of the medical school, a representative of the alumni, and a representative of industry who was formerly a professor of chemical engineering.

University Patents, Inc., is authorized to accept assignments of patents and proceed to make arrangements on such terms and in such ways as may be approved for the use, manufacture, sale, or other disposition of the patents or of the rights under the patents, and has power to arrange for the use or division of the proceeds. It is not mandatory for anyone connected with the university to assign to it any patent for a discovery of his own, even if that discovery were made in the university's laboratories.

"The Eve of the Hague Conference."-Propriété Industrielle, August 31, 1925, pages 166 to 169.

Four conferences were held before the war for revision of the Convention of the Union signed at Paris, March 20, 1883, i. e.: that of Rome (1886), Madrid (1890: acts signed in 1891 and ratified in 1892), Brussels (1st session in 1897, 2nd session in 1900) and Washington (1911). The text adopted in Washington is now in force in all the unionist countries excepting Australia which continues to enforce the preceding form (text of 1900).

The peace treaties at the end of the late war again called the attention of specialists to questions of industrial property; new nations have been created,others have become larger and new situations must be taken into account. A noticeable movement to join the International Unions has been remarked. On July 1, 1912, the General Union included thirty-four countries (twenty-two on January 1, 1914) and about 717,000,000 people, the Restricted Union relating to the international registration of trade-marks included twenty-one countries (thirteen on January 1, 1914) and about 373, 000,000 people, while the Restricted Union relating to

repression of false indication of origin included thirteen (eight on January 1, 1914) and 295,000,000 people.

Several international societies of greater extent than these have invaded this special territory; i. e. the League of Nations, in studying the subjects of unfair competition and scientific property; the International Chamber of Commerce, in studying general matters of industrial property with the idea of reforms; and the International Association for Protection of Industrial Property.

The time has come to resume forward progress in these affairs. This will be the work of the Conference opening at the Hague on October 8th.

The International Bureau has done valuable preparatory work by distributing to the unionist governments an "Index of legislative acts" of the various countries on this subject and a "Table of proposals" made by congresses or assemblies since the Conference of Washington. After several exchanges of ideas and two reunions held at Bern, one in April 1920 and the other in June 1924, it has been possible for the representatives of the Netherlands Administration to come to an agreement with the International Bureau on a series of proposals for revision and to submit them in a third pamphlet to the various unionist countries.

These proposals for revision have been based on the idea of uniting in a single text the arrangements now either in the General Convention or in the Protocol which follows. In this single text, the numbering of the present articles is strictly retained. All modifications or additions are incorporated in one of these articles. The system of restricted unions which allows each contracting country to reject the unionist arrangements which do not suit it has been resolutely opposed. This system increases complications and research, confuses those concerned and encourages the nations to easily avoid acceptance of the most legitimate exigencies of the law when the latter involve sacrifices.

There are several problems on the solution of which it would be very difficult to come to agreement at the

present time. Unification in the starting date of the duration of patents obtained by an applicant in the various unionist countries based on the same rights of priority would of a surety be real progress, but nineteen unionist countries give the date of filing the application as the starting date; ten, the date of granting the patent and four, the date of publication of the patent application. It would be absolutely premature at this time to make an attempt to unify this matter.

It has likewise been decided to renounce hope of agreement on the two subjects of (1) possibility of uniting in a single application several former applications filed during the delay of priority in other unionist countries with different dates of starting the duration, according to the successive claims of rights of priority and (2) recognition in a unionist country of rights of personal possession to a trade-mark of a person who has used it in another unionist country before registration of this trade-mark by another person in the first country.

Other questions of importance that should be solved in the future are mentioned in the article.

Attention has been concentrated at the present time on three subjects which the Conference of Washington recommended for study to the International Bureau and a number of improvements in form or principle which may conveniently be applied to the various unions.

The three subjects mentioned above are: (1) simplification of formalities required for taking out a patent, (2) international filing of industrial designs and models and (3) a system of uniform classification of trademarks.

The proposed improvements included among the others, solutions of the problems of: the reservation of the rights of third parties to the detriment of the rights of priority; the organization of the claim of priority rights; exact determination of the calculation of delays of priority; assimilation of utility models and patents in reference to the point of view of duration of the rights

of priority; obligatory exploitation of patents and regulation of certain difficulties in the matter of trade-marks.

A proposal is made relative to the adoption of urgent measures interesting the General Union or one of the restricted unions by means of a circulating note from the Federal Council to the contracting countries.

The majority of unionist countries have sent in to the International Union proposals drawn up in the name of their respective governments and these have been collected together into two pamphlets, the six and seventh numbers of the "Preliminary Documents of the Conference of the Hague". Examination of these proposals gives rise to favorable predictions for the success of the Conference.

In an article on Socialism and Education in Harper's Magazine for September, 1925, Bertrand Russell says:

A barrister who has to deal with a complicated patent case does not want to remember the details forever; he wants just the kind of ability which is tested by an examination for which the candidates prepare by "cramming."

This may be taken as another justification for the promoting examinations which are held in the Patent Office.

It is not often that matters coming before the Patent Office get into print in magazines and papers of general circulation. The recently issued Putnam patent for the balloon tire, No. 1,537,879, was of so much popular interest that it received much publicity, some of the papers taking the trouble to reprint the entire specification.

In the Literary Digest for August, 1925, is an article based upon a decision of Assistant Commissioner Fenning in granting a trade mark for the design imprinted on the tread of an automobile tire. (Ex parte Fisk Rubber Company, 331 O. G., 225.)

COURT DECISIONS.

TERKELSEN MACHINERY COMPANY vs. PIERCE WRAPPING MACHINERY COMPANY Circuit Court of Appeals-First Circuit. 5 Fed. (2nd) page 294 Bingham, C. J.

Pierce patent, 1,153,704, for wrapping for annular objects. Claims 1 and 2 held not to involve invention and invalid.

Pierce patent, 1,263,923, claims 1, 3, 15 and 16, wrapping device for annular objects with automatically adjustable supporting and alining, held to only involve mechanical skill.

Pierce patent, 1,158,278, claims 17, 20, 21 and 22, for machine for wrapping annular objects spirally and applying adhesive tape transversely, held not infringed.

Midgley patent, 1,238,318, claim 6, for device for pressing together sides of tire casing while being spirally wrapped, held not infringed.

Pierce patent, 1,432,034, claim 1, for device for unitary control of tire wrapping machine, held not to involve invention and not infringed even if valid. Useless Articles are not the Subject of a Patent. This is an appeal from a decree in favor of appellee in the District Court of Mass., in which the above claims were held valid and infringed in an infringement suit.

The defenses were anticipation, non-invention and noninfringement.

There were two claims involved in patent 1,153,704, involved as follows:

1. A wrapping, comprising a continuous strip wound spirally and transversely upon an article of ring form, and a wrapping strip applied adhesively to the folds of said spiral strip to hold the same in fixed relation.

2. A wrapping comprising a continuous strip wound spirally and transversely in overlapped relation upon an article of ring form, and an adhesive strip applied to the folds of said spiral strip peripherally of the article wrapped.