^  Welcome  v.  Thompson  (Eng.)
(1904),  1  ("h.  7;i6.  "Wlien  one
is  deuhng  with  tiiis  question  of
whether  a  word  is  descriptive,
I  think  one  must  always  bear  in
mind  that  for  a  word  really  to  be
descriptive  it  must  describe  some-
thing which  is  material  to  the
composition,  i.  e.,  the  cjuality,
form  or  purpose  of  the  article  to
which  the  trade-mark  is  intended
to  a|)ply."

"Sctcliuw  V.  Baker  (188,3),  93
N.  Y.  59.  "The  reason  for  not
permitting  names,  descriptions  of
the  article  or  its  component  jjarts,
to  b(>  a|)pro|)riated  a.s  trade-
marks is  that  inasmuch  as  all
persons  have  an  etiual  rimht  to
jjroduce  and  vend  similar  ar-
ticles, they  also  have  the  right  to


properly  describe  them  and  to
use  any  appropriate  language
in  words  for  that  purpose,  and
no  i^erson  can  appropriate  to
himself  exclusively  any  word
or  exi)ression,  properly  descrip-
tive of  the  article,  its  qualities,
ingredients   or   characteristics."

'^  Ridgiray  Co.  v.  Amalgamated
Press  (Kng.)  (1911),  28  T.  L.  R.
149.  PlaintifTs,  American  pul>
lishers  of  "Everybody's  Maga-
zine," issued  monthly  and  sold
at  a  shilling,  brought  action  to
restrain  defetulants  from  selling
a  |)eriodical  called  "Everybody's
Weekly"  issucxl  weekly  and  .sold
for  a  penny.
