Thursday’s ad is for the American Can Company, from 1938. It’s for their “keglined” cans and includes a curiously feminine beer can (I don’t think I realized that cans could be male or female). But the text is pure gold. “I am a beer can. I have no past — no future. I belong to YOU. I was brand new when i was filled. I’ll never be used again. I am clean. I am safe. I am easy to carry, easy to stack. I protect the delicious flavor of beer and ale because I keep out harmful light.” Genius.
It seems many people think that trademark disputes are a new phenomenon, because in the age of social media and the twenty-four news cycle, everything is news, but they’re actually nothing new. Trademark disputes have been going on as long as the very concept of a trademark existed, it’s just that they used to happen mostly out of the glare of the public, and instead quietly wound their way through court documents and appearances before special tribunals created to adjudicate these specific types of disputes.
I, myself, was involved in one as the beer buyer for Beverages & more, when an East coast brewery objected to one of our private label beers. Few people know about it, because even as recently as the late 1990s, when this took place, such disputes were mostly private matters. Personally, I think that’s how it should be, because trademark is a highly technical, arcane subject, which I think is better left to experts in the field. I also think trademark law could use some updating to better reflect the real world we find ourselves in today, but that’s an argument for another day.
My point here is only that trademark disputes are old hat. A few days ago, I stumbled on one from around 1893, when the makers Bass Ale sued a Chicago brewery — the Cooke Brewing Co. — for trademark infringement. I couldn’t find out very much information about the Cooke brewery, but “One Hundred Years of Brewing” (originally published in 1903, and reprinted in 1974) includes this summary:
Apparently, in 1893, when the World’s Columbian Exposition (a.k.a. The Chicago World’s Far) took place in Chicago from May to October of that year, “Cooke Brewing Company created a display to advertise its beer. The bottles, however, were labeled with remarkable similarity to those used by Bass.” Not surprisingly, Bass sued for relief in the US Circuit Court Northern District of Illinois. While many trademark disputes are open to debate in which reasonable people may have a difference of opinion, I don’t think this is one of those cases. I think you’d be hard pressed to find anyone not employed by the Cooke Brewing Co. who didn’t believe this was one of the most clear cut examples of trademark infringement in the annals of history.
Online records, as far as I can tell, don’t go back far enough to see how this case started and progressed. The only reason the final ruling is out there, is because someone at the National Archives in Chicago came across this and decided to share it on their website and Facebook page. But take a look below at the two beer labels and see for yourself. It’s hard to believe it got this far, and Bass had to file a lawsuit at all to stop the Chicago brewers. I guess they really thought they could get away with using a red triangle on their label.
Today in 1961, US Patent 3100707 A was issued, an invention of Raymond L. Mcadam, Richard G. Shaler Jr., and Richard G. Shaler, assigned to the American Tansul Company, for his “Addition of Dry Hectorite to Beer.” There’s no Abstract, although in the description it includes this summary:
This invention relates to an improvement in the process for treating beer or similar beverages such as wines and fruit juices whereby the beverages are improved in clarity, stability, and qualities or brilliance, sparkle, and taste. The invention relates to an improvement in the treatment of beer with a swelling gelling clay, preferably a montmorillonite clay such as hectoritc.
Specifically, the invention relates to a new method of “chill-proofing” beer or other beverages by the use of a dry swelling gelling clay of the montmorillonite group and preferably hectorite. When heretofore the clay has been first placed in an aqueous suspension prior to introduction into the beer, the present invention contemplates direct addition of the clay to the beer in dry pulverant form. The results show a surprising increase in yield of beer and excellent product stability.
Wednesday’s ad is for Tooheys, from 1932. The Australian ad starts with awesome tagline. “Beer is Good … because everything in it is good.” There’s a number of great bon mots in the text. “Beer is as pure as Nature and hygienic brewing can make it,” is a good one. But I love this ending, too. “Serve beer in your home … at any time. Enjoy it regularly … and benefit from its goodness.” Well, okay.
Today in 1941, US Patent 2252235 A was issued, an invention of Nicholas Snelling, assigned to the Zimba Beverage Co. Inc., for his “Bottle Carrier.” There’s no Abstract, although in the description it includes this summary:
This invention relates to devices for carrying Orr-supporting bottles of various kinds and classes, and particularly bottles having removable closure caps; and the object of the invention is to provide a supporting device of the character described made from heavy `paper or light cardboard which is die cut, printed, lithographed, or otherwise characterized, and then folded to form a means for carrying, handling, or assembling bottled goods either individually or collectively so as to facilitate the handling and packaging as well as delivery thereof; a further object being to provide a device of the character described having an apertured portion from which or by means of which the device including the bottle or bottles thereon may be suspended or carried; a further object’ being to provide’a device of the character described wherein a number of bottles may be collectively packed in a carton or shipping case with the carrying lor suspending device attached thereto or to a number of bottles in a compact and collapsed manner and whereby the group of bottles may be simultaneously removed from the carton or shipping casein the removal of the supporting device therefrom thereby simplifying the handling of merchandise of this kind by the merchant and also facilitating the packing and carrying thereof a still further object being to provide an improved method of constructing a device of the character described `so as to adapt the same for use in a’ continuous assemblage upon a multiplicity of bottles moved relatively thereto so as to` expedite the assemblage of the device to groups of bottles, and further to incorporating a device of this character upon bottled goods in the operation of capping or sealing the same; and with these and other objects in view, the invention consists in a device of the class and for the purpose specified which is simple and economical in construction, and which may be produced and used in accordance with the method more fully hereinafter described and claimed.
Today in 1958, US Patent 2847309 A was issued, an invention of Harold Howard Rohrbeck, assigned to the Olympia Brewing Company, for his “Brewing Process.” There’s no Abstract, although in the description it includes this summary:
Heretofore, in the conventional brewing process, it has taken considerable time toV filter the wort through the lautering bed provided by the grain in the lauter tub and also to sparge the bed. I believe the reason for this is that the lines, which are microscopic glutinous protein matter, have collected in the interstices of the filtering bed and have restricted and even completely closed them thus slowing down the filtering step.
It is a main object of the present invention to provide a brewing process overcoming the above disadvantage.
A further object of the present invention is to provide a process in which all or part of the fines are removed from the mash prior to the mash entering the lauter tub whereby to speed up the filtering operation.
A further object of the present invention is to provide an apparatus by which the method of the present invention may be carried out.
The process -of the present invention is characterized by the steps of separating the fines from at least a part of the mash prior to the mash being conducted to the lauter tub so that the filter bed is not nearly as congested or restricted by the presence of the fines as heretofore has been the case and thus the filtering action of the bed is much more rapid than heretofore.
Tuesday’s ad is for Schlitz, from 1961. I love her smile, the expression on her face — it’s so Mary Tyler Moore, especially with the hip material of the dress (or is that a blouse?) she’s wearing. I also love how she’s holding that six-pack, so we know just how light it is, able to be picked up with little effort at the grocery store. Which is probably why toward the end of the ad copy, there’s this suggestion. “Better get a couple.”
The ad I featured yesterday in my long-running Beer In Ads series was for The Robert Smith Ale Brewing Co. of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The brewery was only called by that name from 1896 until it closed when Prohibition began. From 1887 until 1896, the brewery was called The Robert Smith India Pale Ale Brewing Co. While searching for information for the post last night, I happened upon a cool bit of history regarding the brewery from 1889. The Map Collection at the Free Library of Philadelphia includes a survey map of The Robert Smith India Pale Ale Brewing Co. created by Ernest Hexamer and included in the Hexamer General Surveys, Volume 24, published in 1889.
The brewery was located in West Philadelphia, in the 24th Ward, at N. 38th St, Girard Ave and Philadelphia and the Reading Railroad. The survey also includes some interesting tidbits in the text at the right, a laundry list of architectural facts and figures. For example, the brewery was powered by steam, had two copper kettles — a 100 bbl and 200 bbl vessel — and employed 17 people. Below is a blow-up of the brewery illustration, showing the brewery property and grounds.
Monday’s ad is for The Robert Smith Ale Brewing Co., from sometime after 1896 but before Prohibition. From what I can tell, while the brewery was founded in 1774, it wasn’t known as The Robert Smith Ale Brewing Co. until 1896, when it acquired by C. Schmidt & Sons and operated as one of their divisions (although another source claims Schmidt’s took over the Robert Smith brewery in 1881). The casks stacked to the left in the ad each have a different beer printed in them, suggesting this was the line of beers offered by the brewery at the time of the ad. The beer’s listed are Tiger Head I.P.A., India Pale, Burton, English Pale, XXX, Old Musty, Brown Stout and Imperial Burton. Only Tiger Head I.P.A. and the Brown Stout also have “Bottling” printed in smaller letters at the bottom of the head of the cask, so I suspect those were the two beers they may have offered in bottles.
Today in 1954, US Patent 1149256 A was issued, an invention of Joseph H. Godfrey, for his “Bottle-Filling Device.” There’s no Abstract, although in the description it includes this summary:
This invention relates to devices for filling bottles and similar receptacles with liquid, and has reference more particularly to that type of filling mechanism wherein a valve controlling the flow of liquid to the bottle is opened through the agency of an electromagnet when the empty bottle has been suitably positioned relatively to the filling device to receive the liquid, and is subsequently closed by the automatic de-energizing of the magnet to cut off the flow of liquid to the bottle when the latter has been filled to the proper or desired height.
