T.CLAY LINDSEY ATTORNEY AT LAW PATENT AND TRADE MARK CAUSES JOHN M. 18 ASYLUM PRUTZMAN HARTFORD, November J. NM. & UM. Ogden, Utah. S. Browning 17, STREET CONNECTICUT 1947. Company, Attention - Mr, M. Bigelow Browning Re: Dear Mir. Fabrigque Nationale Advertisement Browning: Ll have your letter of the 12th enclosing the It seems to me that advertisement. It presents two problems, the first of which is not difficult to answer from the legal standpoint, but the second one of which is a Pree? both problems are of a character negotiation palgim, is with Fabrique Nationale I am writing you With to F. letter. respect that should be taken up by promptly, N. and, as Val sending utilizing, is now him a copy in its in of advertise- ment, legal the reputation of Browning, 1 do not think we have any cause of action because the statements, it ed igi to me, these true. statements, but it seems to me that they are geseres sy There is nothing in the advertisement which says tha are not_in any way derogatory of the late Mr. John il. Browning or the ee ina: Company. There may be some exaggeration in the Browning interests had ever had anything to do with either the designor manufacture of the Mauser actions promoted by | the advertisement. From the degal standpoint, the main objection, as I see it, to the reference to "Browning" is that Fabrique Nationale uses this word in a generic sense to indicate a type, or types, of firearm, that is, they use the termin a descriptive I think know, that we are sense instead of a trade-mark justified in objecting to sense. this for, as a trade-mark may lose its trade-mark significance and you value if it is employed extensively to describe the type of a product. In this connection, 1 would call your attention to what is said in the enclosed pore ee of the new trade-mark act rid ter ig Val ta e this on pages ll, 42, matter and 43. up wi th Fabrique I would suggest Nationale. that