In "Matter and Force" he says: "Nature is a great book of instruction which is never closed. I know not nor can I imagine a privilege equal to that of contemplating whenever and wherever I wish the material products of the Creator's thoughts to observe the wonderful adaptation of means to ends. To me it appears like a pupil drawing near to his teacher and holding familiar communion with him. And how much greater the results than generally supposed; not only the discovery of facts and principles which add to the number and value of the arts of civilization but to a never failing source of increasing mental pleasure.'

Like all men who have been active, Mr. Ewbank had his critics. A disappointed party in a proceeding for the extension of a patent for India rubber springs for railway cars filed charges of partiality against him and started an investigation that disclosed only a party dissatisfied at one of the Commissioner's judicial decisions. Of this episode in his administration, he says:

"With regard to insinuations of corruption and kindred crimes, I can only meet them by defying the keenest and challenging the most malignant to produce an atom of evidence to support them. No Commissioner who conscientiously and fearlessly performs his duty, no matter what his talents, integrity and reputation may be, can escape the denunciations from disappointed applicants, nor from interested agents and attorneys, especially when heavy contingent fees are not realized."

Ewbank's literary works and public life disclose a sturdy, honorable character and a mind capable of weighing and segregating the things of real value in human activities. The Patent Office should value his connection with its history. He died in New York City, September 16, 1870.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

MELVIN H. COULSTON.

Chief Clerk M. H. Coulston was appointed Assistant Commissioner of Patents to succeed the late Mr. F. W. H. Clay. By disposition and training he was the logical man for the position, and no surprise was manifested when the announcement was made. In the short time since Mr. Coulston became prominent in Office affairs, he has made an enviable record for capacity and energy. No man in the recent history of the Patent Office has displayed more talent for affairs than Mr. Coulston has exhibited in the position of Chief Clerk. Quick to grasp a situation, instant in decision, bold in action, and excellent in judgment, he made an unusually good executive.

Born and reared on a little farm in Northern Pennsylvania he was able to gain a high school education through the aid of his parents. His college course was attained by his own efforts and he is proud to acknowledge that after graduating from Cornell University he came to the Patent Office replete with enthusiasm and burdened with debt.

Mr. Coulston rose from the ranks through sheer merit. Appointed to the Office in 1902 he occupied every grade in the Examining Corps, except Primary Examiner, became a Law Examiner, where the qualities of mind that later were displayed in a larger field first received general recognition, and then was drafted into the position of Chief Clerk, the arduous duties of which he performed with conspicuous but expected success. As President of the Patent Office Society, he has disclosed the same initiative, perspective, and courage that were noticeable in the performance of his official duties.

Mr. Coulston brings to his new position such a breadth of view and grasp of legal principles as to make his retention in the Office of the highest value thereto. When examiners with less than his experience are resigning to accept positions of greater remuneration, his decision to remain in the Office at this time is nothing less than a subject of public congratulation.

ARE THE TRADE-MARK LAWS OF LATIN-AMERI

CAN COUNTRIES JUSTIFIABLE?

BY HENRY C. THOMPSON

(Reprinted from "Electrical Export.")

The writer recently received the following suggestion from the editor of this publication: "If there is anything to be said in justification of the Trade-Mark Laws of Latin-American countries, we would like to have you prepare an article on the subject for the February number of Electrical Export to follow your article 'Is Foreign Trade-Mark Registration Necessary?' which appeared in our January number."

Who but an editor would make such a request? "Justification! Such a thing is impossible," is the reply of every business man in the United States who is interested in the exportation of trade-marked products to South America. And in way of emphasis he adds, "The TradeMark laws of these countries are abominable-and that's the end of it. Anybody who attempts to justify them is a mere theorist.

But is a defense of Latin-American Trade-Mark laws merely theoretical? We shall see!

Let us suppose the case where the Latin-American steps before the court of Public Opinion, to be questioned relative to such abominable laws. A list of United States trade-marks, registered in Latin-American countries by citizens of those countries, is handed him. In addition to a facsimile of the marks, data is tabulated concerning (1) Loss of sales by the United States owner of the mark, (2) Damage to his good-will, (3) Refusal to enter shipments at the customs house, (4) Money (blackmail) paid by him to regain possession of the stolen-as we view the act-trade-mark.

The accused culprit is asked to admit that the TradeMark laws of Latin-American countries are everything reprehensible, and is also urged to acknowledge that those of the United States are everything to be desired. Does he do it? "Not on your life." He is willing neither to

admit the first proposition nor does he acknowledge the second. He replies in argument in this unexpected fashion:

A Viewpoint of a Latin-American on Trade-Mark Laws.

"This 'holier than thou' attitude of the United States relative to Latin-American Trade-Mark laws, is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. True, in most SouthAmerican countries the trade-mark registrant is permitted by law to take advantage of the non-registrant, but what about the United States, where the non-registrant is allowed by law to blackmail the registrant? What's the difference whether 'A' blackmails 'B' or 'B' blackmails 'A'?"

i

Public Opinion is dumfounded at the answer of the witness. Such straight from the shoulder talk was unexpected. Rather it was believed that he would admit his guilt and plead for mercy. When the shock caused by the "T.N.T." reply has subsided, he is asked to explain which he does as follows:

"Whether the laws of any country are good or bad, I take the best test to be either the satisfaction or dissatisfaction with which they are received by the citizens of the country. Are United States Trade-Mark laws satisfactory to the citizens of the United States?

How Defects in Trade-Mark Laws of U. S. A. Showed Up in One Case.

"I have just come from the office of a newly organized concern whose original investment for machinery alone, was over $50,000. The same amount of money has been appropriated to help put the product on the market and as much more is available to secure national distribution. The matter of brand-name adoption was carefully considered. The advertising agency was instructed to act under the advice of a specialist in trade-mark law, relative to the legal aspect of words suggested for the brandname. One after the other these words were rejected because they did not meet the test of priority searches conducted to determine rights of exclusive appropriation. These searches were made through the files of the Patent Office Trade-Mark Bureau, the Trade-Mark Bureaus of

forty odd States, Private Bureaus, and among jobber's catalogues and price lists covering a period of years. Eventually, after an expenditure of several hundreds of dollars for 'services rendered,' a name was found which met every originality test that could be applied (at the time). Registration of the name in the United States Patent Office was applied for. The application was accepted, passed and published in the Official Gazette.' No one entered an 'Opposition Notice' alleging damage to his priority rights. In due course the Certificate of Registration was issued.

Prior User of Name Favored by U. S. A. Trade-Mark Laws.

"Not until the brand-name seemed to be the adopter's beyond doubt was the advertising campaign launched. Shortly afterwards a letter was received from New York City, threatening legal action unless the name was immediately abandoned. Investigation proved that the product was one of many sold by the objecting concern, that it was a low-priced, low-quality product distributed by stores which could not sell the better grade goods of the new manufacturer and that sales had been small but continuous over a number of years. It was learned too that the goods never had been catalogued or advertised.

Counsel rendered an opinion that, notwithstanding the unusual circumstances, under the United States TradeMark laws the prior user could undoubtedly secure an injunction and prevent further sales by his competitor within the zone of the former's distribution.

"Then followed that which your 'equitable' laws permit. The good-will in the name, created by the first user, on the basis of net profit per year, was not worth one hundred dollars, but your laws throttled the second adopter. The name with its small good-will value had to be bought at an exorbitant price by the innocent subsequent adopter. Otherwise it would be necessary to throw away thousands of dollars worth of containers and labels, adopt a new name after new priority tests had been applied and prepare and distribute new advertising matter at great cost. In fact, before the concern could again be ready for business under a new brand-name, months of wasted time must elapse.