Bartlett & Bickley: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Middlebult (talk | contribs) (Created page with 'London brand/trademark that ended around 1966. In a 1922 Dunhill vs Bartlett & Bickley curt case (VOL 39 RPC 426), Dunhill lost a trademark fight to get the red dot removed fr…') |
mNo edit summary |
||
(5 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Need Information}} | |||
London brand/trademark that ended around 1966. | London brand/trademark that ended around 1966. | ||
In a 1922 Dunhill vs Bartlett & Bickley | 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. | ||
<gallery widths=300 heights=200 caption="Example of The 'Barbic' Pipe, made by Bartlett & Bickley, with original box and sock, courtesy Owen Brandeberry"> | |||
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 Brandeberry"> | |||
Bartlett-Bickly-4.jpg | |||
Bartlett-Bickly-5.jpg | |||
</gallery> | |||
[[Category:Pipe makers by nationality]] | |||
[[Category:Great Britain]] |
Latest revision as of 11:55, 26 December 2022
Need Information |
---|
If you have any information related to this, please add it here, or send it to mailto:sethile.pipes@gmail.com and we can add it for you. |
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.