Bartlett & Bickley: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Middlebult (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
In a 1922 Dunhill vs Bartlett & Bickley court case (VOL 39 RPC 426), Dunhill lost a trademark fight to get the red dot removed from this brand. | In a 1922 Dunhill vs Bartlett & Bickley court case (VOL 39 RPC 426), Dunhill lost a trademark fight to get the red dot removed from this brand. | ||
If you have additionaly details about this brand, please add them here or send them to sethile.pipes@gmail.com and we can add them for you. | |||
<gallery widths=300 heights=200 caption="Example of The 'Barbic' Pipe, made by Bartlett & Bickley, with original box and sock, courtesy Owen Bradeberry"> | |||
Bartlett-Bickly.jpg | |||
Bartlett-Bickly-2.jpg | |||
Bartlett-Bickly-3.jpg | |||
Bartlett-Bickly-6.jpg | |||
</gallery> | |||
<gallery widths=400 heights=300 caption="Another example of a Bartlett & Bickley pipe, courtesy Owen Bradeberry"> | |||
Bartlett-Bickly-4.jpg | |||
Bartlett-Bickly-5.jpg | |||
</gallery> | |||
[[Category:Pipe makers by nationality]] | |||
[[Category:Great Britian]] | |||
[[Category:Need Information]] |
Revision as of 13:57, 30 May 2021
London brand/trademark that ended around 1966.
In a 1922 Dunhill vs Bartlett & Bickley court case (VOL 39 RPC 426), Dunhill lost a trademark fight to get the red dot removed from this brand.
If you have additionaly details about this brand, please add them here or send them to sethile.pipes@gmail.com and we can add them for you.