Steve Reynolds wrote:
>... I still think it worth discussing the Jackson and Taylor
>names. The Jackson and Co. saw was jumped on as the target for disproving
>any questionable use of another's name. However, I was thinking the more
>likely confusion would be with Spear and Jackson of England. Also, I
>considered Taylor Bros of Sheffield a more likely candidate for confusion.
>I don't know the working dates of these makers, nor the history of their
>importation into the US, but assume they were early and that they made it
>across the pond. Is there data to prove these dates? If they did precede
>Disston's use, would it be out of line to question why these brands were
>used by Disston when other well-known sawmakers were using them? ...
I don't think anyone would argue the possibility of confusion when
two firms use the same family name. So, the discussion seems to
boil down to whether Henry Disston's (and/or his company's) intent
was to benefit by creating such confusion concerning significant
British competitors.
Well, attempting to discuss intent is to enter into very treacherous
territory. At best, it may be possible to get some idea of the
likelihood of this implied intent by looking at the overall picture
provided by some of the data which Steve requested.
Let's consider data from Roberts' check-list of Sheffield saw makers
(compiled from directory entries) for all four of the names chosen by
Disston for the second quality lines.
BISHOP
Doesn't appear in Roberts' check-list.
BROWN
Brown, Charles -1854 - 1865-
Brown, Henry & Sons (dealers) -1879 - 1884-
Brown, William -1841 - 1852-
JACKSON
Jackson, William -1856 - 1900-
Jackson, Newton -1865-
Spear & Jackson -1825 - 1900-
TAYLOR
Taylor, Edward -1828 - 1839-
Taylor, Joseph & John -1841 - 1847-
Taylor Brothers -1849 - 1900-
Seems it would be difficult to argue that Disston would have
viewed Charles Brown as a major competitor. And Henry Brown &
Sons came after Disston began using the name. In which case,
only two of the names, Jackson and Taylor, would seem to have
the possibility of creating confusion surrounding significant
competitors.
Were there no other significant competitors as possible targets
if the intent was to create this kind of confusion? Hardly - here
are a few other possibilities from Roberts' check-list of
Sheffield saw makers:
Beardshw, Jonathan & Son -1825 - 1900-
Brittain, Samuel Swann & Co. -1841 - 1900-
Drabble & Sanderson -1825 - 1900-
Eadon, Moses -1837 - 1900-
Groves, Richard & Sons -1825 - 1900-
Ibbotson, Richard -1839 - 1900-
Ibbotson Brothers -1828 - 1900-
Kenyon, John C. & Co. -1823 - 1900-
Kenyon, Ellison & Co. -1839 - 1900-
Moulson Brothers -1828 - 1884-
Newbould, Samuel & Son -1814 - 1900-
Peace, Joseph & Co. -1849 - 1900-
Sorby, John & Son -1821 - 1884-
Sorby, Robert & Son -1849 - 1900-
Spencer, Matthias & Son -1825 - 1900-
Turner, Thomas & Co. -1841 - 1900-
*If* the intent was to gain some benefit by creating name
confusion around significant competitors, Disston did a pretty
lousy job of it. Especially when you consider the American
scene as well. To the extent you can infer intent from this
overall pattern, my take is that the likelihood is pretty low.
Don McConnell
Knox County, Ohio
|