Related or not to the famous Charles Carroll of Carrollton, Maryland, Thomas Carroll, shown here, and his sons recognized how important was their family name and the brand names of their whiskeys to achieving almost half a century of success as liquor dealers in Baltimore. That understanding drove the family’s two decade campaign to protect a trademark, an effort that ultimately failed.
Charles Carroll of Carrollton is known to every Maryland school child as a signer of the Declaration of Independence and the only Catholic to do so. Less well known is that Charles, shown here, was one of the richest men in the Colonies and among its largest slaveholders, owning perhaps as many as 1,000. The relationship of the Baltimore “whiskey” Carrolls to this historical figure has been a subject of speculation without any firm answer. The name “Carroll” is among the 25 most common Irish names in America and people with that name originate from all over the Emerald Isle. Nonetheless, just the Carroll name carried a strong element of prestige in Maryland.
The “founding father” of these Carrolls was Thomas, shown above, born in August 1830 in Maryland of American-born Irish parents. Thomas first shows up in the public record in 1860 when he married Lizzette Josephine Fusting, right. Lizzette was the daughter of Joseph P. Fusting, a well-known founder and business leader in Catonsville, Maryland. At the time of the 1880 federal census, the couple was living in Baltimore with their six children, Charles, 19; Harry, 16; Bessie, 15; Howard, 9; Thomas Jr., 5, and May, 3. Thomas Sr.’s occupation was listed as “liquor dealer.”
With his early career lost in the mists of history, Thomas Sr. in 1871 founded a Baltimore wholesale liquor house located at 370 West Baltimore Avenue. At the time, the city was a center for rye whiskey distilling and sales, with the name “Baltimore” connoting quality not found elsewhere. Carroll named his signature brand “Baltimore Club Rye” and watched as it gain regional and to some extent national popularity. He trademarked the brand in 1874 and again in 1881.
The Carrolls were also aware of the importance of their own name in selling liquor in Maryland. Shown below is an amber flask of “Carroll Rye.” Later the liquor house would feature a label directly invoking the historic Charles Carroll, calling it “Carroll’s Carrolton Rye.” A back-of-the-bar bottle bears that name. Thomas Sr. was not a distiller but a rectifier, someone who bought whiskeys distilled elsewhere that he blended to achieve a particular taste, smoothness and color. The 1880 census indicated that the two oldest Carroll sons., Charles and Harry, were working for their father in the liquor house. Several years later as Charles reached maturity, his father made him a partner, renaming the firm Thomas G. Carroll & Son. Harry was recorded as working there as clerk.
The liquor house continued to thrive. Shown above are a trio of clear flasks in several sizes and shades that carry the new name. Embossed, they would have carried paper labels with the Carroll brand names, “Baltimore Club Rye,” “Carroll’s Carrolton” or “Return Rye.” Named after a famed steeplechase horse of the time, Return Rye was marketed as a blend “for family use.” The label pictured a horse and jockey clearing a jump. The image also was reproduced on shot glasses that were gifted to saloons, restaurants and hotels featuring the whiskey.
Although the Carrolls were taking full use of their name in their marketing, they were looking around for other opportunities. Another name that loomed large in Baltimore whiskey circles was “Monticello Rye.” This brand was originated by Malcolm Crichton and was perhaps the most popular whiskey in the city. Unfortunately, Crichton had little time to enjoy the success and prosperity his Monticello Rye had engendered, dying in 1890 at the age of 50. It appears that none of his sons were interested in carrying on and sold the distillery to Baltimore brothers, Bernard and Jacob B. Cahn.
Some early confusion seems to have existed regarding the ownership of the brand name. The Cahns believed they had purchased the rights to market Monticello Rye but found themselves competing with the Carrolls who had quickly come to the market with their own version of the brand. Although the matter apparently was resolved amicably with Thomas G. and his sons backing off, in self-defense the Cahns in 1906 re-registered the brand with the Patent and Trademark Office. Nevertheless, the incident indicates the Carrolls’ aggressiveness in marketing.
After twice trademarking Baltimore Club Rye, the Carrolls were in for a surprise. A New York City liquor house for years had been selling whiskey of the same name. From court documents: “…Down to about 1882 or 1883 the Carroll firm sold Baltimore Club whisky in Baltimore and the McIlvaine & Baldwin firm sold whiskey under the same trademark in New York, and neither knew of the other’s existence nor interfered with each others customers.” The end of this blissful ignorance would trigger a long struggle.
It began with Thomas Carroll gathering up sons Charles and Harry and the trio descending on McIlwaine & Baldwin in New York to claim sole rights to the name Baltimore Club. “We have had the rights to the name since we began making the brand in 1870,” Thomas reputedly told the partners. The New Yorkers responded that their claim extended back to 1875. Furthermore, they had sold more whiskey under that name than the Carrolls ever had. “Whatever threats or demands were made by the Carrolls at this time they certainly bore no fruit; for each party continued to transact business as before….”
During the ensuing decades, while the dispute remained unsettled, Thomas Carroll died as did Charles. Harry, the remaining member of the firm, was now the president of Thomas G. Carroll & Son Co. For years the trademark issue had rankled him and in 1907 he decided to act. First, he registered the company trademark for Baltimore Club for a third time. Second, he began to merchandise his Baltimore Club vigorously in and around New York City. In so doing, Harry over-reached. From the trial record: Carroll sold the brand there under “…an imitation of the label used for many years [by McIlwaine & Baldwin], an imitation evidently calculated to deceive any but the most discriminating purchasers.” Moreover, the New York label bore no resemblance to the one Harry earlier had trademarked.
Ever brash, Harry in correspondence with the New York liquor house declared that the words “Baltimore Club” were his firm’s exclusive property allowing it the “right and liberty” of printing its labels in any style or color that it preferred. To back up those claims, the Carroll scion brought suit in the Circuit Court of New York against McIlwaine & Baldwin. The results were mixed. The court was sympathetic to the defendant, declaring that by long prior use it held a “common law” title to use the name. The privilege was restricted to its New York sales area only, however, and not beyond. The court ruled that Harry’s sales intrusion into New York should to end. Elsewhere in America, however, the Carroll claim was recognized.
Although Harry did not succeed in killing the New York “Baltimore Club,” he successfully managed the firm his father had founded for the next decade until closed in 1919 by National Prohibition. Shown above are two “give away” artifacts I believe likely are from Harry’s tenure. Note that labels display the Carroll name prominently.
A final word on the sagacity of Thomas Carroll. Although he clearly understood the value of a name and made sure that his was prominent on all his whiskeys, he apparently decided after his foray into New York on behalf of his Baltimore Club brand to low key pressing his trademark, possibly recognizing the legal expenses and uncertain outcome it might entail. Unfortunately his son Harry was not so wise and pushed the issue at considerable cost, only to achieve a less than satisfactory judgment.
Notes: This post was derived from a wide range of sources, the most important of which were Internet genealogical-related websites. The post also marks a new milestone for this website, having just passed the 1.2 million mark for “hits” since its inception in 2011.
No comments:
Post a Comment