persists in its determination to differentiate between life and other forms of insurance.

Fourth: It is urged that in order to sustain the interpretation given to the non-inclusion clause by the Circuit Court of Appeals (which was, in effect, the interpretation set forth above) it is necessary to interpolate in the clause the words "within such year," as shown in italics in brackets, thus:

"And life insurance companies shall not include as income in any year such portion of any actual premium received from any individual policyholder [within such year] as shall have been paid back or credited to such individual policyholder, or treated as an abatement of premium of such individual policyholder, within such

What has been said above shows that no such interpolation is necessary to sustain the construction given by the Circuit Court of Appeals. That court did not hold that the permitted non-inclusion from the year's gross income is limited to that portion of the premium received within the year which, by reason of a dividend, is paid back within the same year. What the court held was that the noninclusion is limited to that portion of the premiuin which, although entered on the books as received, was not actually received, within the year, because the full premium was, by means of the dividend, either reduced, or otherwise wiped out to that extent. Nor does the Government contend that any portion of a premium, not received within the tax year, shall be included in computing the year's gross income. On the other hand what the company is seeking is not to have "non-included" a part of the premiums which were actually received within the year, or which appear, as matter of bookkeeping to have been received but actually were not. It is seeking to have the aggregate of premiums actually received within the year reduced by an amount which the company paid out within

the year; and which it paid out mainly on account of premiums received long before the tax year. What it seeks is not a non-inclusion of amounts paid in—but a deduction of amounts paid out.

If the terms of the non-inclusion clause, (c) above, standing alone, permitted of a doubt as to its proper construction, the doubt would disappear when it is read in connection with the deduction clause, (d) above. The deduction there prescribed is of "the sums other than dividends paid within the year on policy and annuity contracts." This is tantamount to a direction that dividends shall not be deducted. It was argued that the dividends there referred to are "commercial" dividends like those upon capital stock; and that those here involved are dividends of a different character. But the dividends which the deduction clause says, in effect, shall not be deducted, are the very dividends here in question, that is dividends "on policy and annuity contracts." None such may be deducted by any insurance company except as expressly provided for in the act, in clauses quoted above, (a) (b) and (c). That is, clauses (a) (b) and (c) are, in effect, exceptions to the general exclusion of dividends from the permissible deductions as prescribed in clause (d) above.

In support of the company's contention that the interpolation of the words "within the year" is necessary in order to support the construction given to the act by the Circuit Court of Appeals we are asked to consider the legislative history of the Revenue Act of 1918 (enacted February 24, 1919, c. 18, 40 Stat. 1057); and specifically to the fact that in the bill as introduced in and passed by the House, the corresponding section (233 (a)) contained the words "within the taxable year" and that these words were stricken out by the Conference Committee (Report No. 1037, 65th Cong., 3d sess.) The legislative history of an act may, where the meaning of the words used is doubt

ful, be resorted to as an aid to construction. Caminetti v. United States, 242 U. S. 470, 490. But no aid could possibly be derived from the legislative history of another act passed nearly six years after the one in question. Further answer to the argument based on the legislative history of the later act would, therefore, be inappropriate.

We find no error in the judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals. It is

Affirmed.

ESTATE OF P. D. BECKWITH, INC. v. COMMIS SIONER OF PATENTS.

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

No. 178. Argued January 23, 1920.-Decided April 19, 1920.

The Trade-Mark Registration Act declares (§ 5) that no mark by which the goods of the owner may be distinguished from other goods of the same class shall be refused registration on account of the nature of such mark, with certain exceptions, and with the proviso that no mark shall be registered which consists merely in words or devices which are descriptive of the goods with which they are used, or of the character or quality of such goods. Held, that a mark consisting of a fanciful design in combination with certain words forming part of it was not debarred from registration by reason of the fact that some of the words "Moistair Heating System"were descriptive; that to require the deletion of such descriptive words because of their descriptive quality as a condition to registration of the mark, was erroneous; and that the act would be fully complied with if registration were permitted with an appropriate declaration on the part of the applicant disclaiming any right to the exclusive use of the descriptive words except in the setting and relation in which they appeared in the drawing, descrition and samples filed with the application. P. 543.

While there is no specific provision for disclaimers in the statute, the practice of using them is approved. P. 545.

The statute should be construed liberally, in fulfillment of its purpose, to promote the domestic and foreign trade of the country. P. 545. 48 App. D. C. 110, reversed.

THE case is stated in the opinion.

Mr. Harry C. Howard for petitioner.

Mr. Assistant Attorney General Davis, for respondent, submitted. Mr. Edward G. Curtis, Special Assistant to the Attorney General, was on the brief.

MR. JUSTICE CLARKE delivered the opinion of the court.

The petitioner, a corporation, filed an application in the Patent Office for the registration of a trade-mark, which is described as follows:

"A design like a seal, comprising the head of an Indian chief surmounting a scroll bearing his name, 'Doe-WahJack,' and surrounded by a circle, outside of which appear the words 'Round Oak' and 'Moistair Heating System' in a circle, and the whole being surrounded by a wreath of oak leaves."

It will be useful to reproduce the drawing filed with this application:

It was averred that the petitioner had used the mark for more than eighteen months before the application

was made by applying it to "Hot air and combined hot air and hot water heaters and furnaces by having the same cast into the metal of which the systems are constructed."

The Commissioner found that the mark did not conflict with any other that was registered, and that the petitioner was entitled to the exclusive use of it excepting the words "Moistair Heating System." It was ordered that the mark might be registered if the excepted words, objectionable because descriptive, were "erased " or "removed" from it, but that the filing of a disclaimer would not suffice to secure registration.

Not satisfied with this result, the petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, and its judgment affirming the decision of the Commissioner of Patents is before us for review.

The ground of both decisions is that the words "Moistair Heating System " are merely descriptive of a claimed merit of the petitioner's system-that in the process of heating, moisture, is added to the air-and that one person may not lawfully monopolize the use of words in general use which might be used with equal truthfulness to describe another system of heating. For this reason it was held that the case falls within the proviso of the Registration Act of 1905, declaring that no mark consisting merely in words or devices which are descriptive of the goods with which they are used or of the character or quality of such goods shall be registered under the terms of the act. (Act of February 20, 1905, c. 592, § 5, 33 Stat. 725, amended January 8, 1913, c. 7, 37 Stat. 649.)

No question of patent right or of unfair competition, or that the design of the trade-mark is so simple as to be a mere device or contrivance to evade the law and secure the registration of non-registrable words, is involved. Nairn Linoleum Co. v. Ringwalt Linoleum Works, 46 App. D. C. 64, 69.