Bartlett & Bickley: Difference between revisions

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.

Example of The 'Barbic' Pipe, made by Bartlett & Bickley, with original box and sock, courtesy Owen Brandeberry

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{Need Information}}
 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.
+<gallery widths=300 heights=200 caption="Example of The 'Barbic' Pipe, made by Bartlett & Bickley, with original box and sock, courtesy Owen Brandeberry">
-<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
@@ Line 14: / Line 12: @@
 </gallery>
-<gallery widths=400 heights=300 caption="Another example of a Bartlett & Bickley pipe, courtesy Owen Bradeberry">
+<gallery widths=400 heights=300 caption="Another example of a Bartlett & Bickley pipe, courtesy Owen Brandeberry">
 Bartlett-Bickly-4.jpg
 Bartlett-Bickly-5.jpg
@@ Line 20: / Line 18: @@
 [[Category:Pipe makers by nationality]]
-[[Category:Great Britian]]
+[[Category:Great Britain]]
-[[Category:Need Information]]