American Axe & Tool Company

Glenn Bailey said:
...The date for the catalog is a great question. I put 1894 out there based on this information but it's possible that the they are two different catalogs. They look like they have the same cover based on the poorly scanned pdf version of the catalog floating around. Lack of either of the two logos lends some credence for me that it was prior to the patent application.
Click to expand...

I think that AATCo catalog (which can be read online or downloaded here and from other sites) is not the 1894 version, based on this description of the 1894 catalog when it came out:

content

from The Iron Age, March 1, 1894, page 436

The 1894 catalog is said to have 272 pages, with axes taking up the first 141 pages, etc. This does not match the catalog versions I've seen online.
 
Glenn Bailey said:
I wonder if that’s the mention from yesteryeartools "Some of the labels even included the original locations of the companies and not the actual location of the current manufacturer."
Click to expand...

Here's a prime example. In 1926, Kelly Axe registered a trademark for Hunt's Superior axes, to be used as a label affixed to the axes, and the label states that the axes are made by the Douglas Axe Mfg. Co. of East Douglas, Mass.

Adding to the potential confusion, at the bottom of the label it says
The American Axe & Tool Co., Inc. Successors.

The name and location of the actual manufacturer (Kelly Axe & Tool Co., Charleston WV) are not mentioned at all on this label.


KellyTrademarkedAATCoHuntDouglas.PNG

from USPTO.gov
 
Steve Tall said:
I think that AATCo catalog (which can be read online or downloaded here and from other sites) is not the 1894 version, based on this description of the 1894 catalog when it came out:

content

from The Iron Age, March 1, 1894, page 436

The 1894 catalog is said to have 272 pages, with axes taking up the first 141 pages, etc. This does not match the catalog versions I've seen online.
Click to expand...

Great find. And somewhat defeating as well.
 
More 'helpful on the surface, but useless in the end'. We learn "No registration rights are claimed for the word 'Americanax'"

ibsbPWF.png
 
I was simply praising Steve's search skills.

Does this mean that the arch/straight "Americanax" was used on their tools from 1907-1927 and Kelly ceased and desisted and is duly noted as signed by George T. Price?

Case of patent hunting as persued by a lawyer on his own behalf or as employed by a third party?

1907-1927 for that mark?
 
Agent_H said:
...Does this mean that the arch/straight "Americanax" was used on their tools from 1907-1927 and Kelly ceased and desisted and is duly noted as signed by George T. Price?...
Click to expand...

The applicant (Kelly) still kept (did not waive) its common law rights to the word AMERICANAX as a trademark, the AMERICANAX word was just not being registered separately (perhaps for some legal issues such as AATCo never registered it in the first place, which might have made it more difficult or time consuming for Kelly to register it?)
 
The seller on eBay granted me permission to post these pictures of the Underhill/Americanax. I'm beginning to regret not having made the effort to pick this one up. I can't quite make out the plant number (circled next to Underhill).

Rzr2zkN.jpg


eqH6Wdl.jpg


p4iW11T.jpg


DPpjhoz.jpg
 
Nice axe. Looks like a Maine wedge pattern but I'm not an expert on those. Maybe JB can set me straight.
 
The seller on eBay granted me permission to post these pictures of a WM Mann/Americanax. Does that read plant number 11?

I5NfIFm.jpg


p9A1hp1.jpg


QF0G8rB.jpg
 
It just occurred to me...there are a couple of pieces of information here that don't seem to fit (yet another couple pieces of information that don't fit). The patent below states "No registration rights are claimed for the word 'Americanax'". However, my Americanax hatchet (picture below that) clearly has 'Trade Mark' stamped. At first I assumed that "No registration" meant it wasn't trade marked, but...what's the deal with the trade mark stamp? murkier and murkier

ibsbPWF.png


w4O9Xcg.jpg
 
Glenn Bailey said:
It just occurred to me...there are a couple of pieces of information here that don't seem to fit (yet another couple pieces of information that don't fit). The patent below states "No registration rights are claimed for the word 'Americanax'". However, my Americanax hatchet (picture below that) clearly has 'Trade Mark' stamped. At first I assumed that "No registration" meant it wasn't trade marked, but...what's the deal with the trade mark stamp?...
Click to expand...

As far as I know, the word "Americanax" was never registered as a trademark (I searched the US and Int'l directories of trademarks). So I surmise that the word "Americanax" was a common law trademark, and the succession of companies that took ownership of that trademark kept it that way. I assume that the oval trademark design (with the the Indian head and AMERICANAX written above it in plain script) was registered to establish an easily recognizable (and easily read) trademark with some degree of international protection, since it was evidently aimed for the export market (as seen in the ad posted above). I have never seen it used on axes destined for North America.

--------------------

"An unregistered or common law trademark is an enforceable mark created by a business or individual to signify or distinguish a product or service. A common law or unregistered trademark is legally different from a registered trademark granted by statute. As with statutory trademarks, a common law trademark utilizes graphics, images, words or symbols, or a combination of such, to signify the distinctiveness or source of a product or service.

Although not required by law to receive trademark protection, an unregistered trademark owner can append the mark with the letters "TM" (visualized by the trademark symbol ™). A ™ serves as notice to the public that the words or symbols are an unregistered trademark. In contrast, trademarks granted by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) may have the ® symbol next to the trademark. The USPTO prohibits a common law, unregistered trademark owner using the ® in the trademark.

A significant distinction of an unregistered trademark is that the trademark owner does not receive as much protection as the owner of a federal or state registered trademark. For example, in the United States a trademark registered by the USPTO can enforce the trademark in all U.S. states, sue for damages (including lost profits), and significantly, recover attorneys' fees and costs incurred in protecting the trademark against infringement. If a trademark owner registers in a state, the trademark owner can enforce the trademark throughout the entire state, and receive similar statutory remedies.

In the United States, neither federal nor state registration is required to obtain common law trademark protection, albeit the protection may be limited. In contrast to federal registration, common law trademarks are usually enforceable only within the geographic region or locale where the trademark owner is using it in business. And when an infringement occurs, an unregistered trademark owner sometimes cannot sue to collect damages or recover attorneys fees. In those jurisdictions with limited protection to unregistered trademark owners, a common law trademark owner's remedies may be limited to injunctive relief (a court order for the defendant to cease and desist the infringement)."

quoted from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unregistered_trademark

--------------------
 
Fascinating, thanks Steve! The explanation for using registered trademarks for international use is insightful. And now I feel better. I do find it interesting that most, if not all of the arched logos I’ve seen do not include the 'trade mark' stamp except the one I own. Often times the 'Glassport' section is worn down so 'trade mark' could be below it, but no real evidence.

There is currently an A A & T Co axe up for bid on an action site with a logo I’ve never seen stamped before. I know there are rules about posting axes up for bd on this forum so I’ll wait for the action to be over before I contact the seller about using there photos, but it does add to this discussion.

Thanks again Steve, you continue to fill in the gaps of what’s not known.
 
How about this stunner!? The seller on eBay graciously granted me permission to post these pictures of an A A & T Co axe with this logo I had never seen on an axe. Reference our previous discussion of the Kelly patent of the Indian Head.

lCxrRyo.jpg


1VwpzNi.jpg


IYwXksU.jpg



NQbZAEg.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top