claimed that the addition of anchoring means to a block-the block not being new-enables a result which is meritorious and different in kind from any that could be attained by the patented invention. This result is clearly expressed by the words of specification, namely "This feature provides a distinct advantage over somewhat similar blocks at present in use as it dispenses with the necessity of introducing plastic material to hold the blocks together as each successive tier is erected." In the In the opponent's invention the blocks do not function in this manner. On the other hand it is described in the opponent's specification that the building of a wall is characterized by the formation of cores or columns by filling the dovetail passages with plastic material as each course of blacks is built up or assembled, or, as an alternative by the erection of columns of rectangular section against which the blacks are placed in position and keyed to the columns either by appropriately shaped key pieces or by filling the passages or remaining spaces between the ribs of the blocks and the columns with liquid material. The question then is, whether the addition of the anchoring means, according to Matthew's invention, alters the essential character of the building block. Is it a new integer giving a better result? I think so far as may be judged from the specification of each invention and from the nature of the evidence in the case, that the different result which, according to the specifications, is attained during the assembling of the blocks, made according to Matthew's invention, to form a wall, namely, dispensing with the necessity to form the core

or column as each tier of blocks is assembled, must, at this stage, be accepted as having sufficient merit to substantiate a claim to a combination. As a combination it is new. I therefore decide that a patent be granted, and that the applicant's costs be paid by the opponent.

2nd December, 1921.

Patent Attorneys for Applicant C. W. Le Plastrier and V. J. Kelson (Phillips, Ormonde, Le Plastrier, and Kelson.)

Solicitor for Opponent. A. Phillips.

(Australian Official Journal of Patents, Dec. 13, 1921.)

Australia

Decision of Registrar Holding Lubricating Oils and Greases Not Same Goods as Benzine, Gasoline, Petrol, Naphtha and Motor Spirits.

Trade Marks Act 1905-1919,

Section 9.-Application to register a trade mark.-Trade Mark in use in the State of New South Wales at commencement of Act -Meaning of "unregistered proprietor" under Section 9-Permissive power of Registrar under Section 9-Application accepted.

This is a matter of an application, No. 29,071, by John Keep and Sons, Limited, for the registration of a trade mark, a representation of which is subjoined, in respect of Lubricating Oils and Axle Grease.

It has been stated by the Examiner as an objection to the registration of the trade mark that it so

closely resembles trade mark No. 20,001 which belongs to a different proprietor, and is registered in respect of Benzine, Gasoline, Petrol, Naphtha and Motor Spirit, as to be likely to deceive. This trade mark This trade mark consists of the word "Dingo."

The applicant claims that the trade mark is a registrable trade mark on his showing that he is the unregistered proprietor of a trade mark within the meaning of Section 9 of the Trade Marks Act 1905This section provides that(1) The unregistered proprietor of a trade mark in use in any State at the commencement of this Act may make application for the registration of his trade mark under this Act, (2) The application, shall, subject to paragraphs (3), (4), (5) and (6) of this section, be dealt with in the same manner as other applications for registration of trade marks; (3) The trade mark may be registered if it could have been lawfully registered under the State Trade Marks Act in force at the commencement of this Act, in the State in which the trade mark was then used, had an application for its registration been made before the commencement of this Act; (4) If the trade mark does not

or

contain the essential particulars required by this Act, it may nevertheless be registered subject to such conditions and limitations as to mode or place, or period of user, as the Registrar, Law Officer, Court thinks fit to impose; (5) When the same trade mark or nearly identical trade mark is owned or registered by another proprietor in any part of the Commonwealth, in respect of the same goods, the trade mark may be registered subject to such conditions and limitations as to mode or place of user or otherwise as the Registrar, Law Officer, or Court thinks fit to impose to preserve the rights of each proprietor; (6) Where the trade mark, or a nearly identical trade mark, was, at the commencement of this Act, common to the trade in another State, the registration under this Act shall confer no exclusive rights in that State on the registered proprietor and that State may be excepted from the registration under this Act. In effect it enables the unregistered proprietor to register, provided certain conditions exist, a trade mark which was in use in a State or States of the Commonwealth at the commencement of the Trade Marks Act 1905-1919, and which at the commencement of the said Act was not registered under the Trade Marks Act in force in the State in which the trade mark was used at the commencement of the Trade Marks Act 1905-1919. That the meaning of "unregistered proprietor" under section 9 is so limited is clearly ascertainable from sub-section (1) and the condition expressed in sub-section (3) in the words "had an application for its registration been made before the

commencement of this Act." It is given in evidence in this case that the applicant is an "unregistered proprietor" within the meaning I have stated. He is the unregistered He is the unregistered proprietor of a trade mark in use in the State of New South Wales at the commencement of the Trade Marks Act 1905-1919, and which at the commencement of the said Act was not registered under the Trade Marks Act in force in the State of New South Wales. The applicant therefore is entitled to any special consideration which is conferred on unregistered proprietors of trade marks under Section 9. In this Section it is provided by subsection (3) that "The trade mark may be registered if it could have been lawfully registered under the State Trade Marks Act in force, at the commencement of this Act, in the State in which the trade mark was then used, had an application for its registration been made before the commencement of this Act." Under the Trade Marks Act 1900 of the State of New South Wales registration of a trade mark could be obtained as a right unless it were shown that—(a) such trade mark had been previously registered; or (b) some other person is entitled to such trade mark; or (c) such trade mark is so like some other trade mark as it may be mistaken for the same. And in the interpretation section of this Act it is provided that "Mark" includes any name, signature, word, letter, device emblem, figure, sign, seal, stamp, diagram, label, ticket or other mark of any description, and that "Trade Mark" includes any mark lawfully used by any person to denote any goods to be goods of the manufacture or merchandise of such person

or to be goods of any particular description made or sold by such

person.

The question then for consideration is: could the trade mark have been registered under the Trade Mark Act 1900 of New South Wales had an application for its registration been made before the commencement of the Trade Marks Act 1905-1919? The trade mark is clearly one which comes within the interpretation of the words “Mark” and "Trade Mark" under the Trade Marks Act 1900 of the State of New South Wales, and there is no evidence that any of the conditions which act as a prohibition against registration under the said New South Wales Act exist in this case. Sub-section (2) of Section 9 of the Trade Marks Act 1905-1919 is mandatory as to the manner in which applications entitled to consideration under Section 9 shall be dealt with. It is expressly provided by this sub-section that "The application shall, subject to paragraphs (3), (4), (5), and (6) of this section, be dealt with in the same manner as other applications for registration of trade marks." Therefore, if the Registrar finds that the trade mark could have been lawfully registered under the State Trade Marks Act in force at the commencement of the Trade Marks Act 1905-1919 in the State in which the Trade Mark was then used, had an application for its registration been made before the commencement of this Act, he is empowered by sub-section (3) of Section 9 to acknowledge the right which the application possessed at the commencement of the Trade Marks Act 1905-1919, and permit registration of the trade mark in the Common

wealth with or without conditions or limitations as to mode or place or period of user as provided for by sub-section (4), (5), and (6) of Section 9. Looking at these subsections, sub-section (4) is not applicable. The trade mark contains an essential particular as provided by Section 16. Sub-section (5) is obviously not applicable. Although the trade mark comes within the meaning of the words "nearly identical trade mark"-that is if these words are to be defined as including similar trade marks referred in the proviso to Section 51-A-it is not applied to the same goods as the registered trade mark. Consideration for sub-section (6) is not called for, as there is no evidence before me.

Having weighed the considerations which are applicable to the application for the registration of the trade mark, I have come to the conclusion that the applicant is entitled to the acceptance of his application. Accordingly I accept the application.

16th December, 1921. Patent Attorney for ApplicantFred Walsh.

(Australian Official Journal of Trade Marks-December 31st, 1921.)

Cuba

The Republic of Cuba, member of the International Convention since 1904, had not previously adhered to the revision of Washington of June 2, 1911, but has now notified the Swiss Federal Council, according to La Propriete Industrielle, Dec. 31, 1921, the ratification having become effective on January 3, 1922.

Brazil

Registration of Trade-Mark "Reliable."

The Diario Official of Brazil for November 26, 1921, contains a notice of the registration of November 14, 1921, of the trade-mark "Reliable," by A. G. Martins Abelheira, rua Buenos Aires n. 102, Rio de Janeiro, for a large number of articles, a list of which is given below. In view of the fact that in Brazil ownership of a trade-mark is based on priority of registration and not of use, as in United States, it is suggested that American owners of the trade-mark "Reliable" who have not authorized the Brazilian firm to obtain registration of the trade-mark institute action for annulment. Under the Brazilian law annulment proceedings may be brought within six months from date of registration.

The list of articles covered by the registration follows:

Mineral waters; antimony; indigo; acids; articles of paper; asbestos; foods for animals; aluminum in powder, sheets and manufactures; white lead; starches; aminanthus; hooks; anilines; apparatus; clay; articles of tortoiseshell; asphalts; oils; olives; fats; packing; thread; whalebones; vanillas; beverages; benzine; jewelry; pumps; manufactures of rubber; buttons; pitch or tar; ropes of cotton, flax, fibers or wire; cocoa; coffee; lime; camphor; pencil holders for writing carbides; preserved meats; paste board; casein; cellulose; cereals; beer; tea; manufactures of horn; chlorates; chocolate; lead in bars and in manufactures; cements; curds; manufactures of copper; trunks; glues; provisions;

condiments; reserves; cordage; transmission belts; cork, raw and in manufactures; horse-shoe nails; cream; horse-hair; cutlery; disinfectants; alarm clocks; confections; drugs for industries and commerce; hoes; sulphur; enamels; emery; essences; mirrors; spices; tin, raw and in manufactures; sponges; extracts; extinguishers; bran; flours; locks; feculas; felts; edged tools; iron, in plates, bars and manufactures; portable stoves; kitchen stoves; furnaces; formicides; forage; leaf tobacco (fumo); fruits in syrup; fruits dried and fresh; gasoline; plasters; glucose; gums; blacking; glycerine; greases; potter's earth; glues; agric. instruments; jewelry; jute, raw and in manufactures, except fabrics; kerosene; wool yarn and manufactures, except fabrics; earthenware; bricks of clay, cement, marble, glass, stone powder, and refractory bricks; pencils; pencil-cases; brass, raw and in manufactures; lamps; lanterns; milk, condensed, preserved, sterilized, and in powder; vegetables, dried and preserved; liquors; limes; linseed; threads; flax, raw and in manufactures,except fabrics polishing cloths and paper; hops; gloves; machines; mother-of-pearl, raw and in manufactures; wood, in rough and in manufactures; malt; rubber hose; bracelets; manna; butter; electrical material; dyeing materials; prime materials for industries; "matte"; stockings of cotton, wool, and silk; mercury; metals; mica; minerals; mills; cigarette paper; motors; oils, animal, mineral and vegetable; paper in general; cardboard; paraffine; csrews; pulp for the manufacture of paper; pumice stone; emery and other stones for grinding, polishing, and sharpening,

in the rough and worked; preserved fish; perfumeries; petroleum; feathers; pianos; brushes; pulps; hairpowder, and refractory bricks; pennails; printing presses; presses; wood products; pharmaceutical products; cheeses; hardware; clocks; refrigeratos; resins; soaps; seeds; sulphites; superphosphates; talcs; tannins; metal fabrics; tile of earthenware, cement, and glass; metallic and other inks, in liquid, in paste, in powder, and prepared for printing, stamping and pictures of all kinds; dyes; turbines; varnishes; window glass; glasses; red-lead; and manufactures of zinc. (Commerce Reports, Jan. 30, 1922.)

Northern Rhodesia

Patent Law. Proclamation No. 27 of 1921.

We are advised by Rhodesian correspondents that Northern Rhodesia has now provided for the protection of inventions by Proclamation No. 27 of 1921, published in the Northern Rhodesia Government Gazette of December 20, 1921.

The main features of the law are as follows:

(1) The possession of a patent in Southern Rhodesia is a pre-requisite for an appication in Northern Rhodesia.

(2) The original letters patent in Southern Rhodesia and a true copy thereof must be produced, in gether with an application.

(3) An Assignee can apply, but the deed of assignment and a true