View Single Post
  #10  
Old 8th February 2011
ian's Avatar
ian ian is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 8,640
Question 1962 - evidence may suggest even earlier

Just found this document on the National Archive website.
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk


Information relating to document ref. no. 705:399/8008/528
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/a...id=4-893#4-893

c.37 plans relating to proposed alterations to the Legalite Casino Club, Stourbridge [in West Midlands], for Kent and Thanet Casino's Ltd., of Broadstairs.
[Worcestershire Record Office, Folkes and Folkes...]
Date: 1960 Source: Access to Archives (A2A): not kept at The National Archives



A search for Kent and Thanet Casino's Ltd. led me to a legal document from 1976
http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1067916/

A court case from 1965 is quoted - Kent and Thanet casinos Ltd. v. Bailey's School of Dancing Ltd. (1965 R.P.C. 482) (13)

It appears what we have next is the description of a modified Roulette wheel.


" here the plaintiff company had introduced a number of modifications in the design of a rotor table got registered by it. They had substituted 36 pockets for the original 37; excluded certain numbers, six in all, 5 and 24, 7 and 28 and 17 and 34; these particular numbers were selected because they provided three double width gaps as symmetrically located as possible, leaving sectors of 9, 10 and 11 numbers between them; they had retained alternate red and black colouration for the numbered spaces and applied a green colouration to the three double width spaces. In the circumstances Lloyd-Jacob, J., found 'if one looks at the design representations which accompanied this application, a pattern for the rotor rim is plainly observable, making, as it does, a definite appeal to the eye and which, judged on observation alone, is different from the only previously known rim pattern, that is, that of the roulette wheel, and different in recognisable respects, respects which are neither immaterial nor are they known trade variants. As a result, it seems to me, the design must be held to be valid if the statement of novelty is correctly construed in the narrow sense which I have indicated'.



Now why would a Dance School object to the modified design of a Roulette Wheel ?
Got to be an interesting story there.
Perhaps it's time for a search of the UK patents database ?


Ian
__________________
Gaming floor - www.gamingfloor.com
FacebookFlickrTwitterYouTubePinterest
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links