Review. Copyright 1905, by RICHARDS & Co. All rights reserved. Advertising Rates. Advertisements..... Australian Commonwealth.-Documents.-Forms.. Austria-Patents-Withdrawal.... Books and Pamphlets Received. Cuba-Patents and Trade Marks-New Secretary. Denmark-Trade Marks-Applications under Convention.. -Useful Models-Law of April 1, 1905... Germany-Patents-Extension of Time........... Great Britain-Patents -Convention Applications.. 46 1326 1354, 1355, 1356 1343 1328 1354 1327 1328 1341 1327 1327 -Trade Marks-Act of August 11, 1905. 1333 Holland (see Netherlands). Netherlands-Trade Marks-Law of December 30, 1904. 1339 THE Patent and Trade Mark Review A monthly journal for the publication of new laws and Volume 1, October, 1902, to September, 1903; Unbound, $2.00; Cloth, $2.75; Sheep, $3.00, ADVERTISING RATES. Personal Advertisements, 2 Cents per word. We do not solicit the advertisements of Patent Agents or Solicitors. WHILE THE UTMOST CARE IS TAKEN TO INSURE ACCURACY IN THE MATTER THAT APPEARS IN THE REVIEW, NO RESPONSIBILITY IS ASSUMED ON ACCOUNT OF ERRORS OR INACCURACIES WHICH MAY OCCUR THEREIN. Great Britain. PATENTS.-Convention Applications for Patents. (Illustrated Official Journal (Patents), Aug. 10, 1905.)` Rule 14 of the Patents Rules, 1903, prescribes that "every Convention application, in addition to the specification left therewith, must be accompanied by a copy or copies of the specification, and drawings or documents filed or deposited by the applicant in the Patent Office of the Foreign State or British Possession in respect of the first foreign application, duly certified by the official chief or head of the Patent Office of such Foreign State or British Possession as aforesaid, or otherwise verified to the satisfaction of the Comptroller." The Comptroller has been advised that it is obligatory that the necessary documents should be left at the same time as the Convention application Notice is hereby given that this requirement will be rigidly enforced, after reasonable time has been allowed to enable Patent Agents to inform their clients abroad of the stricter practice which the above construction of Rule 14 will involve. Cuba. Patents and Trade Marks. A new Secretary of Agriculture, Industry and Commerce has been appointed, and at his first cabinet meeting he urged the reorganization of the Patent and Trade-Mark division of his office. We may therefore expect better service hereafter. Germany. PATENTS.-Extension of Time to Reply to Official Communications. The following is a translation of the official notification referred to in our last issue, page 1296. ANNOUNCEMENT IN REGARD TO THE GRANTING OF EXTENSIONS OF TIME LIMITS ALLOWED IN PENDING APPLICATIONS FOR PATENTS. In volume IX of this paper, on page 241, there have been published under date of September 19th, 1903, the principles to be observed by the primary examiner of the Imperial Patent Office in allowing a first term. Ample time is granted for this term, it being supposed that applications for extensions of the granted delays would be filed only by way of exception. However, in the proceedings before the primary examiners, as also in the subsequent proceedings before the Application Departments or the Appellate Divisions, an exceedingly large number of petitions for extension of time are, nevertheless, filed. All first petitions of this kind are, as a rule, allowed without any difficulty, provided that the extensions of time asked for in said petitions do not exceed a period of six weeks. However, there are no prospects of any additional petition for extension of time being considered unless exceptional reasons exist, the truth of which must be established. If an agent alleges that he has received no information, such allegation will not be allowed to form a sufficient reason for filing a petition for extension of time. All applicants and their representatives are requested to take note of the aforesaid facts. Furthermore it must be observed that a reply, for which a certain term is allowed, may, of course, also be filed before the expiration of such term. In most cases it will be to the best interest of the parties themselves not to wait until the expiration of a term. The proceedings, too, will then require less time, as each document is taken up for examination according to its filing date, regardless of the length of time for which a term may have been granted. Berlin, June 20th, 1905. The president of the Imperial Patent Office. (Sgd.) HAUSS. Denmark. TRADE MARKS.--Registration Under the Convention (Article 6). We are indebted to Messrs. Viggo C. Eberth and Marcus-Moller, of Copenhagen, for the following report: We have pleasure in bringing before your notice the following interesting judgment concerning the registration of a trade mark in Denmark in accordance with article 6 of the international convention. The details of the case are as follows: We applied, on behalf of a foreign firm, for the registration of a trade mark, but the registrar refused the same on the grounds, that it did not fulfil the conditions of the Danish act on trade marks regarding trade marks requirements. We appealed to the ministry of home affairs claiming to have the trade mark registered under article 6 of the international convention. The ministry dismissed the appeal, after which we summoned the registrar to appear before the "Maritime and Commercial-Court" in order to show cause why the trade mark should not be entered in the trade mark register. During the case the registrar maintained, that article 6 in question "should not be understood to read that a trade mark registered in one country within the convention shall without the right of criticism be accepted in other countries within the convention." However the court found, that the wording of article 6 according to the natural meaning of the words could be only understood to read, that in case of a device-mark registered in one country within the convention it shall be accepted for registration here in the like manner as it is registered in the other country, irrespective of its fulfilling—or not—the requirements of the Danish trade mark act as to the shape of such mark, this being furthermore confirmed by the corresponding expression "telle quelle" used in the French original of the convention. Judgment was therefor given for the applicant who was found to be entitled to have his trade mark registered in the Kingdom of Denmark. We may add, that this decision will no doubt be brought before the Supreme Court. Austria. PATENTS.-Withdrawal for Non-Working. Decision of the Patent Office (Annulment Department) of May 22, 1905, Z. 17,048* When a patent may be revoked only after the expiration of three years from the date of publication of the granted patent in the Patent Journal, held that no *Considering the intense and widespread interest taken in the above decision, the latter is published by way of exception, before becoming valid. proof is required to show that the public interest demanded the working in the country. When the owner of a patent has not carried into effect the working of his invention, held that such failure to bring about the working shall not be excusable unless he has done all that is necessary to secure said working, but has encountered insurmountable obstacles, that is to say, obstacles which cannot be overcome, notwithstanding the patentee's earnest efforts. The law requires a positive action on the part of the patentee in order to secure the working of his invention. The fact that there is wanting a demand in the country will only be considered in so far as it is adapted to explain the want of success of patentee's earnest efforts. When the owner of a patent acts in a wholly passive manner, held that even the absence of a domestic demand is not sufficient to excuse him. When proceedings for withdrawal are instituted, the prolonged term, to be granted to the patentee, must be appointed so that it will be possible for him to make all the technical preparations for working his process, but, by no means, so as to enable him to erect a special plant, to equip it and to put it in operation. When proceedings for withdrawal are instituted, then the first decision giving notice of the impending withdrawal shall also contain an opinion concerning the costs. Such notice of impending withdrawal is given as the result of a final (conditional) decision. FACTS OF THE CASE: Plaintiffs say in their complaint that nearly four years have already elapsed since the publication in the Patent Journal of January 15, 1901 (or rather in that of February 1, 1901, of the patent in controversy for which the priority of January 2, 1899, that is to say the filing date of the application for German Letters Patent No. 10,910, is claimed. The bill further sets forth that, notwithstanding this delay, patentees have neglected to work the protected invention or to have it worked in the country or to do all that is necessary to secure such working. Complainants pray, therefore, that previous notice of withdrawal be given and a suitable term be appointed for an adequate working of the invention and that this patent be then declared withdrawn according to the provisions of paragraph 27 of the Patent Law, and that the costs of suit be charged to the defendant party. The plaintiffs pray further that the time allowed for working be limited to the shortest possible term, considering that this invention is very simple and that six years have already elapsed since the filing of the application. Defendants in their written answer contended that the elements to be obtained by means of their patented process consist of intermediate products for the manufacture of coal-tar colors, and that the coal-tar color industry is carried on in Austria on a very small scale. They go on to say that plaintiffs represent the one Austrian firm engaged in the manufacture of coal-tar colors, the only other concern, to be considered in this connection, being the firm M., K. & Co. in Hr., that is to say a branch establishment of the German firm K. & Co. in B. Defendants further state that, for the reasons aforesaid, the demand too, of the coal-tar color industry for intermediate products is very small. That, up to this time, the defendant firm has received no orders from Austria for supplying such intermediate products. That, further, numerous technically valuable and generally accessible methods are known for preparing the intermediate products for which the patent in issue was granted. That it is absurd to allege that the Austrian industry requires the working of the patent process. That this is the reason why the complainant firm has never de |