ISBN: 1236972368

[EAN: 9781236972361], Neubuch, GREAT BRITAIN. BOARD OF TRADE,SUBJECTS, This item is printed on demand. Paperback. This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers c… Mehr…

[EAN: 9781236972361], Neubuch, GREAT BRITAIN. BOARD OF TRADE,SUBJECTS, This item is printed on demand. Paperback. This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1896 edition. Excerpt: . . . Mr. G. E. Olive, gas engineer, Mr. R. Pownall, manager of W. M. Still and Co. , gas and electric lamp manufacturers, and Mr. I. J. Collins, managing director of The Lamp fzfanufacturing Company, Ld. , all of whom stated that lamps similar to the Plaintiffs design had been largely used before 1893, and instanced the Thomas, Wenham, and the Fulford lamps, and Mr. C. H. Skwfllman verifying photographs. In answer to the Defendants aflidavits, affidavits in support of the Plaintifis case, by the Plaintiff, Mr. W. T. Sugg, managing director of Wm. Sugg and Co. , Ld. , Mr. J. H. Sheldralcc, managing director of The De llare Incandescent Gm: Light System, Ld. , and Mr. Stevens, lamp manufacturer, were read, from which it appeared that the Thomas, Wenham, and Fulford lamps were for gas only, and had tall chimneys or ventilators, whereas the Plaintifls lamp was for electric lighting, and met a want. Mr. Sugg said that he was greatly struck with the novelty of the design as applied to electric lamps. A further affidavit was made by Mr. Seaman; it was objected to by Swinfen Eady, Q. C. , but allowed to be read. Vernon Smith, Q. C. , continued. ---The design ought to be expunged. Besides, the Defendants is not so similar as to be an obvious imitation (Section 58), and In re Clarkes Registered Design. --CZarke v. Julius Sax and Co. , Ld. it is not fraudulent. It was prepared independently. The essential part of the design---the reflector--is old; it is only the top that is new. The test of infringement is stated by Lord Herschell in Harper v. Wright and Butler, 1. 2 R. P. C. 483, at page 488, 1896 1 Ch. , at page 146. Applying this test we do. . . This item ships from La Vergne,TN.<

2013, ISBN: 1236972368

[EAN: 9781236972361], Neubuch, [PU: Rarebooksclub.com, United States], Brand New Book ***** Print on Demand *****. This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers … Mehr…

[EAN: 9781236972361], Neubuch, [PU: Rarebooksclub.com, United States], Brand New Book ***** Print on Demand *****. This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1896 edition. Excerpt: .Mr. G. E. Olive, gas engineer, Mr. R. Pownall, manager of W. M. Still and Co., gas and electric lamp manufacturers, and Mr. I. J. Collins, managing director of The Lamp fzfanufacturing Company, Ld., all of whom stated that lamps similar to the Plaintiff s design had been largely used before 1893, and instanced the Thomas, Wenham, and the Fulford lamps, and Mr. C. H. Skwfllman verifying photographs. In answer to the Defendants aflidavits, affidavits in support of the Plaintifi s case, by the Plaintiff, Mr. W . T. Sugg, managing director of Wm. Sugg and Co., Ld., Mr. J. H. Sheldralcc, managing director of The De ll/are Incandescent Gm: Light System, Ld., and Mr. Stevens, lamp manufacturer, were read, from which it appeared that the Thomas, Wenham, and Fulford lamps were for gas only, and had tall chimneys or ventilators, whereas the Plaintifl s lamp was for electric lighting, and met a want. Mr. Sugg said that he was greatly struck with the novelty of the design as applied to electric lamps. A further affidavit was made by Mr. Seaman; it was objected to by Swinfen Eady, Q.C., but allowed to be read. Vernon Smith, Q.C., continued.---The design ought to be expunged. Besides, the Defendants is not so similar as to be an obvious imitation (Section 58), and In re Clarke s Registered Design.--CZarke v. Julius Sax and Co., Ld. it is not fraudulent. It was prepared independently. The essential part of the design---the reflector--is old; it is only the top that is new. The test of infringement is stated by Lord Herschell in Harper v. Wright and Butler, 1.2 R.P.C. 483, at page 488, 1896 1 Ch., at page 146. Applying this test we do.<

2013, ISBN: 1236972368

[EAN: 9781236972361], Neubuch, [PU: Rarebooksclub.com, United States], Brand New Book ***** Print on Demand *****.This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers c… Mehr…

[EAN: 9781236972361], Neubuch, [PU: Rarebooksclub.com, United States], Brand New Book ***** Print on Demand *****.This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1896 edition. Excerpt: .Mr. G. E. Olive, gas engineer, Mr. R. Pownall, manager of W. M. Still and Co., gas and electric lamp manufacturers, and Mr. I. J. Collins, managing director of The Lamp fzfanufacturing Company, Ld., all of whom stated that lamps similar to the Plaintiff s design had been largely used before 1893, and instanced the Thomas, Wenham, and the Fulford lamps, and Mr. C. H. Skwfllman verifying photographs. In answer to the Defendants aflidavits, affidavits in support of the Plaintifi s case, by the Plaintiff, Mr. W . T. Sugg, managing director of Wm. Sugg and Co., Ld., Mr. J. H. Sheldralcc, managing director of The De ll/are Incandescent Gm: Light System, Ld., and Mr. Stevens, lamp manufacturer, were read, from which it appeared that the Thomas, Wenham, and Fulford lamps were for gas only, and had tall chimneys or ventilators, whereas the Plaintifl s lamp was for electric lighting, and met a want. Mr. Sugg said that he was greatly struck with the novelty of the design as applied to electric lamps. A further affidavit was made by Mr. Seaman; it was objected to by Swinfen Eady, Q.C., but allowed to be read. Vernon Smith, Q.C., continued.---The design ought to be expunged. Besides, the Defendants is not so similar as to be an obvious imitation (Section 58), and In re Clarke s Registered Design.--CZarke v. Julius Sax and Co., Ld. it is not fraudulent. It was prepared independently. The essential part of the design---the reflector--is old; it is only the top that is new. The test of infringement is stated by Lord Herschell in Harper v. Wright and Butler, 1.2 R.P.C. 483, at page 488, 1896 1 Ch., at page 146. Applying this test we do.<

ISBN: 9781236972361

Paperback, [PU: Rarebooksclub.com]