§ MR. MUNTZasked Mr. Attorney General, If his attention has been called to the case of Barrows v. the Registrar of Trade Marks, reported in the "Times" newspaper of 2nd March, in which the Registrar had declined to register trade marks proved to have been the property of Messrs. Barrows for upwards of thirty years; and, whether the Registrar has power at his own option to remodel trade marks which had been used for many years, or refuse to register them?
THE ATTORNEY GENERALIn answer to my hon. Friend, I beg to state that I have read the report referred to, but it is not correct that the Registrar declined to register trade marks proved to have been the property of Messrs. Barrows for upwards of 30 years. The Registrar did register a number of trade marks, consisting of figures and words, and letters, and combinations of figures and words, or figures and letters, to which Messrs. Barrows laid claim, and which belonged 1580 to them exclusively. But, in addition to the registration of the trade marks just mentioned, Messrs. Barrows demanded the registration, as separate and independent trade marks, of marks consisting of the figures, words, and letters above-mentioned, in combination with figures, words, or letters, which had for years been used by the whole iron trade in common. The Registrar, being doubtful whether he was justified in registering the marks I have last alluded to, applied for instructions to the Commissioners of Patents, who directed him not to register without the order of the Court. In reply to the remaining part of the Question, I beg to say that the Registrar does not claim at his own option to re-model or to refuse to register trade marks which have been used before the passing of the Act; but in case a question of difficulty and nicety arises, as to whether a trade mark is such as he ought to register, he applies to the Commissioners of Patents and acts according to their directions.