Bartlett & Bickley: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| 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 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. | ||
<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 Brandeberry"> | ||
| Line 21: | Line 19: | ||
[[Category:Pipe makers by nationality]] | [[Category:Pipe makers by nationality]] | ||
[[Category:Great Britian]] | [[Category:Great Britian]] | ||
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
- Another example of a Bartlett & Bickley pipe, courtesy Owen Brandeberry
