Aside from details, however, the principle of the bill should receive the support of the bar. It will carry out the purpose of the Constitution, the encouragement of industrial design, and will be a great boon to the industries wherein art is embodied in manufactures and copying is the rule rather than the exception. The Bill has for its purpose to remedy a situation which calls for relief and it seems to me to provide the necessary remedy.

BOOK REVIEW.

The Historical Foundations of the Law Relating to Trade Marks.

This is the first of a series of legal studies to be published by Columbia University and breaks into what is substantially a virgin field in the English language.

It is clear from a reading of the book that the author has spent much time, energy, thought and study on the subject. The publication of the bibliography alone would probably be worth while, even without the helpful and interesting text.

The author shows the development from the mark applied by the manufacturer or shipper to indicate ownership of the goods, if shipwrecked or lost in transit, the so-called "proprietary" marks, to the use of what the author calls "liability" marks required by law or by the various guilds to indicate the source of the goods for the purpose of bringing home to the producer faults discovered in the goods. Possibly as an outgrowth of the use of such marks came the personal pride of the manufacturer in his goods which was gradually transferred to the consuming public, so that the marks have now come to have a great value in commerce as being frequently the things which sell the goods, even when other equally good articles are on the market unmarked. With the good will came the demand for the

right to transfer the mark first accorded by the Cutler's Guild in the 17th Century.

The modern case law is traced back to a more or less legendary case referred to in "an irrelevant, reminiscent dictum" in 1656 in the case of Sothern v. Howe. The five existing reports of this case vary among themselves and the author is in doubt as to whether that case really included the holding attributed to it as a foundation for modern case law.

The author comments vigorously upon the uncertainty which has run through judicial decisions as to whether the relief in trade mark and unfair competition cases is given mainly for the protection of the owner of the infringed mark or for the protection of the public against receiving spurious goods. There seems no real reason that both of these phases should not be considered in every trade mark case.

The recent tendency to expand trade mark protection to goods beyond what the registration statute refers to as "goods of the same descriptive properties" is noted by the author as an encouraging development. Many practitioners before the Patent Office will be somewhat disappointed to find that substantially nothing is said as to how the theory of our present registration act was brought into being. We learn with interest that Jefferson while Secretary of State in 1791 suggest ed to Congress the registration of marks used on goods in "commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and within the Indian Tribes," although our first registration law was delayed 80 years till 1870.

The book is put out in excellent form and seems to have been thoroughly proof-read. For the sake of accuracy, however, it may be noted that the date of the second trade mark registration act in the United States was 1881 and not 1876, as printed on page 140.

The book sells for $6.00.

PERIODICAL ARTICLES.

The Protection of Trade-Marks and Consular Jurisdiction. La Propriété Industrielle, April 30, 1925, p. 75.

At the time when the Conference of Washington was meeting (1911), foreigners in oriental countries and the Far East were grouped under the direction and jurisdiction of their respective consuls.

Most of the countries who have consular jurisdiction made a series of bilateral agreements between themselves which assured to their citizens a reciprocal protection of trade-marks by consular tribunals. These agreements unanimously supported the idea that in trademark contentions arising between citizens of different countries, the prosecutor should take the matter up with the defendant. The difficulty met with in this relation was the impossibility of knowing if the consul in charge of the affair was authorized by the legislation of his country to apply national laws for industrial property to foreigners.

In order to alleviate this situation, the International Bureau and the Administration of the United States prepared at that time a proposition that citizens of countries of the Union should be allowed to defend their rights before the consular jurisdiction of each of the contracting countries, wherever this jurisdiction exists. An amendment was then presented by the Netherlands requiring compliance with the formalities and conditions in force in the country to which the consular tribunal belongs. These proposals did not find favor with the Commission.

Consular jurisdiction still existed at that time in China, Morocco, Turkey and Egypt among others. Since 1911, the situation has been greatly modified: Egypt has passed under the English protectorate and disagreements among foreigners are no longer judged by con-.. sular tribunals but by mixed tribunals. China has adopted the law on trade-marks, which after approbation by the powers interested, will justify the disappearance of

consular jurisdiction. The situation in Turkey has been changed by the Lausanne Treaty. Finally, Morocco is governed either by a special law for the part belonging to the Union or by the Spanish law for the other part and promises to itself repay damage caused to proprietors of trade-marks and patents.

The proposal of Washington is therefore not capable of realization. The other countries with consular jurisdiction are too few for the International Bureau to make propositions in this relation at The Hague.

Herbert Hoover and the Patent Office.-Scientific American, June 1925, page 373.

The Scientific American offers its congratulations to the inventors of the United States on their good fortune in having the Honorable Herbert Hoover as the head of the Patent Office by the transfer of the latter to the Department of Commerce. The article calls attention to the fact that in the coming conference at The Hague, Mr. Hoover's European reputation will attract additiona attention to opinions advanced by his representatives at that meeting.

In the Secretary's statement of his purpose, appearing on the same page, he says that he hopes some remedy will be found for the difficulties of American inventors in protecting their patents in foreign countries, especially those caused by the obligation of actual manufacture within a stated time.

He goes on to say "The primary function of the Patent Office is to stimulate and protect American ingenuity and inventiveness. The success of the system and the efficiency of its operation is demonstrated in the dominant place held by American genius in the inventive world. I hope to continue and to improve its effectiveness as an aid to American industry and assistance to American commerce, bringing it closer into touch with the activities which it was created to serve. No drastic reorganization is contemplated or necessary."

Science and Money, Patent Rights as an Investment Basis. Scientific American, June 1925, pages 418 and 419.

The connection between science and money is usually considered very remote but the statement that "at least three-quarters of the industrial wealth of the United States is based directly or indirectly upon patent rights" causes a modification of this opinion. The value of patent rights as part of the physical property of corpora tions whose securities are marketed, is thoroughly recognized not only by the investing public, but by the promoters and officers of the corporations in question. However the great industrial corporations differ as to the listing of patent rights among their properties, one valuing them at one dollar and another assigning them a valuation of millions.

The investment of money in patents is, it must be admitted, to a large extent a gamble, unless those patents. have been tried in the fire of practical exploitation, and in many instances the test of fire in the courts. The world of industry is replete with great successes founded on patent rights. It is also replete with stories of the difficulties of inventors of outstanding advances in industrial development in marketing the securities based on their patents. Investors are warned of the fly-by-night promoter who fattens on the credulity of the general public and its belief that a patent is something sacred. Fake stock is sold against a patent of minor commercial importance and after a month or so, the promoter of the enterprise disappears and resumes operations in another city. Money should not be invested merely because of a patent unless it is certain that the patent is all that is claimed for it, and it should be remembered too that it takes skill, experience, and technical and legal knowledge properly to pass upon a patent. On the other hand, sound patent rights are of the greatest value in innumerable cases. "As patents grant monopolies for the periods of their lives, they are obviously of value to