Bartlett & Bickley: Difference between revisions

From Pipedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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.