« ÎnapoiContinuați »
GRANTING CONSENT OF CONGRESS TO COMPACTS BETWEEN THE STATES OF COLORADO AND WYOMING
FEBRUARY 10, 1930.-Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
Mr. CARTER, of Wyoming, from the Committee on Irrigation and
Reclamation, submitted the following
[To accompany H. R. 202)
The Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation, to whom was referred the bill H. R. 202, introduced by Mr. Taylor, of Colorado, granting the consent of Congress to compacts or agreements between the States of Colorado and Wyoming with respect to the division and apportionment of the waters of the North Platte River and other streams in which such States are jointly interested, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with the recommendation that it
A similar measure was reported favorably and passed the House during the Seventieth Congress; therefore, the report made at that time is made a part of this report, as follows:
The Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 7026) granting the consent of Congress to compacts or agreements between the States of Colorado and Wyoming with respect to the division and apportionment of the waters of the North Platte River and other streams in which such States are jointly interested, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with the recommendation that it do pass without amendment.
The report of the Secretary of the Interior, addressed to the chairman of the Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation, explaining the purpose and effect of this legislation, is as follows:
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
Washington, May 16, 1928. Hon. ADDISON T. Smith, Chairman Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation,
House of Representatives. MY DEAR MR. Smith: I have letter from your office dated May 11, transmitting with request for report copy of H. R. 7026, a bill granting the consent of Congress to compacts or agreements between the States of Colorado and Wyoming with respect to the division and apportionment of the waters of the North Platte River and other streams in which such States are jointly interested.
I am in uccord with the practice of providing for the equitable division and use of the waters of interstate streams by means of compacts between the States affected. This I believe to be a more expeditious and effective method of composing differences than by litigation in the courts. However, attention is invited to the following facts, which I believe pertinent in connection with the present bill:
There has been heretofore created a commission composed of representatives from the States of Colorado, Nebraska, and Wyoming, with a member appointed by the President to represent the United States, whose purpose it is to apportion among the States named the waters of the North Platte River and tributaries. This commission has held several meetings at which considerable testimony has been taken and other work done.
I am not advised how it is proposed to coordinate the efforts of the two commissions. It would appear that some correlation should be attempted in order to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort and possible confusion.
The department has no objections to the bill should Congress conclude that any useful purpose may be served by its enactment. Very truly yours,
HUBERT WORK. O
PROTECTION OF TRADE-MARKS USED IN COMMERCE
FEBRUARY 11, 1930.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. VESTAL, from the Committee on Patents, submitted the following
(To accompany H. R. 2828]
The Committee on Patents, to which was referred the bill (H. R. 2828) to protect trade-marks used in commerce, to authorize the registration of such trade-marks, and for other purposes, having had the same under consideration, now reports the bill back to the House with certain amendments, and with the recommendation that the same, as so amended, do pass.
The amendments adopted by the committee are as follows:
Page 2, line 4, after “trade-mark”, insert “on said goods "'; line 12, cancel"$10" and insert "$15".
Page 4, beginning with line 8, rewrite paragraph (g), as follows: (9) Registrations of a mark under the act of February 20, 1905, or under sections 1, 2, 4 (b) and 23 of this act, except under paragraph (f) of section 2 of this act, shall be prima facie evidence of ownership as of the date the application was filed. This shall not apply to registrations under the act of March 19, 1920, or under sections 3 or 4 (a) of this act. Registration of a mark by virtue of paragraph (f) of this section shall be prima facie evidence of secondary meaning distinguishing the registrant's goods as of the date the application was filed. It shall be unlawful for any person other than the registrant, after the date of the registration to use in commerce any registered trade-mark on the same class of goods unless he has begun such use prior to the date of registration.
Page 5, line 24, cancel “(1)” and substitute “(a)”.
Page 20, lines 2 and 3, cancel all after "act" and insert in lieu thereof the following:
(C) Applications for renewal of certificates of registration under the acts of March 3, 1881, February 20, 1905, and March 19, 1920, shall be examined and classified as applications under sections 1, 2, 3, 4, or 23, respectively, but they shall not be published for opposition nor, while pending, be involved in interferences, and the certificates of renewal, when issued, shall have the same force and effect as certificates issued under the respective sections of this act,
Line 13, after “under”, as first used, insert "section 1 (b) of”; Line 25, after “under", as first used, insert "section 1 (b) of".
Page 28, line 19, cancel “$10” and insert "$15"; line 21, cancel “$20" and insert "$25", line 22, cancel “$10” and insert "$15": line 23, cancel “$10” and insert “$15".
Page 29, line 3, after "correction” and before the comma insert "under section 10 (e)”; line 4, cancel “$15" and insert "$20"; line 6, cancel “$15” and insert "$25”; line 14, after the word "paper" insert “$3”, and strike out rest of line 14, all of lines 15 and 16, and $1 on line 17; line 19, cancel “25” and insert “50”; line 20, make “commission” read “commissioner".
' Page 35, line 10, after "by” insert", or in opposition or cancellation
“ proceedings employ,”; lines 13 and 14, cancel", and such fraudulent declaration or representation shall constitute perjury".
Page 38, line 17, after “found,” insert "or if the registrant is a foreigner and no such designation has been filed, then in the District of Columbia".
Page 39, line 3, cancel “Such order or decree" and insert “An order or decree for either party,”; line 4, after “appealable,” insert "provided the petition for appeal is filed in 30 days,".
Page 40, line 16, after the word “person” insert “user".
Page 41, line 21, cancel the word "passage” and insert in lieu thereof the word “enactment”.
Page 43, line 14, cancel “1929" and insert “1930”; line 18, cancel “1929" and insert “1930”.
The antecedent bill, substantially the same as the present one, has already passed the House twice-once in the Sixty-ninth Congress (H. R. 13486) and once in the Seventieth (H. R. 13109).
Before any hearings were had in the present Congress the Commissioner of Patents called a conference at the Patent Office and requested each of the patent law associations throughout the country to send a representative, and also invited a number of persons who were known to be opposed to the form of the bill. In response to this invitation a conference was had at the Patent Office consisting of the following:
Representatives of the American Bar Association; the Boston Patent Law Association; New York State Bar Association; Cleveland Patent Law Association; Michigan Patent Law Association; the American Grocery Specialty Manufacturers' Association; the American Pharmaceutical Association; the National Association of Retail Grocers; United States Trade-Mark Association; and the National Confectioners' Association.
In addition to these, the American Patent Law Association sent a representative as an auditor, but without instruction to take part in reframing the bill.
The object of this meeting was to see whether or not those who were opposed to the form of the bill could get together with those advocating the bill and iron out their points of difference. This conference reported to the meeting of the Committee on Patents held March 9, 1928, that they had been able to iron out the difficulties with the bill to a very large extent, and thereupon Mr. Stoughton Bell, of Boston, in behalf of the conferees, submitted to the committee the various changes which had been recommended. The changes thus made and presented resulted in the reprinting of the bill in order that it might be carefully studied (H. R. 11988), and a subsequent hearing was then afforded by the committee so those could be heard who were still opposed to the bill in its new form.
The subsequent hearing was held on March 30 and 31, 1928, and resulted in still further changes, so that the bill, with the additional amendments, was reintroduced, as above stated, as H. R. 13109. That bill received the unanimous approval of the Committee on Patents and passed the House May 21, 1928.
Action on the bill was not taken in the Senate, and at the beginning of the present session the bill was reintroduced as H. R. 2828, and on January 17 and 18, 1930, extended hearings were again had before the committee, at which time certain phases of the bill to which some objection was found were fully presented but the bill as a whole commended.
The purpose of the bill is to incorporate into one act the various Federal trade-mark acts; to substitute for the act of March 19, 1920, provisions for carrying into effect the convention signed at Santiago, Chile, on April 28, 1923, and ratified, with certain reservations, by the Senate of the United States on February 24, 1925; to overcome any inconsistencies in the various laws; to remove defects developed in the operation of the different laws; and in so doing to apply the common law of trade-marks to interstate commerce.
To accomplish the end above mentioned, the committee of the American Bar Association attempted to retain all of the good features of the present statutes, and thus many features of the bill are merely restatements of the present law. Some of the new features embodied in this act are as follows:
Section 2 (f) provides for registration of marks which have acquired a secondary meaning distinguishing the applicant's goods. There has been much demand for this feature of the bill and likewise there has been opposition to it. Hence the registration of such marks is permitted only when it shall be shown by proof convincing beyond a reasonable doubt that the mark has acquired a secondary meaning distinguishing the applicant's goods.
All of section 3 is necessary in order to carry out our treaty obligations respecting the convention heretofore mentioned, signed at Santiago, Chile, and ratified by the Senate on February 24, 1925. The essential reservations incorporated by the Senate have been included in the bill.
Section 4 is intended as a substitute for paragraph (b) of section 1 of the act of March 19, 1920. The act hereby repealed permits one to register a mark without being subject to opposition proceedings, and its purpose was to permit one to register à mark quickly and easily in order to obtain registration in foreign countries; but the act of March 19, 1920, is defective in that (1) it fixes no term, (2) it enables the mark to be used to stop importation, and (3) the decision of the Commissioner of Patents is final and no appeal can be taken therefrom to the courts.
Section 4 of the present bill is intended to provide a speedy registration of marks to be used upon merchandise exported from the United States, and this is important, since it is necessary to register in this country before registering in many of the foreign countries in order to prevent piracy in those countries. Although this section does not permit opposition proceedings, it does provide for the cap