J. GODDARD & SONS V. GODDARD 6/1925

CODDARD,

copy!

PRANSORT PT OF JY o"

of

GME

& SONG V. 50

Thin is an avyeal sgsinst toe deciaon

sistrar refandine

Ropl tion to register tho none

'Goddard ag 2 trede mark in r to powder. Under Section 16 of the Pred & a mere namo, that is, the nase of an indlvidual, cannot be re-;istered as a trade wark unless it is found to be a distinctive mark in itself,

and hore the question which wee before the Rosietrar, and is now before us,is whother the name "Joddard" hos scauired in regzect of »late powder the meaning that the powder to which

it le applied ig powder manufectured by the applicants in tais ense and by no ons else. The Registrar came to the conclu- sion on the evidence that "the state of the Australian market wee at the date of the application euch that there was such oe wide knowlodge emonzet the trade and the public genorally of the applioants' plate powder ee "Goddard's plate povder' end' the opponent's plate powder denoted by the same name os to render it an open question whioh of these two manufacturer would be handed to a customer if he anked for a tin of *Godderda plate powder,* without distinguishing it by some reference to either the "Stag brand' or the 'double trisng'e brand* of the oporent.™ Finding that, he held that the name "Soddard "

had rot became distinctive and therefore should not be r

tered, T find no favlt with the conclusion at which the Registrar arrived on the facte, and I think his conclusion in point of law ir correct. I therefore think that the apposl

ehovle be dismissed.

Rich J, I agree, In refusing to register the trade mari: in question I think the Registrar properly exorc iced the dieeration conferred upon him. (In re Serrett's Application,

(1916) 1 Ch. 436 at p. 446).

whetner the neme "Goddard" hag become co acsociated with the

J. on in thir

eo le one of fuot: