bat; Prominent; Ravensberg, Record; Regenspender; Regenspritze; Reichenfelder Bauernbrot; Rekord; Richard Wagner; Riviera; Rolnik (Polish country inn keeper) Seehund; Spitzenlack; Schlämmer, der; Staatsmann aller Zeiten, der grösste; Stadion Club; Tabakschule; Tadellos; Tartar Caviar; Tee-Butter; Theaterautomat; Toronto (geographical name); Trüffel; Universalschmuck fassungen; Venetia; Virility; Wagner; Weichsel; Wendelstein.-From Blatt für Patent-Musterund Zeichenwesen, December, 1913. Rumania. Trade-Marks. "Red Cross" and "Geneva Cross." Law of May 17-30, 1913. A Rumanian law dated May 17/30, 1913, relating to the enforcement of Art. 27 and 28 of the Geneva Convention of July 6, 1906, and having reference to the amelioration of the condition of the sick and wounded of armies in the field, contains a series of important provisions for the protection of the Red Cross and the names "Red Cross" and "Geneva Cross." According to Art. 12 of this law it is prohibited to employ for commercial, industrial or any other purposes the above cited emblems and designations or similar emblems and designations apt to cause confusion, be it for establishments or firms, be it for the distinction of an activity, or be it for the designation of products or goods. Therefore, the employment of the trade-marks and the words, either as a commercial sign or as a mark, or the affixing of the same to goods and products, wrappers, wrappings, advertisements, announcements, circulars, prospectuses, price lists, labels, scientific, artistic or similar instruments intended for selling or advertising purposes is prohibited. He who acts contrary to these provisions, or sells, or places on the market products or goods having affixed thereto the above mentioned emblem or designations shall, in accordance with Art. 13, be sentenced to imprisonment of from three months to three years or to the payment of a fine of from 50 to 2,500 Leis and the destruction of the goods. The extinction of the firm's name or of the trademark shall be decreed simultaneously in accordance with the provisions of Art. 18. Art. 14 regulates the confiscation or the removal of the prohibited designations which may be also decreed on the ground of an objective action, and the subsequent appropriation of the proceeds as well as the fines in favor of the Red Cross societies. Art. 15, as a transitory provision, permits the employment of articles, goods or products of any kind having affixed thereupon at the time of publication of this law the emblem or designations or similar designations adapted to cause confusion in commerce and trade by commercial and industrial parties until April 1, 1913. The provisions of this law shall be enforced from that day without exception. Art. 16 prohibits, commencing from the time this law has been communicated to the courts, the registration of firms or marks of manufacture containing the Red Cross or the above cited designations or similar designations adapted to cause confusion. The refusal of the court to register shall be conclusive and shall not be subject to any legal action. The court may rescind its decision at any time and declare the entry or registration annulled upon notification of the interested parties, in the case that the entry or registration has been effected erroneously. According to Art. 17 the owners of firms or marks of manufacture containing the emblem of the Red Cross, or the above cited designations, or designations adapted to cause confusion and already entered or registered at the time of publication of this law shall file applications for the extinction of these marks within 6 months from the time of publication of this law, which applications shall be exempt from stamp taxation. The same term shall be allowed for the removal of business signs or marks of manufacture containing the above cited designations and suspended in front of industrial or commercial establishments or other buildings. Any action contrary to Art. 17 shall be punished by a fine of from 300 to 3,000 Leis. The court shall decree simultaneously the cancellation of the firm or the mark of manufacture from the judicial records and the removal of the business signs from the establishments and other buildings (Art. 18). (Translation from Oesterreichisches Patenblatt, December 1, 1913.) United States. Patents. Infringements. Oldfield Bill, H. R. 10153. 63D CONGRESS, 2D SESSION. In the House of Representatives, December 9, 1913, Mr. Oldfield introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Patents and ordered to be printed: A BILL RELATING TO PATENTS. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled That in any action for infringement of patent where, upon motion by the plaintiff against a specified machine, art, or composition of matter charged as an infringement, the plaintiff shall make prima facie showing of title and infringement, the court shall, upon the prima facie showing of validity raised by the grant of the patent, enter an interlocutory order directing that the defendant shall (a) file with the plaintiff or his representative, within each calendar month after the entry of such order, a statement of the number or quantity and selling price of all such machines or compositions, or in the case of an art, the number or quantity and selling price of the machines or products operated upon by such art, made, sold, or used by the defendant subsequent to the entry of such order and until the final decree in the suit, and (b) shall at the same time pay to the plaintiff or his representative a royalty of five per centum of the total selling price so reported; and further directing that if the defendant shall make default in the filing of any report or the making of any royalty payment hereunder, notice thereof shall be given to the defendant by the plaintiff, and unless such default be remedied to the satisfaction of the court within ten days a preliminary injunction shall issue against such infringement: Provided, however, That if the selling price is not established, or at the discretion of the court, the court may fix an arbitrary price as a reasonable selling price: Provided further, That if such application is made by plaintiff, and the statements are filed and royalty paid by defendant, the defendant shall not thereafter be required to account for or pay any other profits or damages for any infringement so reported and paid for, nor shall any injunction be issued against the continued use of the specific infringement so reported and paid for: And provided further, That no defendant shall be required to pay more than five per centum royalty upon any machine, art, or composition under one or more patents owned or controlled by the same interest at any time subsequent to the commencement of the infringement complained of: And provided further, That nothing herein shall repeal or impair any relief to which plaintiff may be entitled under any other law of the United States save as to the specific infringements reported and paid for hereunder. EDITOR'S NOTE: If existing conditions are deemed to require any such remedy as is here proposed, it would seem that the Bill as drawn is open to objection on the following grounds at least: The Bill provides no opportunity for the defendant to be heard in opposition to the motion, however good his defense may be. The royalty of 5% fixed by the Bill would be inadequate in some cases, and excessive in others. The Bill makes no provision for restitution of royalty paid in case the action is I decided in favor of the defendant. United States. Patents. Adverse Decisions. Order No. 2,079. PUBLICATION OF ADVERSE DECISIONS. (Order No. 2,079.) Department of the Interior, United States Patent Office. Washington, D. C., October 28, 1913. Where the claims of a patent are affected by adverse decision or concession of priority as the result of an inference, a notice as to the patented claims thus affected will be published in the Official Gazette after final decision in the proceedings. The Docket Clerk will furnish the Chief of the Issue and Gazette Division with proper information for publication in each case so decided. (From 196 Official Gazette, p. 529.) THOMAS EWING, Commissioner of Patents. United States Practice. Patents. Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia. IN RE HARBECK. Decided February 3, 1913. 1. PATENTABILITY-DOUBT RESOLVED IN FAVOR OF THE APPLICANT. "It is easy to dispose of a case, where the issue of invention is close, by holding that the advance over the prior art constitutes a mere mechanical change apparent to those skilled in the art. But, in the absence of proof to support this conclusion, and where the question of patentability is close, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the applicant. (In re Eastwood, 33 App. D. C., 291).” 2. SAME-CHANGE OF MATERIAL. "While the use of new materials to produce a known result, or of known materials to produce a new but obvious result, may not always constitute invention, if the new idea, when applied, brings success out of failure, produces a new and useful result and saving in operation or production, or efficiency instead of inefficiency, gives to the device new functions and useful properties, it is invention, and may be patented." 3. SAME-PAper-Wall CaN. A can body composed of layers of paper united to each other by a fused cement, held patentable over the prior art. Mr. H. N. Low and Mr. J. W. Munday, for the appellant. Mr. Robert F. Whitehead, for the Commissioner of Patents. VAN ORSDEL, J.: This is an appeal from the Commissioner of Patents refusing a patent to appellant for a device consisting of a paper vessel, the walls of which are formed of layers of paper held together by a fused cement. The claims are as follows: 1. The vessel having walls made of layers of paper united to each other by a fused cement. 2. The can body composed of oblong layers of papers cemented to each other step fashion by a fused cement and having its stepped ends cemented together by the fusible cement and caused to adhere to each other by the application of heat. 3. The can body composed of layers of paper cemented together by fused cement and creased with three creases to facilitate bending at the corners into a square form and to flatten for shipment. 4. The can body composed of layers of paper cemented together by fused cement and creased to facilitate bending at the corners into a square form, a plurality of creases being given for each corner that the corner may be rounded to facilitate the crimping or seaming of the sheet metal heads on the body. 5. The combination of the can body made of layers of paper cemented together by fused cement and made to adhere by the application of heat and having sheet metal heads applied thereto. 6. The combination of the can body made of layers of paper cemented together by fused cement and having sheet metal heads applied thereto, said can body being made square with creased rounded corners, and said heads being rounded at the corners to correspond. Appellant described the invention in his specification as follows: The vessel made in this manner wherein the layers are cemented by a cement consisting of a fusible compound united by application of heat, as contradistinguished from the ordinary cements employed in similar relation, are much more thoroughly water and grease proof than such paper vessels seamed or built up by the employment of such solvent softened pastes or cements. Because, in order to harden solvent softened cement, the solvent must be dried out, which it can only do by passing through the layers of paper between which it is placed, and which escape of the solvent through the paper tends to leave both the paper and the cement in a state where they are pervious to water and grease, especially the latter. And this impervious character of the can body built up of layers of paper united by fusible cement is specially valuable where the can or vessel is to be used for containing aromatic foods, such as coffee, tea, etc., as will be readily understood. The principal feature of the invention consists in the use of fused cement, instead of a soluble adhesive. It is claimed that all former efforts in this direction, and numerous patents are cited, have proved defective, in that soluble adhesive or cement was used, and, when the solvent evaporated or dried out, it left the walls of the vessel porous, and not impervious to gases or moisture. Overcoming this defect is the problem appellant claims to have solved. Not only is no solvent used in appellant's cement, but he claims to use a combination which gives rise to no objectionable odors when his vessel is put into use. In all the references cited, the pastes, glues or cements used in adhering or cementing the layers of paper or other material together are softened by solvents, which require a drying out or evaporating process. Appellants discovery, as suggested, in cementing together the layers of paper by a fusing process, consists of rolling the cemented layers of paper between heated rolls, thus eliminating the drying out or evaporating process. No evidence was taken nor were affidavits called for in the Patent Office. The statement of appellant in his application must be accepted as true. The facts of discovery and of utility are admitted. It is not contended that impervious sheets made of layers of paper united by fused cement capable of being converted into air-tight and waterproof vessels were in prior use. The application was rejected by the Patent Office for the reason that the change from the prior art, where the sheets were made of layers of paper united by the use of soluble cement, to the use of fused cement, which, according to the specification, marked the transition from failure to success in this art, was a mere mechanical step capable of being taken by any one skilled in the art. The references cited indicate the antiquity of the art. Numerous attempts have been made to solve the problem, but the step applicant took seems not to have suggested itself to any of them. The most ancient reference given is the patent granted to one Jaloureau, February 10, 1863. It consisted in an for improved process of manufacturing water proof cement pipes conveying and holding liquids or gases, and for other purposes, from sheets or rolls of paper, or other tissues. He saturated the sheets of paper with an adhesive and rolled them upon a mandrel. The adhesive was composed of— liquid, bituminous, or other equivalent mastic. He described an adhesive of such a nature that it had to be dried out. After describing the drying process, the specification continues: After the above operation, the mastic coating is permitted to cool, which may be accelerated by a shower of cold water, and after the formed tube or pipe is cooled, the mandrel can be taken out by simply standing it on end and giving it a few knocks. Until the several coatings of mastic become thoroughly dry the tube or pipe thus formed is liable to get out of shape, and to prevent this, when the iron mandrel is taken out, all that is necessary is to insert a wooden mandrel. After the mastic has become dry and indurated the paper sleeve may be removed. * * * The inside of the pipe may be coated. * * * Instead of the inner coating of mastic a |