prevent turning in the pinions by which they were driven, and to permit at the same time a longitudinal reciprocating motion. In answer to the claim the Examiner cited patents showing in other situations and other implements a square shaft rotated by a pinion through which it passes, and in which it was capable of an end wise reciprocating movement. The references showed, in fact, that the square or polygonally-shaped shaft, where a combined rotating and reciprocating motion was necessary, was old in many situations, and known as a substitute for a round shaft and spline before this applicant made the invention claimed. The claim, however, is limited to the square or polygonally-shaped shaft passing through the pinion having a corresponding shaped opening to admit it, in connection with a condensing cylinder of a carding-engine. The first question, then, to be considered is whether any new effect is produced by the substitution of this square or polygonal shaft for the old round shaft and spline in connection with these cylinders of a carding-engine; for if the effect here be the same as that produced by the substitution of the square for the round shaft in other situations, then the substitution is a mere substitution of one old device for another. These condensing-cylinders are represented as several feet in length, and are arranged in parallel rows, between which passes the material that is to be condensed. For the accurate successful operation of the machine, it is necessary that the opposite cylinders should be exactly parallel; but it has been found that upon that end to which the pinion is applied for rotating the cylinder, the round shaft, with its spline, pressed upon by the pinion in its rotation, was rapidly worn, and to such an extent that after a use of comparatively few months that end of the shaft would drop and leave the upper and lower cylinders out of parallel with each other. On the other hand, the square or polygonal shaft being kept from rotation within the pinion by means of its corners instead of the spline, the wear is distributed more uniformly; and further than this, when in operation, the forcible rotation of the pinion acting upon the corners tends to hold the shaft, even when worn, in an exactly central position, so that the wear, although as great perhaps as in the round shaft and spline, becomes a matter of comparatively little importance, so long as the shaft is of sufficient size to be turned by the pinion. I have examined the model and am satisfied that these representations are correct, and that the square or polygonal shaft substituted for the round shaft and spline, in this particular connection with the condens ing-cylinders, performs a new function, not contemplated and not called for in any other position in which it appears to have been placed. The new function is a highly important and useful one, and I think, therefore, the claim should be allowed. The pro-forma decision of the Board of Examiners-in-Chief is therefore reversed. CORNWALL ET AL. Trade-Mark; Appeal. O. G., vol. xii, p. 138. APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE EXAMINER OF TRADE-MARKS IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF CORNWALL & BROTHERS, FOR THE REGISTRATION OF A TRADE-MARK.-Decided June 29, 1877. A star and crescent applied as a trade-mark to soap is registerably different from a star alone. Whether a proposed mark deceptively resembles another already registered is a ques- DOOLITTLE, Acting Commissioner: Applicants seek to register an arrangement of a star and crescent, applied to soap, as their trade-mark. They are referred to a registered trade-mark consisting of the figure of a star alone, also applied to soap; and it is contended by the Examiner that the employment of the former combined symbol would be likely to deceive those desirous of purchasing soap having the last-named brand. It is a question of judgment, and is to be determined upon the probabilities of the case, as was substantially held in the very similar case of Imbs, 10 OFFICIAL GAZETTE, 463. The flags of at least two nations are distinguished by almost the same difference in symbol as that employed by applicants to distinguish their soap from the registrants', to whom they are referred. The flag of Egypt is a crescent on a red ground, and the Turkish man-of-war flag is a crescent and star on the same colored ground. There is no mistaking one flag for the other by persons of the slightest discernment; and I think the same may be said when those symbols are applied in a similar way to the soap of two different owners. The decision of the Examiner of Trade-Marks is, therefore, reversed. STOCKWELL vs. HAINES. Interference; Interlocutory Appeal. O. G., vol. xii, p. 137. APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE PRIMARY EXAMINER IN THE MATTER OF THE INTERFERENCE BETWEEN LETTERS PATENT OF EMERY STOCKWELL, NO. 186,177, GRANTED JANUARY 9, 1877, AND THE APPLICATION OF LEWIS A. HAINES, FOR REISSUE OF LETTERS PATENT NO. 106,691, GRANTED AUGUST 23, 1870, FOR "IMPROVEMENT IN TIME-LOCKS."-Decided July 5, 1877. An invention not set forth in the original specification nor fully shown by the original drawings cannot be incorporated on reissue where its existence depends upon the restoration of a missing element to the model in a particular position, it not appearing that such position was necessarily the only one it could have had, and both original specification and drawings failing to indicate its location. The models and drawings of machine patents can be amended under the law, only each by the other. Affidavits as to the location of a particular element cannot be considered, nor can the Commissioner go outside of the record to ascertain what was the scope or detail of the original invention. MARCUS S. HOPKINS, attorney for Stockwell. SPEAR, Commissioner: Appeal is taken in this case from the refusal of the Examiner to dissolve the interference. Two reasons were urged before him, and reiterated upon appeal for the dissolution. The first denies that Haines has any proper foundation for the subject-matter to which title is asserted in the patent of 1870, which it is now sought to reissue. Neither the model, drawings, nor specification connected with that patent, as origi nally granted, give warrant, it is alleged, for the invention now incorporated and claimed. The second relates to a former interference between the same parties, in which Haines appeared with an original application for the device in controversy. In that interference priority of invention was finally decided in favor of Stockwell. It is urged on behalf of the parties in interest in this case, who are the assignees of Haines, that they were not parties to the former interference, and are not bound to abide by its results. I do not deem it necessary to go into any discussion on this point, for the reason that I am satisfied on examination of the original patent that the invention in controversy is not to be found therein, and that these parties representing Haines in this controversy have no title whatever under this patent of 1870 to the invention in dispute. The claims of Haines in interference are as follows: 1. In a chronometric lock, the combination with the time-movement of two automatic unlocking devices, substantially as and for the purposes set forth. 2. In a chronometric lock provided with devices for determining the time for unlocking the safe a supplemental unlocking device, which is inoperative so long as the working of the time-movement is regularly performed, but which effects the unlocking of the lock whenever the time movement nearly approaches the point of running down, substantially as and for the purpose set forth. In the original specification of Haines there is no description of this supplemental unlocking device. The locking device consists of a pivoted bar, which drops behind the shoulder on the bolt, and prevents retraction. This locking-bar is connected to the clock-mechanism, so that the revolution of the said clock-mechanism, after a given period, will raise the bar and permit the bolt to be thrown backward. The object aimed at in the invention in controversy is the provision of an additional unlocking device, so constructed and applied that in case the clock-mechanism runs down before bringing into operation the primary unlocking device, or in case of the breakage of the spring by which the clock-work is moved, the secondary mechanism shall act to raise the locking-bar. In the drawing attached to the patent of Haines, and in the model originally filed with the application, is shown some additional mechanism now alleged to be this secondary or supplemental unlocking mechanism. It consists of a bar pivoted to the wall of the case and extending above the mainspring. The end of this bar is connected by a slender rod to the locking-bar below. This is all that is shown in the drawing, and all that appears in the model, and the original specification throws no further light upon the subject. It appears clear, however, that the mechanism which I have described will not operate as required by the conditions of the invention in dispute without some further addition. The extreme uncoiling of the spring will not touch the pivoted bar above, and cannot, therefore, operate to raise it, the bar being a little outside of the line of direction marked by the spring in uncoiling, and not directly over it, as would be necessary to insure a lifting-contact. But the invention requires that this bar shall be raised by the spring in its uncoiling, and thus, by means of the connecting rod, lift the locking bar below. The addition necessary to effect this purpose, as represented by both parties, is a transverse pin through the upper pivoted bar, which pin must extend over the spring in such relation thereto as to come in contact with and be lifted by the spring when it uncoils. It is not contended that there is a hint of the existence of any such pin in the drawing or specification of the Haines patent as originally filed. In the model, however, there is a horizontal perforation, in which such a pin might be placed. This is relied upon as showing that the pin did form a part of the original invention, and as further evidence to this end certain affidavits are also filed. It is clear to my mind that these affidavits cannot be considered. The law provides that in the case of a machine patent the model and drawing shall not be amended, excepting each by the other, and it also provides that amendments may be made upon proof outside of the case only when there is neither model nor drawing. This is a machine patent, and there is a model and drawing, and it is plain that I cannot go outside of the record to ascertain what was the scope or detail of the original invention. Rejecting the affidavits, there remains only the hint or suggestion, if it may be called such, from the presence of the perforation in the upper pivoted bar of the model. It does not follow necessarily that this perforation was made to admit a pin projecting over the spring. I am not certainly assured that the pin, as was suggested at the hearing, might not have been made to project outward in an opposite direction from what would bring it in contact with the spring, in order that it may be ope rated by hand, or, as was also suggested, that the hole was made for the admission of a wire to be carried up through a perforation which appears in the wall of the case above, just over the hole in the bar. Since other use may be made of this construction, it, of course, does not follow necessarily that this particular use, namely, the introduction of the pin to extend over the spring, was intended. In so grave a matter as the re issue of a patent with the claim for an invention not described or even referred to in the original specification, not shown in the drawing, and not fully shown in the model, nothing can be left to conjecture. It is not enough that the purpose of the hole in the bar should be most reasonably inferred to be for the admission of the pin to project over the spring. It should be a matter of certainty, and it is not in this case. So far as appears, the invention in controversy is not the property of the assignees of Haines, aud in my judgment cannot be properly included in the amended specification. The decision of the Examiner is accordingly overruled, the interference is dissolved, and the reissue application is refused. CORNWALL & BROTHERS. Trade-Mark. O. G., vol. xii, p. 312. APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE EXAMINER OF TRADE-MARKS IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF CORNWALL & BROTHERS FOR THE REGISTRATION OF A TRADE-MARK.-Decided July 7, 1877. A geographical word used as a trade-mark in a fanciful sense, and not fraudulently nor deceptively applied, may generally be registered. There may, however, be a difference in this regard between foreign and domestic geographical words. The word “Dublin” registered as a trade-mark for soaps, it not appearing that it was either a descriptive or deceptive term in this connection. DOOLITTLE, Acting Commissioner: The trade-mark sought to be registered consists of the word "Dublin," to be printed upon labels applied to boxes of soap. It is a general rule that the name of a district, town, or city cannot be appropriated as the exclusive property of any one. (High on Injunctions, sec. 673; Bispham Eq., 411; Wolfe vs. Goulard, 18 How.'s Pract. Rep., 64; Brooklyn White Lead Company vs. Masury, 25 Barb., 416; Newman vs. Alvord, 49 Barb., 588; Candee vs. Deere, Sup. Ct. of Ill., 10 Am. Law Reg. N. S., 694; Delaware and Hudson Canal Company vs. Clark, 13 Wallace, 311; Glendon Iron Company vs. Uhler, 6 OFFICIAL GAZETTE, 104; Lewis N. Green, 8 OFFICIAL GAZETTE, 729.) Are there any circumstances which make the present application an exception to that rule? Applicants do not make their soap in Dublin, Ireland, but in this country, and therefore contend that the term is not descriptive in any sense, but an entirely fanciful and arbitrary symbol. In the case of Green, above cited, the Commissioner indicated the practice of the Office in regard to these geographical names. If they are descriptive of a certain place or locality where the goods or articles to which they are to be applied are produced, then they are objection |