BRITISH JUSTICE DEBATES OOMPH

Rotorua Morning Post, Issue 5300, 13 January 1947, Page 3

BRITISH JUSTICE DEBATES OOMPH

PROPER OR IMPROPER? t .. - ■. MINOR CHAPTER IN LEGAL MISTORV London. Solemn processes of British law might be copsidered among the Iast things that could be said to have "ooraph." But they've got it now. By the prccess of reverse LendLease "ooniph" has beeome the heading of a liiinor chaptei* in- British legal history. After a two-day battle in the Chancery Division of the Hig'h C'ourt here, permission has been ofhcially granted for "oomph" to seek admission to- this liitherto oomphless land. During' those two days a judge had to decide whether oomph is proper or improper, whether it is poetic, ax-chaic, or obsolete — in fact, whether it is a word at all. It all eame about this waj^: An American slioe company soug-ht to register the term "Oomphies" as thc trademarlc for its product in Great Britain. The Reg-istrar -of Trademarks did not like the idea and refused his permission. So the company took the case to law and into the court of Mr. Justice Evershed. Such a word never having been heard in a British court before, it war. first necessary to establish its meaning, if any. And this was particularly difficult. Feminine Samplc Considered Coixnsel for the shoe company said he had considered having assessors to help the court on the origin and meaning of oomph, one of whom would have been someone from the film world who appealed to the eye. But he said he had deI cided to carry on with the present j proceedings. i At this, justice Evershed vcmarked that counsel had deliberately deprived him of the opportunity of sitting with someone i from the film world who appcais j tc the eye, and he remirked, "That was not a very friendly act." Thcn counsel sought to show that oomph originated in Hc-llywood and was, broadly speaking, what older generations referred to in somewhat more elegant language as "an indefinable je ne sais quoi." He declared it to bc a part of American "slanguage" but definitely not part of the English language. Then he read from his client's letter that "the foregoing may bc said tche solid, brother, eight beats to the bar — it cooks with gas and skould really send you." This statement proved to be inexplicable there being 110 American G. T. around, and court adjourned. Next day counsel said he had spent several hours thinking the case c-ver the night before, and the judge declared he had not slept a wink all niglit himself. Still Worried Counsel for the company then sought to show that oomph is quite reasonable for a trademark, while counsel for the Registrar proffercd the argument that if it meant allurc, it was a laudatc-ry epithct and as such could no be accepted as a trademark anyway. Justice Evershed said he thought tc speak of it as a word was paying it a compliment and doubted whether it deserved the dignity of articulate human speech. He added, however, that it could have no improper significance in relating to shoes and directed that the application fcr registration be allowed to go fonvard. Thus oomph was releascd from custody. But counsel from the Registrar is said to be worried about who is sending that gas cooker with eight beats to a bar, when, and to whom.