FORTUNE-TELLING

Greymouth Evening Star, 25 March 1925, Page 8

FORTUNE-TELLING

NEW ZEALANDER’S INVENTION. In the Chancery Division (London) f last month, in the action Wesman v. McNamara and the Cup of Knowledge - Limited, the plaintiff asked for an injunction to restrain * the defendants ■ from infringing his copyright in an artistic design consisting of a cup f having the interior ornamented by a 9 displayed pack of playing cards, f Mr Justice Russell dismissed the action, with costs. Mr Preston, K.C., and Mr Moritz, 5 appeared for the plaintiff; Mr Ben- ' nett, K.C., and Mr David White for 1 the defendants. Mr Preston said the idea of divinai tion by playing cards or by the posi--9 tion which tea leaves took in a cup > was old, but the plaintiff’s work consisted of the combination of the ideas 1 and the ornamentation of the inside of the cup. In April 1923, the plain tiff designed his fortune-telling cup 3 with a pack of cards displayed Inside, ’ and with the inscription on the nm: b “What does the cup say, I wonder, ! to-day?” The plaintiff also produced l ’ a book in which were directions for 1 the use of the cup. Thus, if the tea 1 leaves settled on the queen of aia- ’ mends, on refeiring to the rules you found, it meant a party or a social ' evening, while the queen of spades, ’ sometimes called, “slippery Jane, meant a jealous woman.

Mr Bennett.—ln our directions e three knaves indicate a law suit. e Mr Preston, continuing, said that the plaintiff registered his design un- ! der the Australian Copyright Act, 1912, which adopted the English Copy 3 right Act, 1911. The defendant re--3 gistered his co-j a month later, lhe 3 cnp bore the inscription, “The Cup of 3 Knowledge,” and inside it were displayed 5’2 carls and the joker. The book of directions was called “The 1 Cup of Knowledge; Fortune-Telling Rules.” The plaintiff only had two cups made, one of which was deposit- ! ed in the Registry in Melbourne and 1 one is produced to-day. The plaintiff, while in Australia, tried to obtain financial assistance to manufacture the cups, and showed his design to many persons. In 1924 the plaintiff returned to England and saw the defendant’s cup on sale at Hamley’s and at a stall at Wembley Exhibition. The plaintiff claimed that his cup was an original, artistic work within Section 1 of the Copyright Act, 1911, and that he had the sole right of reproduction. A combination of ordinary materials might produce an original work, but when the combination reached a certain degree of complexity it was impossible to believe mat two people working independently could have arrived at the same result. He asked for an injunction,

damages, and delivery up of the in- , fringing articles. I Evidence was given by tile plaintiff in support of bis counsel’s statement. At the conclusion of plaintiff’s case the defendant, Mr McNamara, was called. He said that at the end 1922 he took a racehorse from New Zealand to Sydney, where Iris mother lived. At tea one day his mother showed him a fortune-telling tea cap called the Nelross Cup. This cup had a number of designs, including a heart, a a spade, a “diamond, and a trefoil, and there • was a book of directions how the cup was to be used in. telling fortunes. His mother told his fortune and found that his horse would win i.s race. However, it finished last. The idea occurred io him that it would be much isimpler to have a cup with a pack of cards displayed instead of a number of different designs. He put the idea into execution, and the defendant company was incorporated to manufacture and sell his cup, which was registered in all English-speaking countries. He had never heard of the plaintiff’s cup until he was served with the writ m this action.' Mr Justice Russell, said that it was conceded that if the defendant **ad originated his work 1 independently of the plaintiff, then the plaintiff had no monopoly and could not complain. Here there was no evidence of ap- ’ propriation. On the other hand he had had the advantage of hearing and seeing NCr McNamara in the wit-ness-box. He believed his evidence, and it did not seem so wholly Impossible that two people should simultaneously hit on the idea of the. combination of fortune-telling by cards and tea leaves when the' wellknown Nelross cup had been in existence. The action would be dismissed, with costs. i