relates to a matter within the jurisdiction of a committee of the association, the result of the vote shall be reported by the secretary to the chairman of the committee." The part of section 3 in parenthesis and italicized above was added to the section in the year 1930 to avoid in future committing the association on an insignificant referendum vote. Respectfully, ROBERT WATSON. LETTERS ENDORSING PROPOSED TRADE-MARK LEGISLATION' AMERICAN PATENT LAW ASSOCIATION, Re Trade-mark bill, H. R. 5461 (Lanham). Committee on Patents, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. KRAMER: At the regular fall meeting of the American Patent Law Association on October 14, the association adopted a resolution presented by the chairman of the laws and rules committee "that the association approve H. R. 5461 with the amendments proposed and adopted by the patent section and the house of delegates of the American Bar Association at the Indianapolis meeting." It is the opinion of the committee that the best interests of trade-mark owners would be served by the early passage of this bill with the amendments proposed by the American Bar Association. Very truly yours, HAROLD T. STEWELL, Chairman, Laws and Rules Committee. Hon. FRITZ LANHAM, ASSOCIATION OF NATIONAL ADVERTISERS, INC., House Office Building, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. LANHAM: We are greatly pleased to note that on July 31 you introduced H. R. 5461 "to provide for the registration and protection of trademarks used in commerce.' This bill seems much along the lines of that drafted by a committee on which this association was represented. It is our hope that the bill will progress quickly to passage. G. S. MCMILLAN, Secretary. Hon. FRITZ G. LANHAM, BROADWAY ASSOCIATION, INC., House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN LANHAM: We wish to call your attention to the fact that the Broadway Association, Inc., has gone on record as being unalterably opposed to the Federal trade-mark bill, known as S. 895, introduced by Senator Bone. The association has taken particular notice that the bill in question contains a number of objectionable features, especially a penal provision. It is our understanding that the bill has been passed by the Senate and referred to the House Committee on Patents and Trade-marks. We, therefore, urge you to make the necessary objections to this proposed legislation. On the other hand, this association has gone on record and is in favor of the new trade-mark bill introduced by you, known as H. R. 5461. Many of the officers, directors, and members of the association would be directly benefited by the passage of this bill and we, therefore, trust that you will expedite its passage. Very sincerely yours, HENRY G. FARGEL, THE BRONX BOARD OF TRADE, Hon. CHARLES KRAMER, Chairman, Committee on Patents, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN KRAMER: It is our understanding that your committee will begin hearings on November 12 on H. R. 102, dealing with trade-mark legislation. The Bronx Board of Trade desires to record its objections to the approval of this legislation by your committee because of the penal provision and other objectionable features. We have recorded our opposition to S. 895, the companion bill to H. R. 102. We understand that there is another trade-mark measure, H. R. 5461, pending before your committee. In view of the fact that the penal provision and other parts which are deserving of disapproval have been eliminated from it, we have no objections to this bill. Very truly yours, WM. E. MATTHEWS, COMMITTEE ON PATENTS AND TRADE-MARKS, BRONX CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. GENTLEMEN: It is our understanding that you are conducting hearings on H. R. 102 which is a companion bill to S. 895, having to do with the subject of trademarks. We wish to record our unqualified opposition to any bill patented along the lines of S. 895, because we look upon the penal provisions contained therein as highly detrimental to those engaged in retailing merchandise. It certainly would put an unfair burden upon the vendors who would find themselves unable to avoid the risk of incurring a penalty, unless they were to eliminate trade-mark articles entirely from their business. This of course would be out of question, and accordingly, we hope that your committee will either adopt H. R. 5461 from which these penal provisions and some other objectionable features have been deleted, or have H. R. 102 amended to conform therewith. very truly yours, GEORGE F. MAND. THE HOOVER CO., Re Lanham trade-mark bill Washington, D. C. North Canton, Ohio, October 15, 1941. DEAR CONGERSSMAN LANHAM: I wish to inform you that the Lanham trademark bill H. R. 102 has my full and hearty support. It is my belief that the passage of this bill will do much to clear away many of the difficulties existing today in the field of trade-marks and will be a distinct asset to the business community. You are urged to support vigorously this bill which you have introduced and it is hoped that it will be enacted this year. Respectfully yours, W. D. SELLERS, Patent Department. THE HOOVER, Co., Congressman FRITZ LANHAM, North Canton, Ohio, October 28, 1941. House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN LANHAM: May I take this opportunity to commend you for introducing the Lanham trade-mark bill and to tell you that it has my full support. I believe that the passage of this bill will do much to clear away many of the difficulties existing today in the field of trade-marks and will be a distinct asset to the business community. I hope that your bill may be vigorously supported and that it will be enacted this year. Sincerely yours, H. EARL HOOVER, ILLINOIS MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION, Hon. FRITZ G. LANHAM, Care of House Office Building, Washington, D. C. Lanham trade-mark bill. DEAR CONGRESSMAN LANHAM: We have a communication from Representative Charles Kramer, chairman of the House Patents Committee, stating that hearings on the above measure will begin before your committee this week. The Illinois Manufacturers' Association feels that while there were many advantageous features included in the original bill, the proposal at the present time does not contain anything objectionable to the interests of our members. Cordially yours, JAMES L. DONNELLY, Executive Vice President. Hon. CHARLES KRAMER, Chairman, Committee on Patents, KWIS, HUDSON & KENT, Cleveland, Ohio, October 24, 1941. House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. KRAMER: Replying to your letter of October 22, wherein you ask for my comments with respect to the proposed trade-mark legislation, I am in favor of the pending trade-mark bill provided it is amended as proposed by the patent section of the American Bar Association whose action was recently approved by the American Patent Law Association. Very truly yours, A. F. KWIS. NAYLOR AND LASSAGNE, Hon. CHARLES KRAMER, Chairman, House Committee on Patents, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. KRAMER: I wish to thank you very much for your courtesy in writing me under date of October 22, 1941, relative to the hearings to be had by the subcommittee on the Lanham bill. Having been as active as circumstances would permit in the work of the American Bar Association, patent, trade-mark, and copyright section, trademark subcommittee, in the formulation of the American Bar Association redraft of the Lanham bill, which I endorse wholeheartedly, I have no special comments to make at this time. I regret that I wil not be in Washington or its vicinity at the time of the hearings because it would be a great pleasure to participate in the discussions on the revised bill. I am hopeful that, following a full hearing, the committee will give a favorable report on this proposed legislation. With kindest personal regards and appreciating your several courtesies, I remain, Cordially yours, JAS. M. NAYLOR. WILLIAM STEELL JACKSON & SON, Philadelphia, October 27, 1941. Representative CHARLES KRAMER, Chairman, House Committee on Patents, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. KRAMER: Thank you very much for your letter of October 22, 1941, advising me about the hearings on November 4. The legislative committee of the Philadelphia Patent Law Association has gone on record as favoring the Lanham trade-mark bill. We think that it is a distinct improvement over the present law. I will take up with our people the matter of the changes proposed by the American Bar Association and advise you further as to our views regarding them. DEAR REPRESENTATIVE KRAMER: The legislative committe of the Philadelphia Patent Law Association has met and considered the Lanham trade-mark bill, H. R. 5461 (H. R. 102 and S. 895), in view of the proposals made by the House Committee on Patents to amend the bill in view of the hearings held November 4 and 12, 1941. We are unanimously in favor of the amendments and of the bill as amended, and urge that this important legislation be pushed forward as rapidly as conveniently possible. Very truly, JOSEPH GRAY JACKSON, Chairman, Legislative Committee, Philadelphia Patent Law Association. THIRTY FOURTH STREET-MIDTOWN ASSOCIATION, Re Pending Federal trade-mark legislation. House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. GENTLEMEN: We have previously communicated to you our opposition to S 895. We learn that you are now giving consideration to its companion bill, H. R. 102, and we therefore wish to repeat our opposition specifically directly to the latter bill. It contains a particularly objectionable penal provision, which warrants the defeat of the bill. As stated in our letter to you of September 30, it is our understanding that a new trade-mark bill, H. R. 5461, introduced by Congsess Lanham, would supersede S. 895 and H. R. 102. The Lanham bill follows the recommendations of the coordination committee composed of trade associations and others, and in which bill the penal provision and other objectionable provisions have been deleted. We urge therefore that your committee give preference to H. R. 5461. Yours respectfully, WM. G. KRETCH, Secretary. WEST SIDE ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK, INC., Hon. CHARLES KRAMER, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. KRAMER: This association for 2 years has opposed Senate bill 895 and similar bills having to do with Federal trade-mark legislation. Our particular opposition to this bill has been based upon the penal provisions contained therein. It is our understanding that hearings have been or are being held on a companion bill, known as House Resolution 102. We would greatly appreciate if you would list this organization as being opposed to this resolution. At the same time we call your attention to House Resolution 5461 which, while containing meritorious provisions, does not include the objectionable penal pro vision. If any legislation on this subject is to be passed by the existing session of Congress we take pleasure in urging the adoption of House Resolution 5461. Respectfully yours, WEST SIDE ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE, INC., Vice President and Managing Director. YONKERS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, HOUSE COMMITTEE ON PATENTS AND TRADE-MARKS, Washington, D. C. GENTLEMEN: May we render our opposition to the legislation now pending in the matter of patents and trade-marks. We have particular reference to Federal trade-mark legislation, S. 895 and H. R. 102. We are, however, rendering no opposition to H. R. 5461 due to the fact that the penal and other objectionable provisions have been deleted from it. Very truly yours, P. S. PECK, Executive Secretary. Hon. CHARLES KRAMER, THE UNITED STATES TRADE MARK ASSOCIATION, House Office Building, Washington D. C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN CRAMER: It is my privilege to submit to you, on behalf of the United States Trade Mark Association, a memorandum prepared by the association's lawyers' advisory committee with regard to section 29 of the Lanham trade-mark bill, H. R. 5461. As you will undoubtedly recall, this section appeared in the committee print, which was issued 2 days before the recent hearings, and those present at the hearing were asked by Congressman Lanham to present a written memorandum with regard to this section. Our committee would like to avail itself of this opportunity to make the other recommendations with regard to H. R. 5461 which are incorporated in the attached memorandum. Sincerely yours, ARTHUR R. WENDELL, Vice President, the United States Trade Mark Association. MEMORANDUM CONCERNING PROPOSED SECTION 29 OF THE COMMITTEE PRINT OF THE LANHAM TRADE-MARK BILL H. R. 5461 To: Hon. Charles Kramer, Hon. Fritz G. Lanham, Hon. Vance Plauché, Hon. Arthur G. Klein, Hon. Hugh D. Scott, Jr., Hon. William H. Stevenson, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. At the recent hearings on the revised H. R. 5461, the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Lanham, suggested that a memorandum be filed with your committee expressing approval or disapproval of section 29 of the committee print of the bill, which proposes a deposit file of trade-marks for search purposes. In response to your chairman's request, a special meeting was called of the lawyers' advisory committee of the United States Trade Mark Association. I. SECTION 29 It was the opinion of the lawyers' advisory committee that the inclusion of section 29 in the proposed new trade-mark act should not be recommended and that this section should be stricken from the bill. It is respectfully submitted that any such search file could fulfill its purpose only if the file thus created would comprise practically all trade-marks actually in use, either among the States or within the various States. Since under H. R. |