Pen History, 1860’s+: The Washington Medallion Pen Company, Part 3

As we saw in the previous account of the beginnings of the Washington Medallion Pen Company, the late 1850’s was a busy time for this new manufacturer. With aggressive marketing, they managed to spread the market for the Washington Medallion pens across the east coast and into the mid-west.

It seems, though, that by late 1860, the pen business was not doing so well for Albert Granger and the other officers of the Washington Medallion Pen company. In a later statement, Harrison and Bradford claim that in December of 1860, Washington Medallion may have stopped making pens altogether.

What is clear is that in 1862, George Harrison and George Bradford formed their own company, Harrison & Bradford, and purchased from their former employer, Washington Medallion, all the machines, dies and tools to make the Washington Medallion Pens and began to make the pens under contract to the Washington Medallion Pen Company. They claimed that the machines had been “lying idle for fifteen months” when they began production in March of 1862.

In December of 1863, Harrison and Bradford discovered that the design patent had expired earlier that year. Believing that Albert Granger no longer owned the design, they began early the next year to make their own “Harrison & Bradford Washington Medallion Pens.”

Harrison & Bradford not only manufactured the Harrison & Bradford Washington Medallion Pen, copying the look of the pen, as well as the look of the box, but they also began to make their own line of pens during this period.

Later, in 1864, just months after they began production of their own version of the pen, the Washington Medallion Pen Co. filed suit against Harrison & Bradford in New York State Supreme Court for trade mark infringement.

Washington Medallion Pen Co. vs. Harrison, Bradford, et. al.

The law suit was accompanied by an injunction forbidding H&B from making any more Washington Medallion pens. It also named Eberhard Faber and Faber’s partner in the stationery business, James B. Hodgskin, as part of the suit since Eberhard Faber were Harrison & Bradford’s sole agents for selling these pens, as well as their self-branded Harrison & Bradford pens.

In 1864 we we see a flurry of announcements and articles about this law suit in the New York Herald.

First, on July 19th an announcement appeared that said that the defendants had filed a motion to lift the injunction, and since the plaintiffs were not ready yet for trial, the judge lifted the injunction, allowing the defendants to continue selling the pens.

On August 2, a short description of the case appeared on page 8

The Steel Pen Controversy

Supreme Court

Before Hon. G. G. Barnard

August 1 – Washington Medallion Pen Company vs. George Harrison and George Bradford – the defendants are the manufacturers of the Harrison & Bradford Washington Medallion pen, and the plaintiffs some time since obtained an exparte injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing said pen

The plaintiffs claim that the term Washington Medallion was invented by Albert Granger, and that they, under license of said Granger, used that term as a trademark. On the other hand, the defendants claimed that the term Washington Medallion was not new; that it had been used by the American Steel Pen Manufacturing Company before it had been used by the plaintiff, and that it was a term in common use, which could not be converted into a trade mark; that the plaintiffs ceased to manufacture pens in December, 1860, and had not since manufactured any; that in March, 1862 the defendants bought of the plaintiffs all of the machinery and tools used by them in manufacturing pens, and that since that time and until January, 1864, the defendants had manufactured the pens for Albert Granger, supposing him to be the patentee; that about January of 1864 they learned that Granger had no patent for the pen; that since making that discovery they had sent the pen into the market as “Harrison & Bradford’s Washington Medallion Pen.”

The defendant moved to dissolve the injunction, and the motion was argued at great length, before Judge G. G. Barnard, who had the same under consideration, and this morning decided in favor of the defendants, dissolving the injunction. Galbraith & Townsend for defendants, Abbot & Fuller for plaintiffs

Two days later, on the fourth appeared announcements in the New York Herald.  First, the plaintiffs’ lawyers.

1864 lawsuit plaintiffs

Washington Medallion Pen Company vs. Eberhard Faber and Others

To the Editor of the Herald

The article in your paper of August 2, headed “The Steel Pen Controversy,” is reference to the above suit, is so worded as to leave an impression on the mind of the public that there has been a final hearing and trial therein. This is not so. The injunction refused was merely a temporary one, asked for pending the litigation, and its refusal has no effect whatsoever upon the merits of the case. The judge who granted the motion gave no opinion whatever, and his decision is embraced in his endorsement on the papers, “Motion granted, injunction dissolved.” He probably deemed the defendant’s denial of all the equities of plaintiff’s bill sufficient reason for the dissolution of the ex parte injunction. The case will be tried in the fall, and the result of that trial will alone determine whether the plaintiff is or is not entitled to use the words “Washington Medallion” as its trade mark.

Abbett & Fuller, Plaintiff’s Attorneys.

Two pages later,

1864 lawsuit defendants

Notice to the Stationers and Fancy Goods Dealers – The publication in the Herald on the 2nd inst. of what purports to be an adjudication of the suit of the Washington Medallion Pen Company against Eberhard Faber and others is calculated to lead you to think the case terminated. The Court passed no opinion on the merits of the case; but simply granted an order vacating a preliminary injunction. The suit will be tried at the earliest possible moment, and until it is tried, and the verdict of a jury settles the questions raised, the Washington Medallion Pen Company claim that the words “Washington Medallion ” constitute a trade mark, and that such trade mark is its property. And hereby cautions the trade and the public against buying or selling Pens marked “Washington Medallion” unless they are the manufacture of the Washington Medallion Pen Company.”

Just over a week later, we hear from the other side.

1864 harrison bradford

Washington Medallion Pen. – An advertisement appeared in the special notices of the New York Herald of August 4, emanating from the so called Washington Medallion Pen Company, which is calculated to deceive dealers and the public. As it has ever been and is our desire to protect the public from deceit, we state that the so-styled Washington Medallion Pen Company have not made a pen of any description since 1860. The pen works of said company, after lying idle for fifteen months, were, with all original dies, tools and machinery, requisite for making said pens sold to us on March 11, 1862. Since that time the said pens have been manufactured by ourselves and by no one else. We repeat our caution to purchasers that the only genuine Washington Medallion Pen is that inscribed, “Harrison & Bradford’s Washington Medallion Pen.” the so-called Washington Medallion Pen Company obtained an ex parte affidavit, an injunction restraining us from making and vending said pens, which injunction was, on our application, and after hearing both sides, dissolved by his Honor G. G. Barnard as reported in the Herald of August 2.

Harrison & Bradford

Steel Pen Manufacturers

136 W. Thirty-seventh street, NY

What starts to become clear is that Albert Granger held the design patent, and licensed it to the Washington Medallion Pen Company. In 1860 the Washington Medallion Pen Company slowed or stopped production of the pens, and in 1862 they sold the machines, tools and dies to Harrison and Bradford who had formed their own company for making pens in the same location as the former Washington Medallion Pen company’s factory, at 136 W. 37th St. in New York City.

So, what happened to Granger and the Washington Medallion Pen Company around 1860-62 that would cause them to sell the machinery, dies, etc… used to make their eponymous product?

Albert Granger and the Failed Gun Sight Business

We get a hint of what happened in the testimony of a later lawsuit, from 1867. This lawsuit is brought by a Rufus K. McHarg against the Washington Medallion Pen Company. According to the testimony of the various parties it appears that around 1861, Albert Granger, the Secretary of the Washington Medallion Pen Company was going bankrupt. He and Rufus K. McHarg decided that this new war (American Civil War) might provide a way to make some money. We know from the Harrison and Bradford case, that in 1862 the machinery from the Washington Medallion company was sold to Harrison & Bradford. It may be that with this money, and money lent by McHarg, Granger went into the business of making gun-sights he hoped to sell to the government. As collateral for this loan from McHarg, he took out a mortgage on the gun-sight machinery as owned by the Washington Medallion Pen Company.

So, Granger thought he could sent up his own business making gun-sights instead of pens, sold the pen machinery to H&B, borrowed money mortgaged against assets of the Washington Medallion Pen company, and then the gun sights never sold to the government. They were returned as defective. Meanwhile, McHarg had bought up other judgments against Granger (who, it will be remembered, is going backrupt) and then confronted Granger with both these judgments as well as information that it was illegal for a corporation to mortgage it’s own property, and demanded to foreclose on the mortgage and claim the machinery.

This brought the whole enterprise into the open. Washington Medallion’s attorneys, Abbott and Fuller, got engaged and the case went to trial. The judge eventually ruled that Granger had made this deal without the formal approval of the board of Washington Medallion, and that it went far beyond the articles of incorporation, which were for making steel pens not gun sights. The judge also determined that the plaintiff had already received more than the amount of the original note plus interest. So, the suit was dropped in favor of the defendants.

Washington Medallion vs. Harrison, Bradford, et. al. gets a judgment.

In the case against Harrison and Bradford, the plaintiffs pointed to the defendants not just making pens with the Washington Medallion name, and containing the medallion of Washington’s head, but also to the form and decoration of the boxes in which they sold their pens.

They submitted multiple exhibits showing the similarities. As you can see below from photos of the actual exhibits from the court case, the similarities are striking. It is clear that Harrison and Bradford fully intended for people to think that these were the real Washington Medallion Pens. And it’s clear from the text on the back of their box that they felt it truly was the one and only Washington Medallion Pen.

The text on the back of the Harrison and Bradford Washington Medallion Pen box.

NOTICE

Messrs. Harrison & Bradford, beg to inform Dealers and the public generally, that the Patent claim on the enclosed Pens, expired on the 15th day of April 1863.

They would also inform all parties that on the 11th day of March 1862 they purchased from the Patentee, All the Original Dies, Tools & Machinery for Manufacturing the Washington Medallion Pen, and they Manufactured the same until the 15th day of December 1863 under Contract.

We now put all Washington Medallion Pens before the public with our own name in full “HARRISON & BRADFORD’S WASHINGTON MEDALLION PEN” All Pens not bearing our STamp, will be imitations only of the the Original & Genuine Pen. Manufactured at 136 West 37th St. N.Y.

N.B. Be sure and see that the Pens are stamped “Harrison & Bradford’s Washington Medallion Pen” only the Pens so stamped are the Original and Genuine Pens.

Picture of the original Washington Medallion Pen box
Washington Medallion Pen Co. vs. Harrison and Bradford, exhibit A

 

Picture of the Harrison & Bradford Washington Medallion Pen box
Washington Medallion Pen Co. vs. Harrison and Bradford, exhibit B

The judgement in the Harrison & Bradford case was finally handed down in 1866, two years after the initial filing. The court found for Washington Medallion and against Harrison and Bradford. Harrison & Bradford were required to submit to an audit by a court-appointed referee to determine how much they were required to pay to Washington Medallion. After examining the records, it was determined by the adjudicator that:

  • In less than a two-year period, Harrison & Bradford sold about 185,000 gross of pens (at 144 per gross, that’s 26,640,000 pens in less than two years!)
  • They made a profit of about $0.10 (ten cents) per gross on a price of $1.50 per gross (margins were so low because they were competing with British manufacturers who had much lower manufacturing costs so could sell their pens cheaper). As a reference, a decade later Esterbrook was selling their top-selling pen, the 048 Falcon, for $0.75 per gross.
  • As a result, the court found Harrison and Bradford liable for a payment of $18,000

Harrison & Bradford after the trial

Harrison & Bradford went on to a successful business making their own pens for another decade or more. In the immediate aftermath, though, they separated from Eberhard Faber and began selling their own pens directly.

I found an interesting document dated to July of 1866, just a few months after the ruling by the judge. Their letterhead still says “Sole Manufacturer of the Genuine Washington Medallion Pen” and it informs a stationer customer “We beg to inform you, that the Agency held by Mr. Eberhard Faber, for the exclusive sale of goods manufactured by us, ceases to exist from this date. We now intend to send out all Pens made by us from the manufactory, where we shall be pleased to receive your orders, either for goods bearing our stamp, or any name and style you may desire.”

It then attaches a price list for their Harrison & Bradford pens. The price list still includes the Washington Medallion pen, which shows that the letter and list pre-dates the ruling earlier that year. This just proves that Harrison & Bradford had not put all of their pen-making eggs in the Washington Medallion basket and were making a full line of pens, which is at least partially why they continued in business even after being forced to stop making Washington Medallion pens.

1866 Wash Med letter 1
Harrison & Bradford letter and price list from 1866
Harrison & Bradford price list from 1866
Harrison & Bradford price list from 1866

The Esterbrook Lawsuit

Washington Medallion was not finished with lawsuits in the 1860’s. They also brought suit against another upstart pen company copying their designs, the Esterbrook Steel Pen Manufacturing Company.

Washington Medallion Pen Co. v. Esterbrook, Case No. 17,246a, Circuit Court, S.D. New York, 29 F. Cas. 366; 1869 U.S. App. LEXIS 1173; MS, 1869.

In 1868, a Federal Court in New Jersey handed down a judgement against Esterbrook that created federal precedent and was quoted in legal textbooks on trade mark law for many decades after.

Washington Medallion Pen Company vs. The Esterbrook Steel Pen Manufacturing Company went beyond protecting their name, as was the core of the suit against Harrison and Bradford. In this case they sued to extend trade mark protection to their emblems, packaging and other “distinguishing features” of their pens.

The judgment decreed that the defendants would…

… forthwith to desist from directly or indirectly stamping or causing to be stamped on pens, or selling or vending pens on which are stamped the words “Washington Medallion” or either of them; also from stamping or causing to be stamped on pens, or selling or vending pens on which are stamped a head in profile or otherwise surrounded by a rim forming a medallion mark; also from putting up, or packing, or selling, or vending pens on any denomination or description, in boxes of the same or similar construction as the boxes originally adopted by the Washington Medallion Pen Company in the year 1857; also from covering pen-boxes of any form or structure with labels of the same colors or colors of the same nature or appearance as the colors originally adopted by the Washington Medallion Pen Company; also from printing or causing to be printed on labels of pen-boxes the phrases, “Let Americans write with American pens,” and “Our country now and forever,” or any transposition of the words composing these phrases, or any phrases of like import, or any fanciful ornamentation in colorable imitation of those used by the Washington Medallion Pen Company on the labels of their boxes; also from selling or vending any pens or boxes of pens on which are stamped, pressed, cut, printed or engraved any of the aforementioned trade-marks of the Washington Medallion Pen Company.

The case was found in the favor of Washington Medallion setting a federal precedent for what was and what was not covered under a trade-mark. At this time there was no federal trade mark protection, only on a state-by-state basis could your trade makrs be protected. This finding in federal court led the way to the first federal trade mark law in 1871.

Between this and a later case in 1872 against Esterbrook by Gillott of the UK, which Esterbrook also lost, US trade mark law was defined in the early years.

Epilogue

By 1869 Albert Granger finally declares bankruptcy. By 1870 he is no longer associated with Washington Medallion. But the company must have purchased a perpetual license for making the pens because they continue to be sold nationally up through the 1880’s, including as far away as Honolulu, Hawaii in 1872. Even in 1881, they continue to use the lawsuits to promote the popularity of the pen as seen in this ad which ran in the main trade publications of the time: Geyer’s and American Stationer.

EPSON MFP image

Albert Granger died in 1906, and Albert Eastman in 1891. By the 1870’s, Fuller and Abbott had moved from lawyers for the company to officers of the same. In an annual report from 1878, Fuller is noted as the President of the Washington Medallion Pen Company. When the company finally folded is not clear. But by the mid-1880’s no more evidence can be found of the company or advertisements or even requests for proposals, which usually last longer than the companies.

Harrison and Bradford go on to not only run their own successful pen company, but eventually break up and go on to help found two other major pen manufacturers in the latter decades of the 19th, and into the 20th-centuries: Turner & Harrison, and Miller Brothers.

By 1890, the company who set so many “first” in the US steel pen industry, including the first to bring British tool makers, the first to advertise nationally, the first to assert trade mark protections in court, etc… finally passed into obscurity during the golden age of steel pens in the US. What is amazing is that a company who only ever made one style of pen would be able to last as long as it did. A testament to the quality of the pens and the loyalty of their customers.

A Washington Medallion Pen from the author's collection
A Washington Medallion Pen from the author’s collection

Court Documents and Special Thanks

I wish to offer special thanks to Fountain Pen Network user Welch who so graciously took the time to go to the courthouse archive in New York City and photographed the records of the trial against Harrison & Bradford. This part of steel pen history would have been woefully incomplete without his hours and hours wrestling stiff, old documents which probably hadn’t been looked at since they were filed in 1867.

You can see what these documents originally looked like and how difficult it would have been to photograph with a hand-held camera. (no photo stands or photocopying could be used with these fragile documents)

 

Photo of part of the plaintiff's complaint
Washington Medallion Pen vs. Harrison and Bradford: Photo of part of the plaintiff’s complaint

 

example of defendant's response to the complaint
Washington Medallion vs. Harrison and Bradford et. al., example of defendant’s response to the complaint

 

And for those who may be interested in the transcriptions, I have transcribed, to the best of my ability, these old documents, and included the primary ones in a single document.

WMPC vs HandB Cout transcripts