Claudio Pellerito
One of the Regulars
- Messages
- 202
Yep.
-
The Fedora Lounge is supported in part by commission earning affiliate links sitewide. Please support us by using them. You may learn more here.
The Legendary DURABLE (Wild One) Jacket
- Thread starter Mysteryo
- Start date
dmoser1978
One of the Regulars
- Messages
- 121
Biff42
One Too Many
- Messages
- 1,051
Hey guys, I was curious if this Durable popped up in any of the discussions? It might explain why they've been so elusive to find because they were just one brand from a large manufacturer. It still leaves a lot to be researched.
Last edited:
I read somewhere, maybe several pages back, that Durable USA is a different company than Durable Canada FYI. Durable USA is the one that made the Wild One jackets. Canadian leather jackets use different brands of zipper, and thus are easily recognizable.
tmitchell59
I'll Lock Up
- Messages
- 8,251
- Location
- Illinois
You have done well again. I have always believed Durables were made in Canada. The real proof is in the jackets.
Biff42
One Too Many
- Messages
- 1,051
Well, both could be true. Du-Val/Durable in Canada offered franchises for its name to other clothing manufacturers (think Schott in Europe). So, an American manufacturer could have franchised and then made the Durable jackets. Also mentioned in the article below are import lines.
I could see an American manufacturer franchising the Durable name, but more likely, Durable in Canada, produced jackets for the USA market. I believe the Durable we know was a Canadian company.
What still makes no sense is why Schott would have purchased Durable. I think this is a myth since Durable was a subsidiary of a large manufacturing company. Also, Schott invented that style of jacket, so they wouldn't have gained anything since people already thought Brando was wearing a Schott.
ABCD
I'll Lock Up
- Messages
- 7,710
If that was the case I'd expect to see a Canadian zipper brand like Lightning on the USA market jackets.
Biff42
One Too Many
- Messages
- 1,051
That's true. That said, they could have imported some Talons for US production.
There might also be a scenario, given the US's regionalization at the time, where different manufacturers produced Durables through franchise agreements. I know there was some disparity between the labels on some versions.
Unfortunately, we won't be able to answer all these questions.
Featured products
-
John Lofgren Monkey Boots Shinki Horsebuttt - $1,136 The classic monkey boot silhouette in an incredibly rich Shinki russet horse leather. -
Grant Stone Diesel Boot Dark Olive Chromexcel - $395 Goodyear welted, Horween Chromexcel, classic good looks. -
Schott 568 Vandals Jacket - $1,250 The classic Perfecto motorcycle jacket, in a very special limited-edition Schott double rider style.
Occam's razor says that the simplest answer is usually the right one. There was discussion back on pages 10-12 of this thread re Durable being two different companies (I don’t trust elaborate theories), but I’m also in the camp of them being the same company for 2 reasons. The USA one could have franchised the name of the Canadian one, but it’s under the same roof. The following two reasons alone are enough under trademark laws (I’m in IP law) to conclude that they are the same company.
1. They both use the name “Durable” during the same time period.
2. The font of both companies “Durable” on the labels is the same.
Durable USA labels
Durable Canada labels
The same company COULD make different jacket designs for different markets. The same company COULD use different zippers for different markets.
1. They both use the name “Durable” during the same time period.
2. The font of both companies “Durable” on the labels is the same.
Durable USA labels
Durable Canada labels
The same company COULD make different jacket designs for different markets. The same company COULD use different zippers for different markets.
Last edited:
AHP91
One Too Many
- Messages
- 1,476
I'm not in IP law, however I do believe I have common sense. Why are you applying current trademark laws to mid-century manufacturing practices?
The Durable Canadian label literally says “trademark” on its label. That means that it protected itself by appealing to the law and filing for a trademark at the time. A trademark is the right to EXCLUDE others of using the same name (“Durable”) in the same business (leather). And there are news articles of the Canadian company offering “franchise” its “trade name” in exchange for “royalty.” These are legal terms of art in trademark laws. There was, and still is, trademark laws in the mid-20th century, as is now. These basic concepts in trademark laws have stayed the same and carry significant legal consequences.
Durable Canada at the time was trying to monetize its name, as shown in the news article above. It prob succeeded.
For your elaborate theory of two separate, distinct, and unrelated companies, they could have used any other names but they didn’t. They used the same name under the same font, stepping on each other’s toes and risking legal battles.
People ask for evidence to prove that their elaborate theories are incorrect. Actually, give me evidence that the simple answer here is not the right one. For example, show me two separate manufacturing addresses (you think it’s cheap and easy to set up another manufacturing company?), show me the companies’ claims that they are unrelated to one another when they are in the same business in the same continent using the same name with the same font. Otherwise, people would assume that they are the same company. The burden of proof is on you, not on me. I’ve put forth my case.
Durable Canada at the time was trying to monetize its name, as shown in the news article above. It prob succeeded.
For your elaborate theory of two separate, distinct, and unrelated companies, they could have used any other names but they didn’t. They used the same name under the same font, stepping on each other’s toes and risking legal battles.
People ask for evidence to prove that their elaborate theories are incorrect. Actually, give me evidence that the simple answer here is not the right one. For example, show me two separate manufacturing addresses (you think it’s cheap and easy to set up another manufacturing company?), show me the companies’ claims that they are unrelated to one another when they are in the same business in the same continent using the same name with the same font. Otherwise, people would assume that they are the same company. The burden of proof is on you, not on me. I’ve put forth my case.
Last edited:
AHP91
One Too Many
- Messages
- 1,476
I ran a quick check on the sims, you seem like the type who needs the last word, so I'll read one more on this and then I'm bored of it.-
Even if the Canadian “Durable” had filed a trademark, enforcement was jurisdictional.
A Canadian filing didn’t block a U.S. company from using the same name unless it was also registered and enforced there — and cross-border coordination was rare in the 1950s–60s for small firms.
So the “right to exclude others” only applied within the territory where the mark was valid, not across borders or in unrelated industries.
“Trademark laws existed, so the principles are the same” — not really
Yes, trademark law existed, but the infrastructure, enforcement, and international reach were nothing like today’s.- Canada’s Trade Marks Act wasn’t fully modernized until 1953.
- The U.S. Lanham Act (1946) was still finding footing through early court interpretation in the ’50s.
So while the concept of “exclusive rights” existed, its practical application was far weaker and patchier — especially in industries like garments where small makers proliferated.
Modified_last_call
One of the Regulars
- Messages
- 158
- Location
- Bucks County, PA
Perhaps you could give us a dissertation on Altadis USA and Habanos SA, who both hold legal claims to Cohiba, Montecristo, Romeo y Julieta, H.Upmann in the same industry, on the same continent, with the same products.
When you're done there, Bacardi could be next
And their trade names use the same font? Have they been in legal battles with one another?
Modified_last_call
One of the Regulars
- Messages
- 158
- Location
- Bucks County, PA
Same fonts, same product.
The original owners of the brands(who were expelled from Cuba) have been waging a legal battle since the Cuban revolution in 1959
Those examples prove my point. No Durable USA company (if it actually existed) would set up shop using the same name, same font, in the same industry and same continent, without asking for legal troubles. It would have consulted a lawyer before conducting business. A franchise for royalty is what is legally acceptable for it to do so. The US trademark laws have existed for over 200 years, and most of US laws was common law (judge-made law) and not codified (into statutes) until recently. Businessmen (at a successful company like Durable) are generally smart, not one-off idiots you read in the news that got into legal troubles. Those are the exceptions, not the rule.
jeo
Call Me a Cab
- Messages
- 2,385
- Location
- Philadelphia
It’s not the same font at all. Just because they are all script fonts doesn’t mean they are the same. Many companies used script fonts. One of them isn’t even the same name (Durabil)
What same product?
The jackets that have the Durable of Canada label look nothing like any of the US Durable jackets.
Modified_last_call
One of the Regulars
- Messages
- 158
- Location
- Bucks County, PA
We are talking about cigars that have the same name and font, but different companies.
I was making the example that although they have the same names and fonts, they are separate entities
AHP91
One Too Many
- Messages
- 1,476
It's literally insane that you call out the world to find you an example, someone knows off-hand of three modern examples, and then you somehow believe that your point was proven. This reply is entire speculation - the fact that these companies currently hold legal right to the same name, in the same industry, entirely shows that trademark laws are fluid.
