Yell it for the crowd in the back. The only guarantee is change, and even if the gallery says it is for the better, it might not be the case for you.
STG closes Mac Baren and Sutliff
- Thread starter eyjaygaming
- Start date
SmokingPipes.com Updates
Watch for Updates Twice a Week
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Site Sponsors
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
- Status
People like being duped by companies that have turned their backs on their patrons' interests I suppose.
Not always. Some burleys and aromatics remain the same after many years being jarred.
Sure they do. The name is a trademark, which can be bought and sold and licensed, and is intellectual property with an owner or owners. The mark is used both by a luxury goods business (which makes the pipes) and the tobacco business, BAT, to this day. We say Dunhill sells cigarettes in the same way we say Coca Cola sells soda. Both names are just trademarks, but we nonetheless ascribe agency to the names for convenience when we speak.
If folks don't think the pipe business has an interest in the "Dunhill" mark, try stamping and selling generic pipes "Dunhill." I wager you will get a stern letter from a Manhattan lawyer pretty quickly.
As for the "The White Spot," it is a venerable mark owned by Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc. and was first registered by that company in the US in 1923 and first used in 1916. You can find all that information on the USPTO's website. By the way, the name of that Manhattan lawyer is also on the web page for that mark.
Last edited:
What has not been made clear here is that the same name, phrase or logo can be trademarked by entirely unrelated and unconnected companies for different product types (pipes, tobacco, ladies undergarments). This usually occurs when a company divests itself of part of it's operations, but the real value is in the brand name, such as what happened with Dunhill. The trademark is transferred to the new owner, who can continue to use it, but just for the uses listed on the trademark filing. Same with Peterson's: One company makes the pipes, another makes the tobacco. Same name, same logo, different companies.
If you want to have some edifying amusement, here is the link to the US Trademark and Patent Office search page.
If you want to have some edifying amusement, here is the link to the US Trademark and Patent Office search page.
Last edited:
Nah. It's way more entertaining (and cathartic) to simply allow it to descend into a dizzying cacophony of speculation, name calling, psychotic venting, and juvenile insults. At least that's what the Vegas odds are dictating, anyway.
Sadly, I have nothing to add in that sense. I'm just making plans for my next SP order, timed to take advantage of whatever holiday deals suit me.
Some years back I posted a history of the somewhat incestuous relationships between Dunhill, BAT, and Rothman’s, who owns what, who has the rights to do what, etc.
It reads like a parody of a hillbilly family tree where you are your own grandpa.
Basically, Dunhill owns the Dunhill name and licenses it for use by the other entities. BAT has the right to manufacture “Dunhill” tobacco products, but doesn’t own the name, Dunhill, but Dunhill owns part of BAT, and Rothman’s is involved in it somehow. And there might be a couple of other companies in the mix.
Dunhill cigarettes are licensed from BAT, and the name is licensed from Dunhill. Lord knows who makes the stuff. Dunhill hasn’t made pipe tobacco since 1980.
Long ago and far away, Dunhill outsourced part of its production to other makers, most likely St. Claude, and it established a factory in Paris, France. More recently they were supposedly outsourcing some production to Italy.
“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose/By any other name would smell as sweet.”
Just woke up again.............what's that about ladies undergarments????????
OK, as soon as your old lady gets done with it, then.
Had to double-check which forum I was on for that one.
Devastating. I got some spare cash recently and was thinking of waiting for a sale but I guess I dont have that luxury anymore. And I just got into the Old Dark Fired too...
Never seen anything to substantiate this. Not saying there weren't periods. But would be news to the folks who show up to work every day at the St Andrews Road factory. Possible they have at times finished stummels from other sources.
Bruce Weaver was a Dunhill collector. He told me there was a time when Canadian produced Dunhills were a thing as well.
What's crazy about that is that just 7 years ago, Mac Baren 1 pound boxes were only $35.
From the UK government's Company House website, there is a Dunhill Tobacco of London Limited. DUNHILL TOBACCO OF LONDON LIMITED overview - Find and update company information - GOV.UK - https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/02863410. The company's Annual Report from 2023 states that it "owns the Dunhill tobacco trademark, which it licenses to members of the British American Tobacco plc ("BAT") group" worldwide. It also states that the company is a wholly owned subsidiary of BAT. So, today. BAT owns the mark for tobacco and no one else. Per Dunhill Tobacco of London Limited's Report, it's trademarks and licenses are valued at £100 million. Profit in 2023, was £24 million, up from £17 million in 2022. Note that this is for licensing alone, not the manufacture and sale of tobacco. This is a spit in the bucket for BAT, whose net income is in the billions. Nonetheless, and quite simply, the company isn't "distancing" the "Dunhill" mark from tobacco.
Last edited:
Thought it was another Lakeland thread?
- Status