Mr. FRAZER. May I call attention to another one, on page 35, the second occurrence of "42" should apparently be "43," in line 8. There is a section 42 that begins with line 3. Another section "42" begins line 8. That apparently should be 43.

Mr. LANHAM. Yes; that is correct. Of course, these section numbers will all have to be renumbered in accordance with whatever amendments we may make, but the one after that starts "44," so it is clearly a misprint.

Mr. FRAZER. That is right.

Mr. LANHAM. Do you know of any other typographical errors, Mr. Frazer?

Mr. FRAZER. No. That is all I have.

Mr. LANHAM. Now, gentlemen, let us take just the parts of this committee print to which you wish to direct attention, with reference to proposed amendments.

Mr. PLAUCHÉ. Mr. Chairman, may I ask-as I understand it, we are to consider the Senate bill, which has already passed?

Mr. LANHAM. Yes; which is identical with H. R. 102.

Mr. PLAUCHÉ. And then whatever changes we might find agreeable or might adopt will be submitted as amendments to that original bill adopted by the Senate?

Mr. LANHAM. That is correct.

Mr. PLAUCHÉ. Now, is there any part of the Senate bill that is to be stricken out as not agreed upon, or is it just to be changed under this, by this committee?

Mr. LANHAM. It is very largely a difference in terminology, and much of it is quite the same, is it not, as 102?

Mr. MARTIN. A good deal of it is the same. Now, answering your question, a good deal of it is stricken out; the language has to be stricken out and language substituted in its place.

Mr. LANHAM. But it is language on the same subject?

Mr. MARTIN. Oh, yes; oh, yes.

Mr. PLAUCHÉ. The reason I ask that is that of course I am not familiar with this trade-mark law at all. This is my first offense, and it is rather impossible for me to follow it by just jumping from one section to another.

Mr. LANHAM. I may say in that regard, Mr. Plauché, that through the series of hearings that we have had heretofore we have discussed various features with reference to trade-marks, and from that we evolved a bill which we passed through the House last year, and which went over to the Senate, and the Senate placed some amendments on it. Now, when we introduced 102 this year in the House and 895 was introduced in the Senate they are a "meeting of the minds" at that time, I may say, insofar as we could get them through committee consideration of the revisions of the various bills we have had.

Since that time the American Bar Association, the National Association of Manufacturers, and various other organizations have been giving study to proposed revisions and to what we had proposed last year, and there seems to be relative unanimity with reference to it, and the idea of its referring to the same subject matter as 102 and S. 895, and the idea of whatever we may adopt being inserted as amendments to S. 895, which can be done easily in the printing by

striking out theirs and substituting amendments in italic, is because the Senate has already passed this and in that way we would not have an initiated piece of legislation but it would simply be a matter of going to conference, unless the Senate agreed to the amendments. Mr. KLEIN. Has this committee print been approved or gone over in any way by the American Bar Association?

Mr. MARTIN. Let me answer that, rather explicitly. The committee print includes all the amendments which were approved by the American Bar Association, and in addition, two additional matters; one of which was approved at the February meeting.

Mr. Klein. That is that section 29?

Mr. MARTIN. That is right-at the February meeting of the American Bar Association; but that was not approved at the last meeting of the American Bar Association.

The second addition is something entirely new, concerning which there is no controversy.

Now with the corrections which I have given you here, this committee reprint is the report of the American Bar Association.

Mr. KLEIN. It has the approval of the American Bar Association? Mr. MARTIN. That is right.

Mr. LANHAM. Now, gentlemen, with this as a basis, let us confine the discussion then to suggested amendments of this committee print. Mr. Fenning had called attention to something, I recall.

Mr. FENNING. There is one matter on page 3, beginning at line 12. It says notice or process may be served, in effect, by leaving a copy at the address specified in the last designation. I do not think that is adequate service on anything or anybody. I would suggest that that be amended to say that notice or process may be served in the manner provided by the Rules of Civil Procedure. This bill merely means you can go along and slip something in the window or put it in the ash-can in the back yard.

Mr. LANHAM. What is your thought, gentlemen, with reference to that suggestion?

Mr. POHL. That means by mail.

Mr. LANHAM. And what has been customary in the practice, heretofore?

Mr. FENNING. We have followed more or less the court rules. It seems to me the thing to do is, in line 13, after "designated," to cut out the rest of that sentence and say, "in the manner provided by the Rules of Civil Procedure."

Mr. MARTIN. Mr. Chairman-Mr. Fenning, isn't that sentence that you read modified by the succeeding sentence?

Mr. FENNING. No, I do not think so. If you cannot find him, then you can serve notice some other way. But you do not have to find him. You can just leave it at the last address, sticking it in the slot. The house may be closed.

Mr. THOMSON. The former provision would seem to provide for it: For the purposes of this Act it shall be deemed sufficient to serve such notice upon such applicant or registrant by leaving such copy of such notice addressed to him at the last address of which the Commissioner of Patents has been notified.

65855-41- -7

Mr. FENNING. That is a little different. That merely says "addressed to him." That is not sufficient, any way. We have definite rules of civil procedure which provide for process, and it seems to me that for the man on whom we are going to serve something for the Patent Office, procedure should be similar to the provision of the Rules of Civil Procedure, providing different ways to reach a man. They are entirely adequate, and they protect the rights of the man who is being served.

Mr. PLAUCHÉ. Mr. Fenning, has the Commissioner of Patents access to or the right to use the officials and the process servers, and so forth, provided by the civil procedure?

Mr. FENNING. The marshall is not required to serve anything except the original process.

Mr. PLAUCHÉ. The law provides that?

Mr. FENNING. Yes; the Rules of Civil Procedure provide that. Anyone can serve it.

Mr. ROGERS. May I suggest that this has been the law for 30 years and there has never been any complaint about it.

Mr. FENNING. But there has been almost no use of this service on a foreign representative. I know of but one case in which it was done. Mr. THOMAS E. ROBERTSON. Do not the Rules of Civil Procedure permit the Commissioner of Patents to serve notice or process by registered mail?

Mr. FENNING. The Rules of Civil Procedure would allow him to. Mr. LANHAM. What is your thought, gentlemen, with reference to whether that should be modified?

Mr. CARTER. Could not that be left to the Commissioner's regulations?

Mr. FENNING. It has not been.

Mr. MARTIN. No; I do not think so. May I ask Mr. Fenning, Mr. Chairman, if he would be satisfied if an amendment were made to require that the notice be addressed to the person?

Mr. FENNING. It is the same thing. If you just address a letter to a man and drop it in his ash can out back you do not get anywhere. It doesn't even say you have to put it in the mail.

Mr. MARTIN. You have to leave it at this address.

Mr. FENNING. That is all right.

Mr. THOMAS E. ROBERTSON. Suppose he moved from that address? Mr. MARTIN. That is the reason for it.

Mr. LANHAM. Then he is supposed to file with the Commissioner his new address, is he not?

Mr. MARTIN. If he moves, he is supposed to give a new address. Mr. LANHAM. Gentlemen, if this has been the procedure for 30 years and you have had no trouble with it, should we modify it?

Mr. FENNING. But it has never been used.

Mr. FRAZER. Mr. Chairman, isn't that taken care of by the very next sentence, which says:

If the person so designated cannot be found at the address given in the last designation, such notice or process may be served upon the Commissioner.

Mr. FENNING. Then you get this sense-if he is found there, serve it. Mr. FRAZER. No; but it says if he is not found.

Mr. FENNING. You do not have to try to find him.

Mr. STANLEY. Mr. Chairman, would not the only alteration there necessary to be made, be to change the word "leaving" to "mailing"? Mr. LANHAM. Mailing a copy thereof to the address specified? Mr. FENNING. Make it "mailing or delivering," because you may want to get personal service.

Mr. STANLEY. "Mailing or delivering." I would be agreeable to that.

Mr. FENNING. "To the person at the address." I still feel that when we have a procedure which has been provided in all of the Federal courts, by the Rules of Civil Procedure, that will take care of the rights of the man who is being served, much better.

Mr. LANHAM. Have there been any miscarriages of justice in cases arising under this in the time it has been in practice?

Mr. FENNING. There has been only one case, as I understand it, where this service has been used, and in that instance the person had moved, but he was personally served, so there was no miscarriage of justice there.

Mr. LANHAM. This does not preclude the service by the regular Rules of Civil Procedure?

Mr. FENNING. Oh, no; but that is not what I am after.

Mr. LANHAM. Where you cannot find a person, and the obligation is upon the person to have his address filed with the Commissioner, isn't it laches on his part if he does not do it, and isn't this the best that you can do under the circumstances, where he fails to do that?

Mr. FENNING. Mr. Lanham, suppose that man gives his address as the Press Building, which has 12 or 13 floors and pretty nearly 100 rooms on every floor, and he does not give a room number; you go and drop in the lobby of the Press Building a service on him, and he is

served.

Mr. LANHAM. I do not know whether in administration they have that narrow construction of the address specified.

Mr. FENNING. Yes; that is the interpretation.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Lanham, one other point I would like to ask about-the change of address may come between the time the man has filed it and the time it is served. That is, it may come after the man has served it, as soon as the registrant has learned of his change of address.

Mr. LANHAM. Gentlemen, it seems to me that since there is no prohibition of proceeding in accordance with the regular Rules of Civil Procedure, and since this provision has been in effect for so many years, there is not much chance for controversy on that section.

Mr. THOMSON. But, Mr. Chairman, it might be better in line 14 on page 3, after "thereof," to insert "addressed to him." That would more nearly agree with the present law.

Mr. LANHAM. "By leaving a copy thereof addressed to him at the address specified."

Mr. FENNING. Why not say, "Leaving a copy thereof with him at the address"?

Mr. LANHAM. Well, suppose he is not there?

Mr. FENNING. There, the Rules of Civil Procedure will take care of you, then.

Mr. LANHAM. We say in the next one, if he cannot be found at that address, then go, serve it on the Commissioner, and then the Com

missioner would certainly notify him, wherever he was, if he filed with the Commissioner his new address, would he not? However, it seems to me there could be no objection to the suggestion made by Mr. Thomson, that it be modified to the extent of "leaving a copy thereof, addressed to him." Does anybody see any objection to that? Mr. MARTIN. No. I think it is a good suggestion.

Mr. STEVENSON. What line?

Mr. THOMSON. Line 14.

Mr. LANHAM. I do not know that that modifies it very much, but if there is no objection to incorporating it-does anybody have any objection to incorporating it?

Mr. FENNING. With the exception that it does not meet the problem at all, as you say.

Mr. FRAZER. May I offer this suggestion, Mr. Chairman, that you amend the provision to read to the effect that the notice shall be left with or mailed to the person so designated, at the address last given. Mr. LANHAM. "Such notices or process may be served upon the person so designated." Now, how would you word it, Mr. Frazier? Mr. FRAZER. "By leaving with or mailing to such person a copy thereof."

Mr. LANHAM. "At the address specified in the last designation." Mr. FENNING. That is all right.

Mr. PLAUCHÉ. I have this suggestion to make:

Such notices of process may be served upon the person so designated by delivering a copy thereof to a person at the address specified or by mailing a copy addressed to the person at such address specified.

Mr. LANHAM. It might be some stranger dropping in there.

Mr. FENNING. That is what actually happens, you know. People have gone and left it with a servant who has paid no attention to it, or with people standing out in the front yard.

Mr. LANHAM. How about Mr. Frazer's suggestion?

Mr. FENNING. That is good.

Mr. LANHAM (reading):

Such notices or process may be served upon the person so designated by leaving with him or mailing to him a copy thereof at the address specified.

Is there any objection to that?

Such notices or process may be served upon the person so designated by leaving with him or mailing to him a copy thereof at the address specified in the last designation so filed.

Mr. FENNING. The rules of procedure have worked out every detail; that is why I think that we ought to refer to them.

Mr. LANHAM. This does not obviate them.

Mr. FENNING. Those rules have no effect here unless we put it in the statute that they do.

Mr. STOWELL, I think that "service" as it is designated in the proposed amended sentence would be perfectly good service under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Mr. LANHAM. As amended?

Mr. STOWELL. Yes.

Mr. LANHAM. Well, gentlemen; I think that that will fix that right, that is not so very controversial.

What is the next suggested amendment?