The business of protection: Bass & Co. and trade mark defence, c. 1870–1914

Shraddha Verma; David Michael Higgins

doi:10.1080/09585200802667097

The business of protection: Bass & Co. and trade mark defence, c. 1870–1914

Shraddha Verma, David Michael Higgins

The York Management School

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Abstract

This article uses a case study of Bass to examine the business and accounting history of trade mark defence in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. We employ a variety of business, legal and parliamentary records to discuss the measures they adopted to prevent trade mark infringement. The central arguments of this article are that Bass's trade marks were susceptible to infringement because of weaknesses in its business structure, and these, in turn, necessitated a robust defence of its trade marks both before and after the Trade Marks Act, 1875. Of particular interest, we demonstrate that Bass's reliance on the free trade was financially successful, in marked contrast to the predictions of Chandler, and the financial performance of the big London brewers who relied heavily on tied estates.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	1-19
Number of pages	19
Journal	Accounting, Business and Financial History
Volume	19
Issue number	1
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1080/09585200802667097
Publication status	Published - Mar 2009

Access to Document

10.1080/09585200802667097

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09585200802667097

Cite this

@article{0dfd1e8baaf2443cac7323ab65c82937,

title = "The business of protection: Bass & Co. and trade mark defence, c. 1870–1914",

abstract = "This article uses a case study of Bass to examine the business and accounting history of trade mark defence in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. We employ a variety of business, legal and parliamentary records to discuss the measures they adopted to prevent trade mark infringement. The central arguments of this article are that Bass's trade marks were susceptible to infringement because of weaknesses in its business structure, and these, in turn, necessitated a robust defence of its trade marks both before and after the Trade Marks Act, 1875. Of particular interest, we demonstrate that Bass's reliance on the free trade was financially successful, in marked contrast to the predictions of Chandler, and the financial performance of the big London brewers who relied heavily on tied estates.",

author = "Shraddha Verma and Higgins, {David Michael}",

year = "2009",

month = mar,

doi = "10.1080/09585200802667097",

language = "English",

volume = "19",

pages = "1--19",

journal = "Accounting, Business and Financial History",

issn = "0958-5206",

publisher = "Routledge",

number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The business of protection

T2 - Bass & Co. and trade mark defence, c. 1870–1914

AU - Verma, Shraddha

AU - Higgins, David Michael

PY - 2009/3

Y1 - 2009/3

N2 - This article uses a case study of Bass to examine the business and accounting history of trade mark defence in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. We employ a variety of business, legal and parliamentary records to discuss the measures they adopted to prevent trade mark infringement. The central arguments of this article are that Bass's trade marks were susceptible to infringement because of weaknesses in its business structure, and these, in turn, necessitated a robust defence of its trade marks both before and after the Trade Marks Act, 1875. Of particular interest, we demonstrate that Bass's reliance on the free trade was financially successful, in marked contrast to the predictions of Chandler, and the financial performance of the big London brewers who relied heavily on tied estates.

AB - This article uses a case study of Bass to examine the business and accounting history of trade mark defence in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. We employ a variety of business, legal and parliamentary records to discuss the measures they adopted to prevent trade mark infringement. The central arguments of this article are that Bass's trade marks were susceptible to infringement because of weaknesses in its business structure, and these, in turn, necessitated a robust defence of its trade marks both before and after the Trade Marks Act, 1875. Of particular interest, we demonstrate that Bass's reliance on the free trade was financially successful, in marked contrast to the predictions of Chandler, and the financial performance of the big London brewers who relied heavily on tied estates.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=68149172437&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/09585200802667097

DO - 10.1080/09585200802667097

M3 - Article

SN - 0958-5206

VL - 19

SP - 1

EP - 19

JO - Accounting, Business and Financial History

JF - Accounting, Business and Financial History

IS - 1

ER -

The business of protection: Bass & Co. and trade mark defence, c. 1870–1914

Abstract

Access to Document

Other files and links

Cite this