study this matter over and give a statement, if you will, to your attorney, or yourself, and the committee would like to hear you, because I am afraid the way it is here, there are so few members now, and it is quite late-if you wish to appear again, the committee would be very glad to hear you at one of our future hearings. I do not want to have you come back, but I think the record will show it is rather confusing, and I think for your own protection we want to do whatever is right, as far as the company is concerned. Mr. SCHWAB. I certainly want you to believe that we want to do what is right. The CHAIRMAN. There is no question about it, but I think there is a doubt in the minds of the committee. Mr. SCHWAB. It is one of legal interpretation. Mr. JONKMAN. I would like to ask Mr. Schwab a couple of questions to clear up my own mind. I would like to know, for instance, whether or not the Southern Spring Bed Co. feels that that registration in the United States Patent Office limits their rights as against the use of the emblem of the red cross and the words "Red Cross"? In other words, this is something from the Patent Office, and inasmuch as that does not necessarily, may I say, embrace all of the rights of registration, but your rights are predicated upon use. Would you be bound by that instrument from the United States Patent Office? Then, in the second place, I would like to know, for instance, whether or not-and let me put this distinction-whether or not you would say that a davenport and I am only using that now as I know the term-probably would not be within the connotation of that term that you have used, but a bed davenport would because it is primarily an instrument for sleeping, and we know we have to sacrifice a lot on these bed davenports and studio couches. I have found it so impractical that I could not get a nice one, and at the same time get one that would be suitable for sleeping purposes, and I would like to have the inquiry restricted to that end. Is there not some distinction between bed davenports and studio couches which are primarily sleeping facilities, and only additionally, may I say, sitting embellishments in the room? You lose a lot in providing that facility. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Jonkman, may I just say something there in that connection, that if the Southern Spring Bed Co. had used any of these things, irrespective of what these papers called for in here, if they had used these things before 1905 and had used the red cross label on them, they would be within the law to use it at this time; that is, for anything they had used it for prior to 1905. But if they had not used it prior to 1905, I think that they would be estopped by the law. Mr. JONKMAN. Perhaps I am a little more literal. You can take Mr. Perry's remarks on these 11 points. He testified that they are now making an antiseptic from cotton rather than lint. Mr. PERRY. That is carded cotton instead of lint. Mr. JONKMAN. Suppose that you are going to confine them to the same object. You could not have done that; you could not have changed over; and in the evolution of bed making we come to where we make what is a bed davenport, which we did not know 25 years ago, but it is essentially a bed with only additional foundations; I think that they are within the same purpose and the same class of goods. The CHAIRMAN. I agree with you, but I cannot get Mr. Schwab to say whether he has been using these things for the same things prior to 1905 when the trade-mark registration calls for it to be used only for mattresses. Mr. SCHWAB. Could I put it this way? Maybe this will answer your question. I am afraid that I am a very inexpert witness, but I will say this: We have only used it on items which are the natural evolution of the item that we used it on prior to 1905. If you buy a studio couch because you have a small apartment or a small house, you buy that for the specific purpose of sleeping on it at night in order to save the room, and you use it as a mattress and in lieu of a mattress, and I cannot see where there is any question but that it is the same classification without stretching it the slightest bit. Now, we have only used the red cross label on items of that type, and we never have used it on any other items, and I would like very much to give you a list of a lot of items that we do make and we never use that application on, to prove my point. Mr. EBERHARTER. I would just like to say that the question we are discussing now has developed into a legal precipitation of this thing, but the reason I called attention to the exhibit of the trade-mark papers that he had was because I thought it showed an intention at that time to use the red cross symbol only for mattresses, and the very exhibit seems to indicate that that was the intention. Further, I think every other witness has testified, who has testified on behalf of a company that is opposed to this legislation, has indicated that they, in every instance, cooperated with the American National Red Cross if any request from the Red Cross was made, and this is the first company that I know of that has indicated that he is not cooperating with the desires of the American National Red Cross. Mr. ROGERS. Might I make an observation right there? When the American Red Cross made this request of the Southern Spring Bed Co., they had already, for a great number of years, used the red cross trade-mark on these items of bedding. It was not, just at that moment, taking them up. If they had just been beginning or contemplating beginning use of the Red Cross mark on those items of bedding they would have abandoned such use or such contemplated use. They had made such use for several years prior to Mr. Hughes' protest under the belief that the act of 1905, wherein it used the term "for the same class of goods" clearly justified their doing so. The CHAIRMAN. That is the act of 1910. Mr. ROGERS. So when the protest of 1933 or 1934 came from Mr. Hughes, they had a long-established right, provided they were entitled under the act of 1905, as they believed, and we so advised them, to do what they did do. Mr. EBERHARTER. I am glad that you made that statement. Mr. ROGERS. They would have abandoned it immediately if they had just contemplated taking it up. The CHAIRMAN. If you wish to submit any brief on this subject, the committee will be very glad to have it, and if you want to appear again at any future hearings of the committee, we would be very glad to hear you. Mr. ROGERS. I would like to do something, if I might, that I think would be enlightening to the committee, and I do not think it would be embarrassing to Mr. Holmes, who is one of the foremost trademark and patent attorneys in the United States. He comes from Boston, from a firm that is recognized there as an authority and throughout the world, as a matter of fact I think his remarks would be enlightening. I think Mr. Holmes would have to tell you gentlemen that from his knowledge of trade-mark law, he would have to say that the term "same class of goods" would certainly include, I would not say furniture, which I have said is a broad and liberal construction placed on that term, but would certainly, without question, include the lesser classification of bedding, and I will ask Mr. Holmes to make that statement because he would have indicated to the contrary in his testimony. The CHAIRMAN. In his testimony yesterday, he eliminated davenports and divans. Mr. ROGERS. He said that they did not continue with them. The CHAIRMAN. If I remember correctly, he eliminated pillows from his right to use the red cross. Mr. ROGERS. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. I think that I am right in that. The committee stands adjourned until the call of the Chair. Thank you, gentlemen, one and all. (Whereupon, an adjournment was taken at 5:30 p. m., until the call of the Chair.) H. R. 6911 TUESDAY, MAY 26, 1942 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The committee met at 10 a. m., Hon. Sol Bloom (chairman) presiding. MAN. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. The committee has under further consideration H. R. 6911, a bill known as the Red Cross bill. I would like to state at this time for the benefit of the committee that the committee has received communications from the President of the United States, from the Secretary of State, the Secretary of War, the Secretary of the Navy, and the Attorney General. These communications are quite lengthy, and if there is no objection and it is satisfactory to the committee I would like to insert these in the record and hold them over to read in executive session, when we will have copies for each member, so that at the time they are read for the benefit of the consideration of this bill each member will have a copy of the letters before him. Without objection, the reading of these letters will be passed over until the executive session. I hear no objection and it is so ordered. (The matter referred to is as follows:) Hon. SOL BLOOM, Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs, THE WHITE HOUSE, Washington, May 25, 1942. House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN BLOOM: On April 3 I transmitted to the Congress of the United States a report from the Acting Secretary of State, with an accompanying draft bill designed more effectively to implement the provisions of the Red Cross Convention of 1929, and asked that favorable consideration be given to the proposed legislation. The Army, Navy, and State Departments feel strongly that wartime conditions make the proposed legislation necessary. The American National Red Cross also strongly favors the enactment of the legislation. The proposed legislation has been checked by the Department of Justice. The Red Cross as a world-wide movement, and the Red Cross emblem, to symbolize its activities, came into being through the Geneva "Convention for the amelioration of the condition of the wounded in armies in the field." This treaty, which was adopted on August 22, 1864, and supplemented and strengthened by the Geneva Conventions of 1906 and 1929, marks one of the great achievements of civilized mankind. It is one of the few and the oldest of multilateral treaties still in force and effect. In the original and supplemental treaties, provisions were made for the humane treatment of prisoners of war, for the neutralization and protection of the personnel of the Red Cross and of the medical and hospital personnel of the armed forces in time of war. Also, as a means of identification of those entitled to such protection, the red cross was adopted as an emblem, the use of which was prohibited by anyone or for any purpose other than those stipulated in the treaties. As an added |