There were formerly four parties to this interference; but since the J. C. Blair Company alone has appealed from the decision of the Examiner of Interferences the interference is a contest now between the J. C. Blair Company and The Reynolds & Reynolds Company. The proofs of the J. C. Blair Company are very definite, satisfactory, and conclusive that the Blair Company adopted the "White House" trade-mark in the spring of 1901 and has used the mark continuously ever since. Their testimony on pages 43 to 47, 69, 70, 76, and 77 of their record shows this continuous use not only in domestic but in interstate commerce. The proofs of The Reynolds & Reynolds Company are not so definite or satisfactory. Indeed, the main point of attack by the Blair Company now is that The Reynolds & Reynolds Company have abandoned their mark. It cannot be seriously questioned but that The Reynolds & Reynolds Company began the use of the mark sometime before the Blair Company began its use of it. The Reynolds & Reynolds Company's exhibit catalogues for the years 1890 and 1893 and several of its witnesses show that The Reynolds & Reynolds Company kept "White House" tablets for sale during those years. The main question to decide is whether they have proven continuous use since the Blair Company began using the mark or have proven facts which negative the theory of abandonment of the mark. The following excerpts from their proofs are taken as examples of the whole: Whitmore, employed by The Reynolds & Reynolds Company for thirty-seven years, testifies: Q. 8. How long, to your knowledge, has the Reynolds & Reynolds Company used the trade-mark “White House" and representation of the White House? A. About 22 years, as near as I can recall. Q. 9. Then, as near as you can recall, the company has used this trade-mark since about the year 1890? Objected to as leading. A. About 1890 or 1892. Stolz, the secretary and treasurer of The Reynolds & Reynolds Company, testifies: Q. 25. Between the year 1893 and the year 1908, did your company continue to use the trade-mark shown in catalogue "Exhibit B "? A. Yes, to the best of my ability [knowledge]. Q. 26. Do you know that ever between the years 1893 and 1908, the company discontinued the use of the trade-mark shown in catalogue "Exhibit B "? A. No. * Q. 31. Has the trade-mark" Exhibit A" been used continuously since 1908? A. No. Q. 32. Did you use it in 1909? A. Yes, sir. Q. 33. Did you use it in 1910? A. Yes, sir. Q. 34. Did you use it in 1911? A. Yes, sir, on an assortment line of tablets. Q. 35. Are you using it now? A. Have not put it on any tablets in 1912, up to the present time. Q. 36. Do you intend to fill orders for this line of goods? A. Yes. * X-Q. 61. In 1910 and 1911, did sales of White House tablets show a falling off? X-Q. 62. About what were your sales of White House tablets in 1907? X-Q. 63. About what were the sales of White House tablets in 1908 and 1909 respectively? A. 1908 about 12,000 and 1909 about 2,000. Edwin S. Reynolds, vice-president and general manager of The Reynolds & Reynolds Company, testifies: Q. 11. Did your company ever, so far as you are aware, discontinue the use of the trade-mark "White House for any length of time? A. We have never considered it as a discarded design. * X-Q. 19. Are you personally aware of the use of the "White House" trademark, on tablets, in each and every year, from 1892 to 1911, inclusive? A. Since the adoption of the White House design, this particular tablet has been subject to sale, continuously. X-Q. 20. Is it your personal knowledge that besides being subject to sale, tablets bearing the "White House" trade-mark have been used and sold in the period mentioned? A. They have been sold whenever ordered. I cannot come to the conclusion urged by the Blair Company that these proofs show or even indicate abandonment of this mark by The Reynolds & Reynolds Company. These witnesses impress me as desirous of telling the exact truth and are guarded and careful in their statements and convince me that the truth about the use of the mark by The Reynolds & Reynolds Company is that it actually sold paper tablets or kept the paper tablets carrying the "White House" mark in stock most, if not all, of the time intervening between 1890 and the date of taking this testimony, or if there ever was a time when the sale was temporarily discontinued or the paper was not kept in stock with the mark on it the plates, etc., for marking the paper with this trade-mark were kept on hand and whenever a customer called for paper with this mark or brand it was supplied to him by The Reynolds & Reynolds Company. I cannot conclude from this state of facts that Reynolds & Reynolds have ever abandoned the use of this trade-mark, and if there has been no abandonment priority should clearly be awarded to The Reynolds & Reynolds Company. The decision of the Examiner of Interferences is therefore affirmed. EX PARTE SEACOAST CANNING CO. Decided December 26, 1913. 199 O. G., 617. TRADE-MARKS" ARAB," FOR SARDINES-NOT GEOGRAPHICAL. The word Arab" Held not geographical and properly registrable as a trade-mark for sardines. ON APPEAL. TRADE-MARK FOR CANNED SARDINES. Mr. Samuel T. D. Jones for the applicant. FRAZIER, First Assistant Commissioner: This is an appeal from the refusal of the Examiner of TradeMarks to register a mark comprising the representation of an Arab upon a horse in a desert scene, surmounted by the word "Arab." The refusal is based upon the ground that the word "Arab" is a geographical term and should either be removed from the drawing or disclaimed. The Examiner cites in support of his action a recent decision-ex parte U. H. Dudley & Company, (C. D., 1913, 128; 191 O. G., 586)-refusing registration of the word "Arab," applied to dates, as either a descriptive term or misdescriptive. That decision, it is observed, does not hold the term "Arab" as a geographical term. Nor is it believed that such a holding in this case is correct. Applicant contends that instead of being geographical the word "Arab," in its primary sense, refers merely to a race of people, a typical representative of which appears in the picture. The Standard Dictionary defines the word as— a member of the Arabic division of the Semitic race sprung from Arabia and as a native of Arabia or a member of the Arabic race now widely separated in Asia and Africa and formerly in southern Europe. It is observed under these definitions that the primary sense of the word does not locate the race in Arabia, but scatters it through parts of several continents. Nor is the word, in its ordinary meaning, the name of the country or any portion thereof. It is noted that the word "Yankee " has been registered recentlyNo. 89,265, December 3, 1912; No. 92,794, July 29, 1913, and No. 93,342, September 9, 1913, and the words "Red Turk," No. 83,379, September 10, 1912. All of these words, in my judgment, stand upon the same or similar basis as the word "Arab," and hence are free from the objection as geographical. The same treatment should be accorded to this word as to the enumerated registered words as trade-marks. Furthermore, the goods to which the word "Arab" is applied-"sardines”—are not, so far as ascertained, the subject of manufacture in Arabia, but an importation from other countries into that country. No one could therefore be deceived into the belief that the origin of these goods is anywhere in Arabia. The word therefore is neither descriptive nor deceptive, but fanciful. In the case cited, however—U. H. Dudley & Company, supra-the goods there in question "dates "—are a well-known product of that country. This is thought to be sufficient to distinguish the word "Arab," as here applied, from its application in that case. It appears that the mark was once published in the OFFICIAL GAZETTE of October 20, 1912, and, so far as the record discloses, no opposition to its use was developed. The decision of the Examiner of Trade-Marks is reversed. EX PARTE BOYCE, WHEELER & BOYCE. Decided January 6, 1914. 199 O. G., 617. 1. TRADE-MARKS-"CUMFY-CUT" FOR KNIT UNDERSHIRTS, ETC.-NOT DESCRIPTIVE. The words " Cumfy-Cut" Held not descriptive as applied to knit undershirts, etc., and registrable. 2. SAME-CLASS OF WORDS WHICH MAY BE REGISTERED. "To my mind the rule should be that if the exclusive use of these words leaves open to everybody else all words useful in describing any quality or property appertaining to this particular class of goods, the words in question should be registered." ON APPEAL. TRADE-MARK FOR KNIT UNDERSHIRTS, UNION SUITS, AND LADIES' VESTS. Messrs. Philipp, Sawyer, Rice & Kennedy for the applicants. NEWTON, Assistant Commissioner: This is an appeal from a decision of the Examiner of TradeMarks refusing to register "Cumfy-Cut" as a trade-mark for knit undershirts, etc. There are good authorities cited by the applicants for allowing the registration of these words for this class of goods and probably equally as good authorities cited by the Examiner for refusing their registration. To my mind the rule should be that if the exclusive use of these words leaves open to everybody else all words useful in describing any quality or property appertaining to this particular class of goods the words in question should be registered, or, to put it as the courts have so often expressed it: No one has a right to appropriate a word or phrase which' from the nature of the fact it is used to signify, others may employ with equal truth, and therefore have an equal right to employ for the same purpose. I cannot conceive of anyone ever attempting to describe any property, quality, or composition of knit underwear by the words "Cumfy-Cut." I do not believe that the exclusive use of "CumfyCut" will take away from the public any words which they would need or could use in describing their knit underwear, and for this reason the words may be registered. The decision of the Examiner of Trade-Marks is reversed. Claims for a pivotally-mounted tracker-box adapted to be swung into position in front of the keyboard when the piano is to be operated mechanically or to be swung below the keyboard, where it is out of the way, if it is desired to play the piano manually, Held unpatentable in view of the prior art. APPEAL from Examiners-in-Chief. TRACKER-BOX FOR MECHANICAL MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS. Mr. Alfred M. Wilson for the applicant. MOORE, Commissioner: This is an appeal from the decision of the Examiners-in-Chief affirming the rejection by the Primary Examiner of certain claims, of which the following are illustrative: 5. In a mechanical musical instrument, a keyboard and an action, a playing mechanism carried by the instrument and normally positioned stationary therein, and a pivotally-mounted tracker-box movable between two predetermined positions relative to the playing mechanism, one of said positions being with the tracker-box in front of the keyboard, and the other of said positions being with said box below and spaced from the front of the keyboard, the pivot point being below and in rear of the front of the keyboard. 8. In a mechanical musical instrument, a keyboard and an action, in combination with a frame lying substantially parallel with the plane of the keyboard, and a tracker-box having a supporting portion pivotally connected to said frame, the point of pivotal connection being below and in rear of the front of the keyboard, the tracker box being movable between playing and nonplaying positions, said positions being on substantially opposite diametrical |