The law relating to trade marks - Tapa blanda

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1885 Excerpt: ...see fiiist schedule to the Rules. The section being directory only in form it is competent for the Comptroller to decide between the conflicting titles of the applicants and to select one for registration without referring to the court. He cannot register more than one: see sect. 72. The applicant whose application is thus refused may proceed, it would seem, under sect. 90, as a "person aggrieved by the omission without sufficient cause of his name from the register." Before exercising adversely to an applicant a discretionary power like that here given, the Comptroller is bound to afford him an opportunity of being heard personally or by an agent, and to give him ten days' notice of an appointment for the purpose: sect. 94, and Rules 17-19. The section deals only with conflicting claims to the same trade mark. The case of opposition to an application on the ground that the trade mark sought to be registered is, although not identical, yet so similar to a mark claimed by the opponent as to be calculated to deceive, comes within sect. 69, even when the opponent claims registration of his mark concurrently with his opposition to the other application. A title to the same trade mark may be acquired by two or more persons in several ways. Illustrative Cases.--(i.) When they have used the mark independently for several years: In re Powell, Jessel, M.R., 1878, Seb. Dig. No. 589; In re Rabone Bros. & Co., Jessel, M.R, 1879, Seb. Dig. No. 643. (ii.) When on a dissolution of partnership it is agreed that the several partners may continue the same trade: Benbow v. Low, Bacon, V.-C, 1880, 44 L. T. N. S. 875; 29 W. R. 837. See also Hine. Lart, Shadwell, V.-C, 1846, 10 Jur. 106; 7 L. T. 41; and Banks v. Gibson, Roniilly, M.R, 1865, 34 Beav. 566; 34 L. J. C...