive property. 
The  American  owner  of  the  trade-mark  could  not  prevent  the 
theft  because  he  could  show  no  certificate  of  Federal  registration 
to  enable  him  to  forestall  such  action  by  obtaining  registration  of 
the  trade-mark  in  his  own  name  in  the  foreign  country. 
Unless  he  took  the  time  and  trouble  to  devise  a  new  trade- 
mark, wholly  different  from  the  stolen  one,  he  would  have  to  pay 
tribute  to  the  citizen  of  another  land  for  the  right  to  import  and 
sell  his  goods  in  that  land  under  an  established  trade-mark  which 
was  his  in  the  first  instance. 
In  the  hearings  conducted  by  the  House  Committee  on  Patents, 
