Vernors Ginger Ale 150th B-Day

In search of (bottle related) clues...

I'm not sure this tells us very much, but I thought it was interesting and worth taking another look at. Its the original Vernor's trademark document filed on March 29, 1911 and registered on August 15, 1911. Notice the part I underlined in the Declaration where it says ...

... that the mark has been in actual use as a trademark of the applicant for ten years next preceding February twentieth, nineteen hundred and five, ...

Note: The term "Trademark" pertains to the word "Vernor's" in relation to ginger ale and ginger ale extract, but not necessarily to the product itself. That's why trademarks are sometimes referred to as "Word-marks." The registering of products and product containers falls under the category of "Patents" and not trademarks. Just as the words Coca Cola pertain to a "Trademark" and their bottle designs fall under "Patents."

Anyway, the main reason I'm focusing on this is because of the way its worded. It doesn't say "at least" ten years, but is very specific about the date February 20, 1905. And when you do the math, 1905 minus ten years is 1895.

My question/observation is this ...

What occurred on February 20, 1895 that was important enough to include that specific date in the official trademark document?

To clarify / Just in case its confusing ...

The word "Preceding" means ... "Before" / "Prior To" / "Earlier" / Etc.

SODABOB said:

In search of (bottle related) clues...

I'm not sure this tells us very much, but I thought it was interesting and worth taking another look at. Its the original Vernor's trademark document filed on March 29, 1911 and registered on August 15, 1911. Notice the part I underlined in the Declaration where it says ...

... that the mark has been in actual use as a trademark of the applicant for ten years next preceding February twentieth, nineteen hundred and five, ...

Note: The term "Trademark" pertains to the word "Vernor's" in relation to ginger ale and ginger ale extract, but not necessarily to the product itself. That's why trademarks are sometimes referred to as "Word-marks." The registering of products and product containers falls under the category of "Patents" and not trademarks. Just as the words Coca Cola pertain to a "Trademark" and their bottle designs fall under "Patents."

Anyway, the main reason I'm focusing on this is because of the way its worded. It doesn't say "at least" ten years, but is very specific about the date February 20, 1905. And when you do the math, 1905 minus ten years is 1895.

My question/observation is this ...

What occurred on February 20, 1895 that was important enough to include that specific date in the official trademark document?

View attachment 175130

View attachment 175131

Click to expand...

I just did a quick bit of research and February 20, 1905 was when a new US Trademark law was adopted. There had been a previous law in 1881, but it was for interstate goods and dealings with Indian tribes. Right now, I'm just finding references to the 1905 law and not the law itself. I'm guessing there might be something in the law that asks if the mark being used has been used for ten years. Someone must have convinced James Vernor that even though he was using his family name, he better protect it. Maybe it makes a little more sense now that he only took six years to get Vernor's Ginger Ale trademarked instead of 45 years. And, just because the law was passed in 1905 doesn't mean it was readily known in 1905 that the protection was available.

SODABOB said:

But regardless if the photograph was taken in 1907 or 1909, it suggest the paper label bottle depicted on the wagon was used at least as early as 1907-1909, which is earlier than the 1911 Trademark date we discussed previously.

Click to expand...

That's pretty interesting information. But, we're still missing ten years from 1896 to 1906. I'm leaning toward your theory that he used generic bottles with some sort of paper label. His extract labels were very simple looking. His carbonated ginger ale bottles could have been the same one color block printing type of label. The only thing that bothers me about the theory is that I've never seen anything like that in Vernor's literature. I have seen the diamond shaped (1911 trademark) label in their literature (in a line-up of historic bottles). However, to doubt my own doubting, if it was a really boring looking bottle, the advertising guys might have left it out of the line-up.

SODABOB said:

P.S.

I expect Keith will be along eventually and will clarify things for us - but the way I understand what he's saying is ...

1. The only embossing is on the base of the bottle

2. There are no codes or any other type of embossing anywhere on the bottle.

Which, if accurate, makes it a strong contender for a super early bottle and possibly one of, if not the very first ... ???

Click to expand...

All true. The only embossing is on the bottom and there are no codes. This could be the earliest Vernor's bottle type that we can identify. Maybe not the earliest Vernor's bottle (for carbonated soda pop, that is), but the earliest we can identify.

I noticed that Trademark said even though in use for many years he sought to have it Registered for more Protection. All labels Registered will have the R or R in circle like the Pepsi I posted below. Does any of the Vernor's have the R added to label & if so this might help date them? LEON.

Or, Maybe the labels would just say "Reg U.S. Pat Off" Like the can pictured below? LEON.

It looks like the earlier bottles say Reg. US Pat. Off. and newer (after 1970) just have the R.

VernorsGuy said:

It looks like the earlier bottles say Reg. US Pat. Off.

Click to expand...

How early? And is the "Reg. U.S. Pat. Off." on the bottles, the labels, or both?

VernorsGuy said:

It looks like the earlier bottles say Reg. US Pat. Off. and newer (after 1970) just have the R.

Click to expand...

Keith, Do you have any old Vernor's labels that do not have the Reg U.S. Pat Off? LEON.