Dunhill: Difference between revisions

<font size="2">'''Addendum:''' In the mid-20s, any Dunhill pipe could be supplied fitted with a mouthpiece of Amber, Tortoiseshell, or Ivory with an extra cost<ref name=asbp>Dunhill Ltd., 1928 catalog, about Smoke, An Encyclopedia of Smoking (p. 48). Briarbooks Press.</ref></font>.<br>

  <font size="2">'''Addendum2:''' Apparently, using some kind of spot on mouthpieces 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. However, that pipe disappeared from the market seven years later. It seems there were also other brands, represented by Frankel, Wolf Brothers, and even Charatan & Son, bearing a spot on the mouthpiece at some point. On 22 September 1921, Alfred Dunhill commenced an action against Bartlett & Bickley, represented by the owner, Mr. Charles Davis Jonas. The business that 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 1920s, Mr. Jonas had sold pipes of other people's manufacture, but in 1921, he brought out a pipe specially manufactured for him with a red spot on the mouthpiece, similarly placed to the white spot on 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' firm name and address. Alfred had requested Mr. Jonas to discontinue the use of such a spot on their pipes, but Mr. Jonas refused to do so. Mr. Jonas also stated that they intended to continue to manufacture and sell pipes having such a spot on the mouthpiece and would do so unless restrained by the Court. The action came to trial on 29 June 1922. It is interesting to notice in the file of this action, that Mr. Alfred Dunhill tried to disassociate the spot from the popularly known function, i.e. being a useful resource to aid customers in replacing the stem right side up, and suggested that initially it was added to stems largely to be a decoration. Despite the Wolf brothers' case law, the decision was unfavorable and the action failed, being 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>