Chile.

Trade-Marks. Proposed New Law.

Recent advices from Santiago are to the effect that the proposed new Trade-Mark Law, notice of which appears in II P. & T. M. Rev., p. 323, and 12, p. 102, after lengthy consideration, both in and out of Congress, was approved by the Senate, Feb. 3, 1914, with slight modifications from the original draft. has yet to be approved by the House.

Italy.

It

Patents. Working. Sale Within the Country. Decision. Court of Casale, May 27, 1912, and Court of Cassation, Turin, May 30, 1913.

The sale of the patented article in the country fulfills the obligation of working required by law.

Note: Numerous decisions, notably of the Court of Cassation of Rome, have been rendered to the contrary. (12 Revue Pratique de Droit Industriel, 47).

Servia.

Trade-Marks. Protection Extended to New Territory.

According to a decree of the Department of Commerce and Industry of Servia, the law of May 30, 1884, for the protection of trade-marks is made applicable to the new territory acquired by Servia as a result of the Balkan War. (Bulletin of the United States Trade-Mark Association, January, 1914.)

Newfoundland. Australian Commonwealth. Papua. Norfolk Island.

Copyright. Adhesion to the Convention. July 1, 1912, and Feb. 1, 1913.

On Sept. 4, Oct. 30 and Nov. 13, 1913, the British Legation at Berne gave notice that Great Britain had decided to adhere for the colonies of the Australian Commonwealth, Papua, Newfoundland, and Norfolk Island to the Revised Convention of Berne for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Property, of Nov. 13, 1908, in accordance with Art. 26 of that Convention. The accessions are ante-dated as of July 1, 1912, except Norfolk Island, Feb. 1, 1913.

Bolivia.

Patents. Trade-Marks. Proposed New Law.

A new law concerning patents and trade-marks is now under consideration in Bolivia. It was one of the important measures before the Congress last year, but on account of the important changes in contemplation, affecting both the principles of the administration of industrial property, and the increased charges to be made by the government for both patents and trade-marks, it was held over until the next session, in August of this year. In the next number of the Review we propose to give a resumé of the bill as proposed.

Germany.

Trade-Marks. Infringement. Decisions.

"Hag," "Rag," "Sag."

DECISION OF THE PATENT OFFICE.

The marks "Hag,” “Sag" and "Rag" do not conflict with each other. The termination "ag” constitutes the ordinary abbreviation of “Aktien Gesellschaft." As a consequence, in the monosyllables terminating in "ag," confusion will not result if the consonant initial varies. (17 Revue Pratique du Droit Industriel, p. 44.)

"Biocordin," "Recordin."

DECISION OF THe Appellate DivISION OF THE PATENT OFFICE, February 18, 1913. It is essentially the commencement of a word which determines its sound, its tonality. Consequently, if the word serves as a trade-mark, the commencement will appeal more to the public than will the final syllables.

The Patent Office has, accordingly, by fixed jurisprudence, refused to admit the likeness of marks, in spite of the identity of the final syllables, if the initial syllables were different-as much from the point of view of sound as from the point of view of graphic appearance.

As an example, the Patent Office admits that there is no possibility of confusion between the words "Biocordin" and "Recordin." (Markenschutz und Wettewerb, 1913, p. 422.)

France.

Patents. Priority Under the Convention. Resolution of Jan. 23. 1914.

(Translation.)

THE MINISTER OF COMMERCE, INDUSTRY, POSTS AND TElegraphs.

Resolution.

ART. I. Any person who, making in France the deposit of an application for letters patent, might wish to avail himself of the priority of a previous deposit made in one of the states belonging to the Union, shall make a declaration indicating the date and the country of this deposit.

This declaration shall be made, at the latest, within a period of sixty days counted from the deposit of the application in France.

ART. 2. Paragraph 2 of Art. 6 of the Resolution of Aug. 11, 1903, (see I P. & T. M. Rev., 569, Art. 6, paragraph 2, as follows: "It must state that the date when first filed in a foreign country and the name of the country where this has been done, if applicant wishes to benefit by said first registration.-Ed.), is, consequently completed, as follows:

This indication, when it shall not have been mentioned on the application, may be furnished validly within a maximum period of sixty days, counting from the deposit of the application.

Given at Paris, Jan. 23, 1914.

(Signed) L. MALVY.

Sir:

Transvaal.

Patents. Computation of Time.

Patent Office, Pretoria, 2nd April, 1913.

RE SECTIONS II AND 21 OF THE PATENTS PROCLAMATION, 1902, AND SCHEDULE "H." With reference to the above Sections and Schedules, I beg to remind you that the method of computing a number of days prescribed by Statute is laid down in Section 5 of the Union Interpretation of Laws Act (No. 5) of 1910, but a different method based upon the practice at common law is adopted in calculating a prescribed number of months or years. (See Lammas v. Nicholas and Alderson, 1911, T. D. P., 968.) According to the latter method of computation nine months running from the 2nd January in any year would terminate on the 1st October of that year.

The same rule applies to the payment of renewal fees.

When the last day falls upon a Sunday or public holiday, the common law principle as applied in the case of Davis v. Pretorius (1909, T. S., 868) will be adopted and the following day will be reckoned as included within the prescribed period.

I have the honour to be,

Sir,

Your obedient servant,

(Sgd.) C. W. THALMAN JUTA,

Commissioner of Patents.

International Union.

States of the Union. Supplement.

In 12 P. & T. M. Rev., 136, we published a list from La Propriété Industrielle of the States of the Union for the Protection of Industrial Property as of Jan. I, 1914. This list should be supplemented by the mention of those States, mentioned therein, of the Principal and Limited Unions that have, as yet, not adhered to the Convention of Washington, of June 2, 1911:

PRINCIPAL UNION.

A. Belgium, Brazil, Cuba, Denmark (with Faroe Islands), Servia, Sweden. LIMITED UNIONS.

1. Repression of False Indications of Origin.

B. Brazil, Cuba.

2. International Registration of Trade-Marks.

C. Belgium, Brazil, Cuba.

Austria.

Designs. Gebrauchmuster. Proposed New Law.

We are advised that the proposed law providing protection for designs and gebrauchmuster (see II P. & T. M. Rev., 359), has been submitted to a special Commission for examination and approval, but so far this Commission has not begun its sittings.

In this connection we give the following item, translated from the Oesterreichisches Patentblatt, Des. 15, 1913:

On Dec. 4, of this year, at the Sixth Session of the Board of Trade, presided over by His Excellency, the Minister of Industry, Dr. v. Schuster, the following resolution of the First Session of the Board of Trade, in regard to the bill introduced by the Government concerning the law for the protection of designs, was passed:

"The Board of Trade approves the establishment of a new law for the protection of designs and the grant of mutual protection features to Hungary, according to the proposed project, but recommends the following modifications:

"1. that the Chambers of Commerce and Trade shall ordinarily act as filing, offices for applications for design protection;

"2. that the fee for Gebrauchmuster for the first three-year term be not more than 10 K, and for the second three-year term only 60 K, and

"3. that in the classification of goods, artificial flowers be not included with garden products, but shall be listed in a separate class."

Patents.

Australian Commonwealth.

Statutory Rules, 1913, No. 310. Effective Dec. 3, 1913.

The Provisional Regulations under the Patents Act, 1903-1909, of June 17, 1913, known as “Statutory Rules, 1913, No. 171," of which a part (the Rules of Practice) appeared in 11 P. & T. M. Rev., 42, were made permanent and effective on December 3, 1913, the language, other than that previously published in these columns, being as follows:

PROVISIONAL REGULATION UNDER THE PATENTS ACT 1903-1909.

I, the Governor-General in and over the Commonwealth of Australia, acting with the advice of the Federal Executive Council, hereby certify that, on account of the urgency, the following Regulation under the Patents Act 1903-1909 should come into immediate operation, and make the Regulation to come into operation forthwith as a Provisional Regulation.

Dated this 17th day of June, one thousand nine hundred and thirteen.

.DENMAN, Governor-General.

By His Excellency's Command,

W. M. Hughes,

Attorney-General.

The Patents Regulations 1912 (Statutory Rules 1912, No. 76) are amended: (a) By omitting from Regulation 130 the words "furnished by the Commissioner" and inserting in their stead the words "supplied certified by the Commissioner and under the seal of the Patent Office";

(b) by omitting from the First Schedule, item 43, viz., the words and figures "for certifying office copies, MSS. or printed each o 5 0";

(c) by inserting in item 44 of the First Schedule after the word "Act" the words "or under Regulation 130"; and

(d) by omitting from item 44 of the First Schedule the figure "10" and inserting in its stead the figure "5."

We are favored by Messrs. Henry Hughes, Ltd., of Wellington, with the following summary of the working practice of New Zealand:

The New Zealand Patents Act of 1911, which came into force on the 1st July, 1912, contains provision whereby a patent requires to be worked in the Dominion within four years of its date, or two years from the coming into force of the Act, whichever period is longer. That is to say, patents granted under the old Acts of 1889 and 1908 and having dates earlier than the 1st July, 1910, must be worked in New Zealand before the 1st July, 1914, while patents granted as of dates after the 1st July, 1910, must be worked within four years of their respective dates.

The provisions of the Act are peculiar in so much that failure to work does not render the patent liable to revocation. Such failure, however, puts the patent right into such a condition that any person desirous of manufacturing the patented article in New Zealand may apply to the Court for an order declaring that the patent has not been worked. The Court is given discretion as to whether the order shall be issued straight away or postponed for a reasonable interval.

When this Order has issued the patent will not be infringed by the manufacture of the patented article within the Dominion. The patentee, therefore, in any case retains the exclusive right to import the patented article into New Zealand. Presumably, therefore, there is no need for patentees of inventions that cannot be made in New Zealand concerning themselves with the working provisions of the Act. Patentees of the classes of inventions that may be manufactured in New Zealand should, however, take some steps to comply with the working provisions. If unable to actually manufacture in New Zealand, a nominal working should be effected by means of advertisements and direct offers to firms who might be interested. Such a course, while not being sufficient to constitute a full compliance with the Act, will doubtless be considered by the Court, should proceedings be taken for the issue of an Order, and would be grounds for granting a delay.

Great Britain.

Designs. Non-Working in United Kingdom. Application to Cancel. Decision. Before the Comptroller-General.

December 17th, 1913, and January 23d, 1914.

In the Matter of Applications to Cancel the Registration of Timmler's Designs.

Applications were made under Section 58 of the Patents and Designs Act, 1907, by E to cancel the registrations of two designs (Nos. 614,643 and 615,469) registered by T for filing wires for use in connection with loose leaf binders or files, on the ground that the designs were used for manufacture exclusively or mainly outside the United Kingdom. The applications were opposed by D who had acquired the copyright in the designs by assignment from T. It was admitted that as regards Design No. 615,469 there had been no manufacture either in the United Kingdom or abroad at the time of the application. As regards No. 614,643 it appeared that the Design had been used for manufacture exclusively