Make in India - India becomes a new manufacturing hub for global and local manufacturers

#makeinindia  Campaign

DECODING COLOURFUL TRADEMARKS - A boon to Brand Identity

DECODING COLOURFUL TRADEMARKS

A boon to Brand Identity

Introduction:

Colour is an important factor in brand identity. All the popular Brands have colourful Trade Marks. In fact Brands without colours are unthinkable.  Colours form a prominent part of a Brand itself and the Trade Marks owned by it.

Consumers vary from those who are well informed, to those who are illiterate and average consumers with imperfect knowledge. Applying the test of average consumer with imperfect recollection, it seems that the consumer identifies the trade origin of a product or brand name by its attractive and colourful trademarks.   The red colour of coke, Blue colour of Pepsi, again red & white colour of Kit Kat, golden colour of 5- STAR are some of the popular examples wherein we are reminded of the colourful packages and marks.

When consumers think of a product or service, it’s the colour forming part of the mark that comes to the mind instantly.  For instance in South India, the name board of the famous Madurai Muniyandi Vilas is in Red and White. Predominantly the local consumers being ignorant of goods and services of different trade origin identify or source the goods or service providers through the colour or combination of colours used in the trademark.   Therefore the colour of a trademark becomes the brand identity and in due course of time becomes synonymous with the mark.

There are so many issues surrounding the registration and ownership of colourful Marks[1] and colour marks[2] and the question under what circumstances they are likely to be protected are to be examined further.

Section 2(m) of the Trademark Act 1999, defines a mark as a device / brand / heading / label / ticket / name / signature / word / letter / numeral / shape of goods / packaging or combination of colours or any combination thereof.

The Definition of mark includes Combination of colours.  Whether combination of colours includes a single colour depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case.

Colours convey lot of meanings that is why all brands have colourful logos and devices and other colourful combinations as their Trademarks. Human brain tends to register colours faster than numerals or letters. They play a vital role in attracting customers.

COLOURFUL TRADEMARKS:-

Many brand owners always wonder whether they should register a trade mark in black & white or colourful (combination of colours)?

If a trademark is registered in black & white it is deemed to be registered for all colours[3] while registration of a mark in specific colours will be protected only for those colours[4]. Does that mean that it is wiser to register a mark in Black & white to obtain a blanket protection for use of all colour combinations?

If registration is obtained for a Black & White trade mark, the rights are for that mark as filed i.e. in Black & White. If registration is in a specific colour combination, then the rights in the said mark will be for those colours.  However, according to Section 29[5] infringements rights extend to similar marks/deceptive and misleading marks. Therefore protection may extent to other colour combinations. This really depends on the mark, the goods or services and facts and circumstances of each case.

COLOUR TRADEMARK:-

The second type of colourful marks is the pure colour marks. Pure colour marks are also considered to be non –Conventional Marks.

Examples of pure colour marks are

CADBURYS - PURPLE [panatone-2685C]

ORANGE TELECOM,UK – ORANGE[panatone-151]

Below are the basic concepts that govern the ownership of pure colour marks.

A. THE THEORY OF COLOUR DEPLETION:-

In most circumstances colour depletion seems to be a strong argument against registration of pure marks.  According to the Colour depletion theory, there are a limited number of colours. Therefore if colours are registered as Trade Marks, the colours that remain available to other brand-owners become restricted. In India the trade mark acts includes only combination of colours. However Colour Depletion theory further argues that it only bars the registration of the seven basic colours. Shades of those colours are very much available for use, if they can be represented by an international system of colours Such as panatone, Fluctone, RAL, ect.

Though different shades are available for use, there is enough scope for confusion between two shades of the same colour. Here arises a question how the courts will determine the similarity and deceptiveness of such infringing marks?

Moreover, since more colours are to be registered as Trade Marks, the number will continue to deplete.

In Campbell Soup Co. v Armour & Co.[6], the plaintiff tried to protect its famous red and white labelling used on their food products. It was held that the plaintiff’s were wrong in requesting the right to have exclusive use of the coloured sign. The exclusive use of a sign leads to monopolisation, and permitting the use of the colour mark in that case would in turn allow other manufacturers to monopolise other colours, until the list of available colours becomes depleted.

Subsequently in Qualitex[7] the above precedent was rejected by the US Supreme Court. The court held that a limited supply of colour in some industries did not justify a ‘blanket protection’, as in most cases, enough colours are available for use.  

B.FUNCTIONALITY OF THE MARKS

Ambrit Food Company Vs Kraft Foods[8]

The plaintiff a frozen food company sold their product in a royal blue packaging. They wanted to restrict the Defendant which is also a food Company from using the same colour for their products. The US court held that royal blue served a functional purpose when used to package frozen desserts and therefore could not be monopolized as a trademark.

The ruling stated that

"Royal blue is a 'cool color;' it is suggestive of coldness and used by a   multitude of ice cream and frozen dessert producers."

Although the court acknowledged the issue of protecting the consumer from   confusion, preventing a monopoly of a functional colour was a greater issue.

Life Savers v. Curtiss Candy Co.[9]

The Plaintiff a popular candy company, sued  the Defendant  for using  a  multi-coloured striped background on the wrapper for its multi-flavoured hard candies similar to the wrapper used by the Plaintiff.  The US court denied protection to the plaintiff, citing that no trademark infringement or unfair competition had been established.

The court held that it was a

"general practice of the trade" for hard candy manufacturers to sell their candy in packages with multi-colored backgrounds for their assorted flavoured discs, and labels with single colored background for their packages containing one flavour of candy discs."

They concluded that the multi-colored background was in fact descriptive and served as a ready identification of the flavour of the candy in the package. Further such packaging and using multiple colours for Candies is common to the trade.  The following are few examples of colours serve a functional purpose and common to the trade.

              1. Green for organic products

  2. Orange for pharma industry

C.WHEN MARK BECOMES SYNONYMOUS WITH A BRAND 

Usually the court protects those colour marks which have become synonymous with the brand due to continuous use. The mark becomes so distinctive that the consumer associates the particular colour only with that brand.  

DAP Products, Inc. v. Color Tile Mfg., Inc[10].,

Dap(Plaintiff)   a building supply  company,  sued the Defendant Color Tile Mfg. Inc.,  When  they started selling  their ceramic mastic in a red bucket,  similar to that of the  Plaintiff which also sold its mastic in a red bucket.  A federal district court in US ruled in favour of the plaintiff and granted protection to their red packaging. The court held that "Secondary Meaning" was attached to the red plastic bucket.

               The court reasoned that

a) The color red was not a functional feature of the tile product.

b) Red had nothing to do with the color of the adhesive, the ceramic tile industry, or the product’s performance.

c) Dap used the color solely as a unique color for brand identity.

Similarly in the case of Owens Corning[11], the US Court recognised that the Pink colour used by it for its home insulation fibre glass has gained a secondary meaning and fibre glass is not naturally pink. The color pink has ended up being a product identifier for Owens Corning.

In Cadbury Ltd. v. ITC Ltd[12].,

The Gujarat High Court in the above matter held that the purple and gold wrapper on the eclairs has come to be associated with Dairy Milk Eclairs and using an identical or deceptively similar label by the Defendant for its product Candyman’s choco eclairs would be passing off the Defendant's products as that of the Plaintiff's. In this case the entire argument was based on the purple and gold colour combination.

Société des Produits Nestlé S.A. Vs. Cadbury UK Limited[13]

This is the most popular and recent successful story where Cadbury won litigation against Nestle for a particular shade of purple (Pantone 2685C).

Christian Louboutin S.A. Vs. Yves Saint Laurent AM Holding, Inc.

The 2^nd US Circuit Court of Appeals in New York ruled that the red soles were a

"Distinctive symbol that qualifies for trademark protection". The Court found that Louboutin failed to demonstrate that the secondary meaning of their red sole mark had also extended to monochromatic shoes and soles. Since Yves Saint Laurent’s shoe and sole design was monochromatic it was not infringing of Louboutin’s contrasting red sole trademark. Therefore Saint Laurent monochromatic red shoes do not infringe any trademark rights of Louboutin.

This is a unique case wherein it dint make much difference in the situation both parties where in prior to this litigation. Sometimes it may not be all that easy to own even a particular shade of colour as propounded in Colour Depletion theory.

In Colgate Palmolive Company v. Anchor Health & Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. 

The Court held that since the colour combination of red and white on its container and packaging of its tooth powder is used by the Plaintiff since 1951. The Court was of the opinion that use of similar colour combination by the Defendant is likely to cause confusion in the minds of the customers especially those who are unwary, illiterate and gullible.  The Court further held that infringement of Colgate's distinctive colour scheme would also cause dilution of the brand apart from confusion and must be restrained.

From the above analysis it is understood that the courts in India as well as courts abroad recognise the significance of a pure colour mark. Despite the above fact the court will protect only in cases where the mark has acquired a secondary meaning or has become distinctive in relation to a particular brand due to continuous usage.

Registration alone does not guarantee the ownership of a pure colour mark, since color marks are never inherently distinctive and must acquire secondary meaning to claim valid trademark protection.

Despite the above state of the pure colour marks, which may or may not be favourable to the Brand & Trademark owners, Colours have always been and have become an integral part of a Brand’s identity.  It occupies a major role in Brand Strategy.  Irrespective of the state of flux in their protection, Colourful marks do perform their desired function effectively.

---

[1] Colourful Mark - The said term is coined by the author D.Gowthami Reddy. Colourful Mark, unlike a pure colour Mark consists of others elements such as a logo, device or a Ticket along with combination of colours.  Usually it is a composite Mark. Example: SURF EXCEL, HORLICKS and POPPINS.

[2]  Colour trademark: - A colour trademark is a non-conventional trademark where at least one colour is used to perform the trademark function of uniquely identifying the commercial origin of products or services. EXAMPLE: CADBURY, VODAFONE. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour_trademark.

[3] Section 10(2) of The Trade Marks Act, 1999

[4] Section 10(1) of The Trade Marks Act, 1999

[5] Section 29 of The Trade Marks Act, 1999

[6] Campbell Soup Co. v Armour & Co. 175 F2d 795 (1945)

[7] 115S.Ct.  1300(1995) Qualitex Co. V Jacobson Products co.,

[8] 805 F.2d 974 Dec. 10, 1986, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

[9] 182 F.2d 4 May 23, 1950. United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

[10] 821 F. Supp. 488, 492 (S.D. Ohio 1993)

[11] 774 F.2d 1116. Oct. 8, 1985. United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

[12]Gujarat High Court dated 20.7.2005 passed in C.A.No.4241 of 2005-CADBURY LTD VS. ITC LTD

[13] [2012] EWHC 2637 (Ch), England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division)

Forms of Intellectual Property Rights.

 Forms of Intellectual Property Rights.
 
1.    Trademark for  Names, signs and  symbols
2.   Patents for inventions
3.   Industrial Designs for Aesthetic appearance of   goods manufactured by industrial process. 
4.   Copyrights and Allied rights for literary, artistic, dramatic, musical, sound recording, cinematograph film and Computer programmes.
5.   Geographical Indications for goods manufactured/produced in a geographic location with special characteristics attached to it.
6.   Apart from the above; creation of new plant varieties  by farmers, conservation of Bio Diversity, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore, Trade Secrets and Confidential Information and protection of the Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Layout Designs also fall under the purview of Intellectual Property Rights

.

TRADE DRESS 

Two Pesos v. Taco Cabana

The U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that trade dress applies to restaurant decor and that it can be protectable even without secondary meaning, as long as it is shown to be inherently distinctive. 

FRANCHISE

A franchise is a business method where an individual (the franchisee) acquires a license that allows them to acquire the proprietary knowledge of a business they want to operate (the franchisor). The franchisee is then allowed to open a branch of the business in the name of the business and sell the product or service that the business sells. 

Source:http://bizfinance.about.com/od/glossaryf/g/What-Is-A-Franchise.htm

TRADEMARK LICENSE

A Trademark license is a legal instrument given by the trademark owner/licensor permitting the use of his trademark by a licensee in return for a consideration paid as royalty.

WINDOWLESS AIRCRAFT PATENT

Can any of us imagine a pilot sitting either in the tail of an Aircraft or in the cargo berth?

Unbelievable!!!


Yes.... the future planes will be operated from its tail piece.


Airbus, A pioneer in the Aircraft Industry filed a patent application for a Aircraft without windows.

The patent application published on 26 June 2014 as US 20140180508 A1, was filed before the USPTO on Dec 23, 2013. It was invented by Jason Zaneboni and Bruno Saint-Jalmes. The patent was titled as "Aircraft with a cockpit including a viewing surface for piloting which is at least partially virtual".

The invention is aimed to reduce the impact on the mass and on the aerodynamics of the aircraft. Moreover the invention gives a way to reduce the size of the cabin thereby increase the intake of the passengers. The payload of the aircraft can also be increased. The efficacy and safety of the aircraft can be increased, because the pilot is immerse in a three dimensional universe.

 

The present invention may set the future of the aircraft industry interesting. The present invention also raises many questions such as 

1. What happens if the camera and display screens are damaged?

2. Is there any solution in case of the plane runs out of the power back up?

3. Is there any alternative view provided to the pilot incase of the failure of the electronics in the aricraft?

But we can relax and wait for the answers to the questions raised above in the form of a new invention from an avid inventor in the field of power pack, camera and display screen.

YOUNG LAUREATES OF 2014 - ROLEX GLOBAL AWARDS PROGRAMME

ROLEX GLOBAL AWARDS - 2014 

The famous Rolex Awards for Enterprise were announced on 24 June 2014. The five young laureates were selected from among 1,800 applicants from all around the world. 

They are 

1. NEETI KAILAS, 29, India – 

Aims to vastly increase screening of newborn babies for hearing loss, through an inexpensive, easy-to-use device, and to set up an associated network of health-care professionals in India who can diagnose or treat deafness.

2. OLIVIER NSENGIMANA, 30, Rwanda –

He is promoting breeding programmes and the release of Rwanda’s captive, endangered grey crowned-cranes. The iconic bird, a symbol of wealth and longevity in Rwanda, is a victim of its own beauty, and is often kept as a pet.

3. FRANCESCO SAURO, 29, Italy – 

He is exploring the vast quartzite caves of South America’s fabled table-top mountains on the border of Venezuela and Brazil, making discoveries of unique worlds that have evolved in isolation over millennia.

4. ARTHUR ZANG, 26, Cameroon – 

He has invented what is believed to be Africa’s first medical tablet, which will allow health-care workers in rural areas to send the results of cardiac tests to heart specialists via a mobile-phone connection.

5. HOSAM ZOWAWI, 29, Saudi Arabia – 

He is developing rapid tests to detect the presence of antibiotic resistant bacteria, now considered a global threat to human health. He also plans a regional public campaign warning of the dangers of the overuse and misuse of antibiotics.

The each young laureates will receive CHF50,000 [Rs.33,69,794.86]. The award was launched in the year 1976 to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Oyster Chronometer,the world's first waterproof watch. 

See more at: 

1.http://blog.rolexawards.com/2014/06/new-young-laureates-pushing-the-boundaries/#sthash.4fty4hvI.dpuf

கால இயந்திரம் !!!

இந்திய திரைப்படம் - ஒரு கற்பனை பதிவு !!!

விஞ்ஞானம் வளர்ச்சி அடைந்த பின்பு பல வியக்கவைக்கும் சாதனங்கள் மனிதன் அன்றாடம் உபயோகிக்கும் நிலைக்கு வந்துவிட்டான்.

மனிதன் நாகரிக அடைந்த காலத்திலிருந்து தன் கற்பனையை பதிவு செய்ய தொடங்கிவிட்டான். அந்த பதிவுகள் பின்னர் வந்த சந்ததியினர் அந்த கற்பனைக்கு வடிவமைப்பு கொடுக்க முயற்சித்தனர். பலர் அதில் வெற்றியும் கண்டனர். 

ஆனால்,  சில பகுதி மக்கள் தங்கள் முன்னோர் உருவாக்கிய கருவிகள், ஆயுதங்கள்  மற்றும் அன்றாடம் உபயோகிக்கும் பொருட்கள் மற்றும் தங்களின் வரலாற்றை ஒருங்கே பதிவு செய்து வந்தனர். கற்பனையில் உருவாக்கிய பொருட்களை நிஜவடிவம் பெற அது பெரிதும் உதவியது. 

நவீன காலத்தில் இத்தகு பதிவுகள் எப்பொழுதும்  நம்மை சுற்றி பதிவு பெறுகின்றன. ஆனால் நாம் தான் இதனை இனம் கண்டு செயல்பட தவறிவிட்டோம். அத்தகிய பதிவுகளை தங்கி சுயலும் சுருள் தான் திரைப்படம். 

நான் பழைய தமிழ் திரைப்படத்தை விரும்பி பார்ப்பேன். அதில் சில திரைப்படங்கள்  மனிதனின் கற்பனைச் சக்தி மற்றும் தொலைநோக்கு சிந்தனையையும் உலகிற்கு எடுத்து காட்டும்விதமாக அமைந்துள்ளது. வாருங்கள் என்னுடைய கால இயந்திரத்தில் இந்த கற்பனை உலகில் சில காலம் பின்னோக்கி பயணிப்போம்.

1. மாயாபஜார்

இந்த திரைப்படம்  1957 ஆண்டு வெளிவந்தது. இது தமிழ், தெலுங்கு மற்றும்   கன்னட  மொழிகளில் வெளிவந்துள்ளது. இந்த படம் மகாபாரதத்தினை  தழுவிய கதையாக வரும் அபிமன்யு-வத்சலா [சசிரேக்கா] திருமணம் நிகழ்ச்சியை கதையாக கொண்டது.

இதில், கண்ணன் தன் அண்ணன் பலராமனின் மகளான வத்சலாவிருக்கு அர்ஜுனன் மகன் அபிமன்யு கொடுத்ததாக ஒரு மாயஜால பெட்டியை கொடுப்பார். வத்சலா அந்த பெட்டியை திறந்து பார்த்தால் அபிமன்யு அதில் தோன்றுவது போல காட்சியமைதிருப்பார். நீங்களே அந்த காணொளியை இங்கு காண்பீர்.

இந்த மாயஜால பெட்டி  தற்பொழுது நாம் உபயோகிக்கும் லேப்டாப், இன்டர்நெட், வீடியோ அண்ட் வாய்ஸ் சாட் போன்ற தொழில்நுட்பங்களை ஒத்திருக்கின்றது.

அன்று இந்த காட்சியை படம் எடுத்தவார்கள் இன்றைய விஞ்ஞான வளர்ச்சியை கற்பனை செய்து பார்த்திருப்பர்களா என்று வியக்க தோன்றுகிறது. 

குறிப்பு : நவீன கால மடிக்கணினியை [laptop] 1981ல் Adam Osborne   என்பவர் Osborne Computers  என்ற நிறுவனத்திற்காக கண்டுபிடித்தார்.  

OSBORNE 1

தற்பொழுது உபயோகத்தில் உள்ள மடிக்கணினியின் வடிவமைப்பும் திரைப்படத்தில் காட்டும் வடிவமைப்பும் நன்றாக ஒத்துபோகிறது.

நாம் தான் இந்தப் பதிவ நிஜ வடிவம்  பெற முயற்சி செய்யவில்லை. இனியாவது நம் கற்பனையாளர்களின் கனவை நிஜப்படுத்த முயற்சி மேற்கொள்வோம். 

 கால இயந்திரம் தன் பயணத்தை  தொடரும் ......

Method for Color Cinematography- Brewster Percy Douglas

PATENT TALK

A.   Method for Color Cinematography- US 1359024[1] dated 16 November 1920

This particular invention was patented in the year 1920 when most of the film industries were producing films in Black and White. There was a necessity to invent a method to produce movies in color.  The patent was filed on   27 December 1919 by Brewster Percy Douglas, an American inventor.

At that time color movies were produced using the following method as cited by the inventor as a prior art[2].

“Series of images or pictures on one of the films taken through a red filter and the other series on the other film taken through a green filter; and then by contact to print the two series on the opposite sides of a positive film which is sensitized on both sides. The positive film is then developed and fixed, and the images on the two sides are stained or colored, say red on one side and green on the other, so that when the two images are projected (of course simultaneously) on the screen a unitary image in substantially natural colors will result.”

The inventor further identified the problem in the prior art and describes the same as follows[3]:

“So far as I am aware this method, in which the color records are made on two separate films has never been successful in practice, however attractive in theory; the reason being the difficulty, insuperable, of securing accurate enough registry of the images in printing them on the positive film. The necessity for accurate registry will be apparent when it is remembered that if the pictures are out of registry on the positive film the defect, greatly magnified, is evidenced on the screen by red and green color bands or fringes at the edges of the objects photographed.”

Further he describes his invention which is an improved method of color cinematography as follows[4]:

“In carrying out the invention in the preferred manner a pair of light images of the object to be photographed are projected to separate focal plane areas; two perforated negative films are passed step by step through the respective focal plane areas to bring the successive image or picture spaces to the exposure positions and the films are so positioned that at least one selected perforation in each film is in a certain definite and exact relation to the respective light image, this relation being constant through out the series of steps; and the films are exposed to the light images while in such positions. Then the negative images produced on one film have with respect to.

Opposite sides of the positive film, if the perforations in the latter are registered with the perforations in the two negative films, the resulting positive images will be in accurate registry, and when projected will produce a single or unitary image on the screen. The positioning of the negative films in their respective focal plane areas is effected by the use of registry pins, which enter the selected perforations, say one on each side of the film, before the exposure is made, so that if a picture-space on the film has at any step been brought to only an approximately correct exposure position the pins will shift the film in one or more directions, in its own plane, to bring the picture-space exactly to the exposure position.

Usually the same perforations as were used to locate the negative images are then used to register the negative images with negative film.”

The inventor highlights the following as the spirit of his invention.

¥    He used two lenses, one for each film, instead of a single lens.

¥    Two exposures (to make an image pair or group) may be made one after the other instead of simultaneously.

¥    In place of exposing two negative films a single film of double width may be used and the images made side by side, After exposure the negative can be split lengthwise to form two separated color records, if desired, or its images can be printed on the two sides of the positive without splitting the negative in two.

¥    For three-color cinematography three separate negative films may be used.

Brewster was a series inventor in the cinematography field. He was granted many patents both in USA and abroad. Brewster was the first to shoot a color photograph of President Wilson[5]. The color cinematography produced by using his inventions is popularly known as Brewster Color. The one-shot Debut of Thomas Cat (general release Feb. 20, 1920) was for many years regarded as the first color cartoon to have been widely distributed[6]. The film was processed by Brewster Color.

---

[1]http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?docid=01359024&SectionNum=3&IDKey=8C9E15FCAC2C&HomeUrl=http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1%2526Sect2=HITOFF%2526p=1%2526u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html%2526r=1%2526f=G%2526l=50%2526d=PALL%2526S1=1359024.PN.%2526OS=PN/1359024%2526RS=PN/1359024

[2] US Patent No.1359024

[3] US Patent No.1359024

[4]  US Patent No.1359024

[5] http://brayanimation.weebly.com/other-series.html

[6] http://brayanimation.weebly.com/other-series.html

Inventions that brought the life to a Cinema - Movies - A Global Passion

Inventions that brought the life to a Cinema   -  Movies - A Global Passion

Every year WIPO celebrates April 26 as World Intellectual Property Day with a theme to be followed in that year in order to promote discussion of the role of intellectual property (IP) in encouraging innovation and creativity.

This year WIPO announced Movies- A Global Passion as a IP day theme. The actors, directors, musicians, lyricists, editors, composers, designers, sound and light technicians and special effects team contributes their glint of imagination and innovative creations in a movie. Apart from this many novel inventions brought the life to a movie whether in a preproduction or in a post production processes. In this news letter we are going to see inventions that brought the life to a movie.

      
     The color to the film  brings a life to the film. Kisan Kanya was India’s first indigenously made color film by Imperial Pictures, a color film using cinecolor process. There are various methods available for color cinematography. Brewster color is one of such method patented by Percy Douglas Brewster. 

        A.      Method for Color Cinematography- US 1359024 dated 16 November 1920

This particular invention was patented in the year 1920 when most of the film industries are producing films in Black and White. There is a necessity to invent a method to produce movies in color.  The patent was filed in     27 December 1919 by Brewster Percy Douglas, an American inventor. The one-shot Debut of Thomas Cat (general release Feb. 20, 1920) was for many years regarded as the first color cartoon produced by Goldwyn-Bray to have been widely distributed. The film was processed by Brewster Color.

At that time color movies are produced using the following method as cited by the inventor as a prior art.

“Series of images or pictures on one of the films taken through a red filter and the other series on the other film taken through a green filter; and then by contact to print the two series on the opposite sides of a positive film which is sensitized on both sides. The positive film is then developed and fixed, and the images on the two sides are stained or colored, say red on one side and green on the other, so that when the two images are projected (of course simultaneously) on the screen a unitary image in substantially natural colors will result.”

The inventor further indentified the problem in the prior art and describes the same as follows:

“So far as I am aware this method, in which the color records are made on two separate films. has never been successful in practice, however attractive in theory; the reason being the difficulty, insuperable, of securing accurate enough registry of the images in printing them on the positive film. The necessity for accurate registry will be apparent when it is remembered that if the pictures are out of registry on the positive film the defect, greatly magnified, is evidenced on the screen by red and green color bands or fringes at the edges of the objects photographed.”

Further he describes his invention which is an improved method of color cinematography as follows:

“In carrying out the invention in the preferred manner a pair of light images of the object to be photographed are projected to separate focal plane areas; two perforated negative films are passed step by step through the respective focal plane areas to bring the successive image or picture spaces to the exposure positions and the films are so positioned that at least one selected perforation in each film is in a certain definite and exact relation to the respective light image, this relation being constant throughout the series of steps; and the films are exposed to the light images while in such positions. Then the negative images produced on one film have with respect to.

opposite sides of the positive film, if the perforations in the latter are registered with the perforations in the two negative films, the resulting positive images will be in accurate registry, and when projected will produce a single or unitary image on the screen. The positioning of the negative films in their respective focal plane areas is effected by the use of registry pins, which enter the selected perforations, say one on each side of the film, before the exposure is made, so that if a picture-space on the film has at any step been brought to only an approximately correct exposure position the pins will shift the film in one or more directions, in its own plane, to bring the picture-space exactly to the exposure position.

Usually the same perforations as were used to locate the negative images are then used to register the negative images with negative film.”

The claim made by the inventor is given below for the better understanding of the invention.

The inventor highlights the following as the spirit of his invention.

¥    He used two lenses, one for each film, instead of a single lens.

¥    Two exposures (to make an image pair or group) may be made one after the other instead of simultaneously.

¥    In place of exposing two negative films a single film of double width may be used and the images made side by side, After exposure the negative can be split lengthwise to form two separated color records, if desired, or its images can be printed on the two sides of the positive without splitting the negative in two.

¥    For three-color cinematography three separate negative films may be used.

Apart from this invention Brewster also patented the following inventions:

1.   Improvements in or relating to motion picture cameras- Percy Douglas Brewster July 20, 1936: GB450673-A

2.  Improvements in or relating to methods of removing latent abrasion marks from photographic emulsions. Percy Douglas Brewster June 29, 1936: GB449678-A

3. Improvements in dye mordanting processes for colouring photographic silver images. Percy Douglas Brewster June 29, 1936: GB449679-A

4.  Improvements in or relating to combined sound and colour motion picture film and methods of making the same. Percy Douglas Brewster July 3, 1936: GB449749-A

5.  Improvements in or relating to colour cinematography. Percy Douglas Brewster June 29, 1936: GB449750-A

Brewster was a series inventor in the cinematography field. He was granted many patents both in USA and abroad. Brewster was the first to shoot a color photograph of President Wilson. The color cinematography produced by using his inventions is popularly known as Brewster Color. The one-shot Debut of Thomas Cat (general release Feb. 20, 1920) was for many years regarded as the first color cartoon to have been widely distributed. The film was processed by Brewster Color of Newark, New Jersey, a company run by Percy Douglas Brewster (1883-1952), a 1905 Cornell alumnus. But it was calculated too expensive for commercial use.