Publisher

"Felix McGlennon Ltd"

"Shamrock & Co"

 

This company is of interest because it was one of the first to publish cards signed by Fred Spurgin. and because it was situated in Paternoster Row.

Very shortly afterwards Spurgin started to produce cards for Avenue Publishing (not in Paternoster Row) in the "Paternoster Series".

 

An Inspiration

Signed Frederick Spurgin

30 September 1910

     

 

In 1906 Felix McGlennon established the company "Shamrock & Co" at 5 Lovells Court, Paternoster Row, and applied for a trademark showing a Shamrock. In October 1908 the trademark was refused, after a court case, in which it was claimed that the use of a shamrock improperly suggested the cards were made in Ireland (see below). From about 1910 cards were published by Felix McGlennon Ltd. "Incorporating Shamrock & Co"

 


   

Humorous Art Series

 

Shamrock & Co., London, EC

Humorous Art Series

Printed in England

Unsigned

   
       

Cheeky Girl

Were you with me last night?

Humorous Art Series

 

Felix McGlennon Ltd. Incorporating Shamrock & Co., London, EC

Humorous Art Series No 2

Printed in England

Unsigned

His First Pair

Shan't Play !

There appears to be a series of very similar cards - starting with the Infantastic Series (Watkins & Kracke), then this Humorous Art Series, followed by the children cards by Spurgin in the Paternoster Series (Avenue Publishing) and then various children series by Spurgin published by Inter-Art.


 

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. CHANCERY DIVISION. (Before Mr. Justice Warrington).

  re McGlennon's Application for Registration of "Shamrock.”

This was an application by way of appeal from the Registrar of Trade Marks. It was made by a person who carried on business in London under the firm name of "Shamrock and Co.," as printer and publisher of pictorial postcards, for the registration of his trade mark, consisting of a device of a shamrock with its stalk so twisted as to represent "& Co.” It was opposed by an association for the development of Irish industries, onthe ground that, if the shamrock was registered and used as a trade mark, it would be calculated to deceive purchasers into the belief that the goods were Irish origin when, in fact, they were not.

Mr. Warwick Draper, Mr, Walter. K C., and Mr. Maugham, and Mr. Sergant represented the parties concerned.

Mr. Warwick Draper, for the applicant, contended that the design in question was merely name of "Shamrock and Co.” in which the applicant had for 2 1/2 years, traded :and sold 2,000,000 cards, in a special or pictorial form. It was suggested that the use of the design would lead people to think that the goods were made in Ireland. On the same showing aman might, if that were so, when trading as Rose and Co. in Ireland, he prevented from using a rose as the trade mark, because the rose was the English emblem. A shamrock. as a pretty floral device, simply meant good luck, all the world over, and did not necessarily imply anything to do with Ireland.

Mr. Walter and Mr. Maugham, for the opposing association, contended that the shamrock had come to denote connexion with Ireland. and. if used as a mark on goods not Irish, it would be calculated to deceive.

Mr. .Sargant. for the Registrar, took no part in the argument.

Mr. Justice Warrington said the application was substantially for the registration of a device of a shamrock upon postcards. The simple and short point was whether the use of that mark would be calculated to deceive. The evidence, in his: opinion, established that its use would suggest to a person buying the goods that they were Irish goods—that the use of a shamrock, not as mere decoration, but as a. distinctive mark. indicated that the thing in respect of which it was used was Irish, or some way connected with Ireland. No one seeing a soldier with a shamrock in his collar would doubt that he belonged to an Irish regiment. So, too, the shamrock was used, in connection with the rose and thistle, in a design of the Royal Arms, because it was the emblem of Ireland. If, used in a decorative design, it was emblematic of Ireland, much more was it so if used as trade mark to distinguish the goods of the person using it from those of another; the inference in such a case to a purchaser must be that they were Irish goods. If that were so and the goods were not Irish, the mark was calculated to deceive. The postcards at issue' in the present case were made, not in Ireland, but either in England or abroad. It was said the applicant made it clear that they were not Irish, by printing upon them such words as “Printed in England" or “Printed in Saxony.” The answer was that that was not point, for it was the trade mark which would conspicuous. and suggest the cards came from Ireland . and it was not enough, to counteract that, to say where they were printed. All the Court. had to do was to say whether under section 11 of the Trade Marks Act 1905, the mark was “calculated to deceive,'’ and. in his lordship’s judgment, it was, and the application must be refused.

CORK EXAMINER 9 November 1908