Dunhill: Difference between revisions

  <font size="2">'''Addendum:''' Apparently, using spots on mouthpieces it was a common practice at that time. For example, in 1912 some 200 gross of a pipe called "The Durbar" with a white spot, on the side of the mouthpiece were manufactured and placed upon the market in England, but it disappeared from the market seven years later. It seems, that other brands represented by Frankel, Wolf Brothers, and even Charatan & Son bearing a spot on the mouthpiece at some point.<br>On the 22nd September 1921 Alfred Dunhill commenced an action against the of Bartlett & Bickley, represented by the owner in the person of Mr. Charles Davis Jonas. The business carried' on under the firm name of Bartlett & Bickley had belonged to Charles David Jonas since 1901 and it had been moved to Vigo Street in 1910. Before the 20s, Mr. Jonas had sold pipes of other people's manufacture, but in that year he brought out a pipe specially manufactured for him with a red spot on the mouthpiece similarly placed to the white spot on the Dunhill's pipes. Such pipes were marked on the shank with Mr. Jonas trademark "Barbie" which was registered in May 1920, they were also marked with Jonas's firm name and address. He Started selling their pipes in the middle of 1921, having a red spot upon the mouthpiece substantially in the same position and of the same size as the Dunhill's white spot.<br>Alfred had requested Mr. Jonas to discontinue the use of such a spot on their pipes but he had refused to do so and that they threatened and intended to continue to manufacture and sell pipes having such spot on the mouthpiece and would do so unless restrained by the Court. The action came on for trial on the 29th of June, 1922.<br>It is interesting to notice in the file of this action, that Mr. Alfred Dunhill tries to disassociate the spot of the popularly known function, i.e. useful resource to help customers replace the stem right side up only, and suggesting that initially it was added to stems largely to be a decorative thing.<br>Despite the Wolf's brothers' case law, the decision was unfavorable and the action fails and is dismissed with costs. Apparently, Alfred would have to get used to seeing spots in other colors on the market, facing his much-esteemed white spot.<ref name=caselaw>In The High Court of Justice - Chancery Division. REPORTS OF PATENT, DESIGN, AND TRADE MARK CASES [VOL. XXXIX. Dunhill v. Bartlett & Bickley (June and July, 1922) PP 426-443.[https://pipedia.org/images/d/d5/39-15-426-3.pdf]</ref></font>