In 1917 Tom Lyle Williams developed a new product for darkening and lengthening eyelashes he called it Maybelline

Anyone who talks about the origins of Maybelline usually starts with Maybelline’s founder, Tom Lyle Williams, watching his sister Mabel applying burnt cork mixed into petroleum jelly to her eyebrows and lashes after she singed them on the stove. The story goes on to describe how Tom Lyle created an eyelash and eyebrow preparation (using a chemistry set) and a business (after borrowing some money from his brother Noel). However, the product he eventually sold through mail-order was developed by Park-Davies not his chemistry set and the business used to sell it was called Maybell Laboratories not Maybelline.


Maybell Laboratories


The product Tom Lyle got from Park-Davis was a scented cream made of white petroleum with oils to provide sheen. He marketed it through his mail-order business as ‘Lash-Brow-Ine’ a name he selected because of its similarity with other eyelash and eyebrow products already on the market such as ‘Eye-Brow-Ine’ and ‘Lashneen’. The business he started to sell Lash-Brow-Ine he named Maybell Laboratories.


Tom Lyle called Lash-Brow-Ine an eyebrow and eyelash growth promoter. Applying Lash-Brow-Ine to eyelashes and eyebrows would have made them appear darker and thicker but would not have stimulated them to grow. However, a long held belief that oils and petrolatum would stimulate hair growth would have given his claim substance in the minds of many potential buyers. Clearly there was demand as sales reached over $100,000 by 1920.


Tom Lyle registered the name ‘Lash-Brow-Ine’ as a trademark in 1917 but by 1921 it was no longer used in advertising. It had been replaced with ‘Maybelline’, a word Tom Lyle reputedly created by combining his sister’s name (Mabel) with the ‘ine’ of Vaseline. The reason usually given for the change was that the original name proved to be a mouthful. However, this simple explanation is not the whole truth.


In 1920 Tom Lyle was taken to court to settle a trademark dispute with Benjamin Ansehl, the founder of ‘Lashbrow Laboratories’. The outcome of the case was that Maybell Laboratories trademark for Lash-Brow-Ine was invalidated and Tom Lyle was given a court order to remove and destroy any references to Lash-Brow-Ine from that day onward.


Lashbrow Laboratories


Lashbrow Laboratories was started by Benjamin Ansehl in St Louis in 1912. It also made an eyebrow and eyelash growth promoter marketed as ‘Lashbrow’. The similarity between the names Lashbrow and Lash-Brow-Ine was the cause of the trademark dispute.


According to court records Lashbrow consisted of petrolatum, beeswax and powdered willow charcoal. It may have been made to a recipe similar to the one given below:


Vaseline yellow 56 


Beeswax 4 


Lampblack 40 


The mixture of ‘Vaseline’ and beeswax is melted by being placed in a warm mortar, and the lampblack is well ground in. The preparation is stored in small pots.


Redgrove & Foan, 1930, pp. 67-68


‘Lashbrow’ was marketed as promoting the growth of eyebrows and eyelashes rather than as a mascara. The product sold well enough for Ansehl to extend sales at the end of 1912 to the rest of the United States through Meyer Bros., a wholesale drug company.


Maybelline


In 1917 Tom Lyle developed a new product for darkening and lengthening eyelashes he called ‘Maybelline’. This product was an early version of what would be later known as cake mascara although Williams did not refer to it as such. It was a mixture of sodium stearate soap and pigment mixed together, extruded into strips, stamped and dried and was applied with a small brush that was first wet before being rubbed over the cake.


Why did Williams call the new product ‘Maybelline’? This was a new line and perhaps after all ‘Lash-Brow-Ine’ was hard to say. However, cake mascara is not vaseline based so that part of the story cannot be true.


A name change


Williams advertised extensively, particularly in film magazines such as ‘Photoplay’. In 1920, while the court case was running, advertisements were taken out for Lash-Brow-Ine and Maybelline. In one version the two products are clearly differentiated by suggesting that Lash-Brow-Ine should be applied at night to ‘nourish and promote growth’, while Maybelline makes lashes and eyebrows ‘longer, thicker and more luxuriant’. However, the advertising copy for that year is not consistent and in another advertisement the two products appear to be equivalent:


Just a wee touch of the little brush over your eyelashes and eyebrows with Lash-Brow-Ine and you will find a new beauty in your eyes. For Maybelline instantly furnishes that delicate touch of darker color so necessary to eyelashes and eyebrows while they are gently invigorated by the little brush.

            1920 Maybell Laboratories Advertisement


     1920 [September] Viola Dana endorsement for ‘Lash-     Brow-Ine’ and ‘Maybelline’.


The lack of consistency in the advertising in 1920 probably reflects the uncertainty generated by the court case. However, it is clear that Lash-Brow-Ine was not renamed Maybelline simply because it was hard to say. Tom Lyle was probably hoping to maintain both products on the market as Lash-Brow-Ine had been a good earner and 1920 was not the best time to lose it. The world was in the middle of a post-war depression that would run through to 1922 so times were tough and as Maybelline was more expensive – it sold for 75 cents compared to 50 cents for Lash-Brow-Ine – there may have been concerns about potential sales. However, the court case forced Tom Lyle’s hand and Lash-Brow-Ine soon disappeared.


In 1923, Maybell Laboratories was renamed Maybelline and concentrated operations on eye make-up. The business flourished, helped by the continued use of extensive advertising and Tom Lyle’s shrewd use of actresses as role models. A liquid form of Maybelline was made available and sales of the “solid form” and “waterproof liquid form” of Maybelline did well, eventually finding their way onto the toilet counters of drug, variety and department stores.

See also Maybelline


19th April 2010


Sources


Poucher, W. A. (1932) Perfumes, cosmetics and soaps, Vols. 1-2 (4th ed.). London: Chapman and Hall.


Quirk, J. R. (1920) Photoplay magazine. Chicago, Ill.: Photoplay Publishing Co.


Redgrove, H. S. & Foan, G. A. (1930). Paint, powder and patches: A handbook of make-up for stage and carnival. London: William Heinemann.


The United States Trade-Mark Association. (1921). The trade-mark reporter. Volume 10. New York: Author.


Williams, S. & Youngs, B. (2010). The Maybelline story and the spirited family dynasty behind it. Florida: Bettie Youngs Books Publishing.

1920 [April-May] Ethyl Clayton endorsement for ‘Lash-Brow-Ine’.1920 [December] Ethyl Clayton endorsement Lash-Brow-Ine and other cosmetics. Note the Maybelline box in the background and the interchange of Lash-Brow-Ine and Maybelline in the copy.


Copyright © 2011 James Bennett 

email: cosmeticsandskin@gmail.com

Vogues in beauty come and go then crop up again in the never-ceasing search for something new.

—G. Vail (1947)



email: cosmeticsandskin@gmail.com

Speaking of scary nightmare stories, here's one that actually happened to Tom Lyle Williams and Maybelline.

BUY MY BOOK... ALL MAJOR CREDIT CARDS ACCEPTED

http://www.maybellinebook.com/p/buy-my-book.html

There was one tiny little problem with the Williams copyright. A St. Louis man by the name of Benjamin Ansehl had started a company called Lashbrow Laboratories in 1912 and was already marketing a similar product. Williams sued for copyright infringement by Ansehl and a counter suit immediately ensued.

The case of ANSEHL v. WILLIAMS was heard in the Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, St. Louis, Missouri, July 15, 1920. You can read the entire decision, but here is a little background of the case as recorded in The Federal Reporter: 

In September, 1915, appellee [Williams], under the name of Maybell Laboratories, commenced selling at Chicago, Ill., a preparation for promoting and stimulating the growth of eyebrows and lashes, under the tradename of Lash-Brow-Ine. The name was suggested by preparations of a similar character then on the market under the names of Eye-BrowIne and Lashneen. The suffix "ine" was used, because the principal ingredient contained in appellee's preparation was chiefly petrolatum, a form of vaseline. Appellee commenced to advertise his preparation in October, 1915, and since then has advertised in over 50 different magazines, and had paid for advertising at the time of trial $67,084.19; the monthly expense for advertising having increased to about $3,000 per month. The preparation, sold directly to consumers at 50 cents per box, had amounted to 149,000 mail orders since the business was started. Sales were also made in gross to about 3,000 dealers, located in every state of the Union. Appellee testified that he never heard of Lashbrow, or Lashbrow Laboratories, until about September 1, 1918. About November 1, 1918, appellee caused appellant [Ansehl] to be notified to cease infringing appellee's trade-mark. Appellant refusing so to do, this suit was commenced December 17, 1918.

Since commencing the sale of his preparation appellee has done a business amounting to $111,759.73. The trade-mark Lash-Brow-Ine was registered in the United States Patent Office April 24, 1917. The main ingredients of the preparation sold by appellee were a superfine petrolatum and paraffine, a high-grade perfume, and other small ingredients. No reply was received by appellee to the notification above stated until November 11, 1918, when the receipt of the letter of appellee of November 1, 1918, was acknowledged with a statement that appellant had used the trade-mark "Lashbrow" much earlier than 1915, and a request that appellee desist from infringing the same, or suit would be brought by the appellant for an injunction and an accounting. No such suit was brought.There was introduced in evidence a large number of advertisements appearing in various publications. The evidence on the part of appellant showed that he conceived the idea of manufacturing and putting on the market a preparation for stimulating and promoting the growth of eyebrows and eyelashes in 1911; that the formula for this preparation was one used by his mother for her eyebrows and eyelashes when she was a girl. Appellant commenced selling his preparation in the spring of 1912, under the trade-mark of "Lashbrow," to a small drug store on Jefferson and Lafayette avenues in the city of St. Louis, Mo. This was followed by soliciting trade from all the large dealers and retail stores in St. Louis, where the preparation was offered for sale. Appellant then started a campaign of advertising which began on October 12, 1912, in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. This advertising brought him business from nearby states, such as Illinois and Indiana, and the entire Southwest. Appellant's business has been conducted since its commencement at 1755 Preston street, St. Louis, Mo., where he was doing business when enjoined in May, 1919. The stores referred to by appellant in his testimony were Wolf-Wilson, Judge & Dolph, Grand Leader, Famous & Barr, Nugent's, Hirsch's Hair Bazaar, and Schaper, being the leading stores in St. Louis. The preparation was sold through these stores in 1912. Appellant had printed 1,000 cardboard fliers and 1,000 transparent fliers, which were mailed to about 1,500 stores throughout the United States. A counter display card was also distributed throughout the country in 1913. A sample of appellant's preparation was mailed to the buyers of about 800 or 900 department stores throughout the country.

It's an interesting look at doing business in the early twentieth century and the birth of a mega corp.

In October, 1920 the decision was set down in favor of Benjamin Ansehl. Williams had to stop using the Lash-Brow-Ine name. From then on the ads, like the one at left featuring film star Phyllis Haver, featured only the Maybelline name. Williams had lost the battle. But a walk down any cosmetics aisle will tell you he clearly won the war. 

There was one tiny little problem with the Williams copyright. A St. Louis man by the name of Benjamin Ansehl had started a company called Lashbrow Laboratories in 1912 and was already marketing a similar product. Williams sued for copyright infringement by Ansehl and a counter suit immediately ensued.

The case of ANSEHL v. WILLIAMS was heard in the Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, St. Louis, Missouri, July 15, 1920. You can read the entire decision, but here is a little background of the case as recorded in The Federal Reporter: 

In September, 1915, appellee [Williams], under the name of Maybell Laboratories, commenced selling at Chicago, Ill., a preparation for promoting and stimulating the growth of eyebrows and lashes, under the tradename of Lash-Brow-Ine. The name was suggested by preparations of a similar character then on the market under the names of Eye-BrowIne and Lashneen. The suffix "ine" was used, because the principal ingredient contained in appellee's preparation was chiefly petrolatum, a form of Vaseline  Appellee commenced to advertise his preparation in October, 1915, and since then has advertised in over 50 different magazines, and had paid for advertising at the time of trial $67,084.19; the monthly expense for advertising having increased to about $3,000 per month. The preparation, sold directly to consumers at 50 cents per box, had amounted to 149,000 mail orders since the business was started. Sales were also made in gross to about 3,000 dealers, located in every state of the Union. Appellee testified that he never heard of Lashbrow, or Lashbrow Laboratories, until about September 1, 1918. About November 1, 1918, appellee caused appellant [Ansehl] to be notified to cease infringing appellee's trade-mark. Appellant refusing so to do, this suit was commenced December 17, 1918.

Since commencing the sale of his preparation appellee has done a business amounting to $111,759.73. The trade-mark Lash-Brow-Ine was registered in the United States Patent Office April 24, 1917. The main ingredients of the preparation sold by appellee were a superfine petrolatum and paraffine, a high-grade perfume, and other small ingredients. No reply was received by appellee to the notification above stated until November 11, 1918, when the receipt of the letter of appellee of November 1, 1918, was acknowledged with a statement that appellant had used the trade-mark "Lashbrow" much earlier than 1915, and a request that appellee desist from infringing the same, or suit would be brought by the appellant for an injunction and an accounting. No such suit was brought.

There was introduced in evidence a large number of advertisements appearing in various publications. The evidence on the part of appellant showed that he conceived the idea of manufacturing and putting on the market a preparation for stimulating and promoting the growth of eyebrows and eyelashes in 1911; that the formula for this preparation was one used by his mother for her eyebrows and eyelashes when she was a girl. Appellant commenced selling his preparation in the spring of 1912, under the trade-mark of "Lashbrow," to a small drug store on Jefferson and Lafayette avenues in the city of St. Louis, Mo. This was followed by soliciting trade from all the large dealers and retail stores in St. Louis, where the preparation was offered for sale. Appellant then started a campaign of advertising which began on October 12, 1912, in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. This advertising brought him business from nearby states, such as Illinois and Indiana, and the entire Southwest. Appellant's business has been conducted since its commencement at 1755 Preston street, St. Louis, Mo., where he was doing business when enjoined in May, 1919. The stores referred to by appellant in his testimony were Wolf-Wilson, Judge & Dolph, Grand Leader, Famous & Barr, Nugent's, Hirsch's Hair Bazaar, and Schaper, being the leading stores in St. Louis. The preparation was sold through these stores in 1912. Appellant had printed 1,000 cardboard fliers and 1,000 transparent fliers, which were mailed to about 1,500 stores throughout the United States. A counter display card was also distributed throughout the country in 1913. A sample of appellant's preparation was mailed to the buyers of about 800 or 900 department stores throughout the country.

It's an interesting look at doing business in the early twentieth century and the birth of a mega corp.

In October, 1920 the decision was set down in favor of Benjamin Ansehl. Williams had to stop using the Lash-Brow-Ine name. From then on the ads, like the one at left featuring film star Phyllis Haver, featured only the Maybelline name. Williams had lost the battle. But a walk down any cosmetics aisle will tell you he clearly won the war.
Posted by The Chicago History Journal
Chicago Law History by Joe Mathewson

Recommended reading:

Phyllis Haver: When Stars Burn Out (Tattered and Lost Ephemera)

Lash-Brow-Ine (Cosmetics and Skin)

Be sure to visit my Hillarious Saffrons Rule Blog at http://saffronsrule.com/

Nightmare at Maybelline!!!

Happy Halloween!!  Speaking of scary nightmare stories, here is one that actually turned out to be the best thing that ever happened for Tom Lyle Williams and Maybelline.
 There was one tiny little problem with the Williams copyright. A St. Louis man by the name of Benjamin Ansehl had started a company called Lashbrow Laboratories in 1912 and was already marketing a similar product. Williams sued for copyright infringement by Ansehl and a counter suit immediately ensued.

The case of ANSEHL v. WILLIAMS was heard in the Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, St. Louis, Missouri, July 15, 1920. You can read the entire decision, but here is a little background of the case as recorded in The Federal Reporter:

In September, 1915, appellee [Williams], under the name of Maybell Laboratories, commenced selling at Chicago, Ill., a preparation for promoting and stimulating the growth of eyebrows and lashes, under the tradename of Lash-Brow-Ine. The name was suggested by preparations of a similar character then on the market under the names of Eye-BrowIne and Lashneen. The suffix "ine" was used, because the principal ingredient contained in appellee's preparation was chiefly petrolatum, a form of vaseline. Appellee commenced to advertise his preparation in October, 1915, and since then has advertised in over 50 different magazines, and had paid for advertising at the time of trial $67,084.19; the monthly expense for advertising having increased to about $3,000 per month. The preparation, sold directly to consumers at 50 cents per box, had amounted to 149,000 mail orders since the business was started. Sales were also made in gross to about 3,000 dealers, located in every state of the Union. Appellee testified that he never heard of Lashbrow, or Lashbrow Laboratories, until about September 1, 1918. About November 1, 1918, appellee caused appellant [Ansehl] to be notified to cease infringing appellee's trade-mark. Appellant refusing so to do, this suit was commenced December 17, 1918.

Since commencing the sale of his preparation appellee has done a business amounting to $111,759.73. The trade-mark Lash-Brow-Ine was registered in the United States Patent Office April 24, 1917. The main ingredients of the preparation sold by appellee were a superfine petrolatum and paraffine, a high-grade perfume, and other small ingredients. No reply was received by appellee to the notification above stated until November 11, 1918, when the receipt of the letter of appellee of November 1, 1918, was acknowledged with a statement that appellant had used the trade-mark "Lashbrow" much earlier than 1915, and a request that appellee desist from infringing the same, or suit would be brought by the appellant for an injunction and an accounting. No such suit was brought.There was introduced in evidence a large number of advertisements appearing in various publications. The evidence on the part of appellant showed that he conceived the idea of manufacturing and putting on the market a preparation for stimulating and promoting the growth of eyebrows and eyelashes in 1911; that the formula for this preparation was one used by his mother for her eyebrows and eyelashes when she was a girl. Appellant commenced selling his preparation in the spring of 1912, under the trade-mark of "Lashbrow," to a small drug store on Jefferson and Lafayette avenues in the city of St. Louis, Mo. This was followed by soliciting trade from all the large dealers and retail stores in St. Louis, where the preparation was offered for sale. Appellant then started a campaign of advertising which began on October 12, 1912, in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. This advertising brought him business from nearby states, such as Illinois and Indiana, and the entire Southwest. Appellant's business has been conducted since its commencement at 1755 Preston street, St. Louis, Mo., where he was doing business when enjoined in May, 1919. The stores referred to by appellant in his testimony were Wolf-Wilson, Judge & Dolph, Grand Leader, Famous & Barr, Nugent's, Hirsch's Hair Bazaar, and Schaper, being the leading stores in St. Louis. The preparation was sold through these stores in 1912. Appellant had printed 1,000 cardboard fliers and 1,000 transparent fliers, which were mailed to about 1,500 stores throughout the United States. A counter display card was also distributed throughout the country in 1913. A sample of appellant's preparation was mailed to the buyers of about 800 or 900 department stores throughout the country.


It's an interesting look at doing business in the early twentieth century and the birth of a mega corp.

In October, 1920 the decision was set down in favor of Benjamin Ansehl. Williams had to stop using the Lash-Brow-Ine name. From then on the ads, like the one at left featuring film star Phyllis Haver, featured only the Maybelline name. Williams had lost the battle. But a walk down any cosmetics aisle will tell you he clearly won the war.

There was one tiny little problem with the Williams copyright. A St. Louis man by the name of Benjamin Ansehl had started a company called Lashbrow Laboratories in 1912 and was already marketing a similar product. Williams sued for copyright infringement by Ansehl and a counter suit immediately ensued.



The case of ANSEHL v. WILLIAMS was heard in the Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, St. Louis, Missouri, July 15, 1920. You can read the entire decision, but here is a little background of the case as recorded in The Federal Reporter:







In September, 1915, appellee [Williams], under the name of Maybell Laboratories, commenced selling at Chicago, Ill., a preparation for promoting and stimulating the growth of eyebrows and lashes, under the tradename of Lash-Brow-Ine. The name was suggested by preparations of a similar character then on the market under the names of Eye-BrowIne and Lashneen. The suffix "ine" was used, because the principal ingredient contained in appellee's preparation was chiefly petrolatum, a form of vaseline. Appellee commenced to advertise his preparation in October, 1915, and since then has advertised in over 50 different magazines, and had paid for advertising at the time of trial $67,084.19; the monthly expense for advertising having increased to about $3,000 per month. The preparation, sold directly to consumers at 50 cents per box, had amounted to 149,000 mail orders since the business was started. Sales were also made in gross to about 3,000 dealers, located in every state of the Union. Appellee testified that he never heard of Lashbrow, or Lashbrow Laboratories, until about September 1, 1918. About November 1, 1918, appellee caused appellant [Ansehl] to be notified to cease infringing appellee's trade-mark. Appellant refusing so to do, this suit was commenced December 17, 1918.



Since commencing the sale of his preparation appellee has done a business amounting to $111,759.73. The trade-mark Lash-Brow-Ine was registered in the United States Patent Office April 24, 1917. The main ingredients of the preparation sold by appellee were a superfine petrolatum and paraffine, a high-grade perfume, and other small ingredients. No reply was received by appellee to the notification above stated until November 11, 1918, when the receipt of the letter of appellee of November 1, 1918, was acknowledged with a statement that appellant had used the trade-mark "Lashbrow" much earlier than 1915, and a request that appellee desist from infringing the same, or suit would be brought by the appellant for an injunction and an accounting. No such suit was brought.



There was introduced in evidence a large number of advertisements appearing in various publications. The evidence on the part of appellant showed that he conceived the idea of manufacturing and putting on the market a preparation for stimulating and promoting the growth of eyebrows and eyelashes in 1911; that the formula for this preparation was one used by his mother for her eyebrows and eyelashes when she was a girl. Appellant commenced selling his preparation in the spring of 1912, under the trade-mark of "Lashbrow," to a small drug store on Jefferson and Lafayette avenues in the city of St. Louis, Mo. This was followed by soliciting trade from all the large dealers and retail stores in St. Louis, where the preparation was offered for sale. Appellant then started a campaign of advertising which began on October 12, 1912, in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. This advertising brought him business from nearby states, such as Illinois and Indiana, and the entire Southwest. Appellant's business has been conducted since its commencement at 1755 Preston street, St. Louis, Mo., where he was doing business when enjoined in May, 1919. The stores referred to by appellant in his testimony were Wolf-Wilson, Judge & Dolph, Grand Leader, Famous & Barr, Nugent's, Hirsch's Hair Bazaar, and Schaper, being the leading stores in St. Louis. The preparation was sold through these stores in 1912. Appellant had printed 1,000 cardboard fliers and 1,000 transparent fliers, which were mailed to about 1,500 stores throughout the United States. A counter display card was also distributed throughout the country in 1913. A sample of appellant's preparation was mailed to the buyers of about 800 or 900 department stores throughout the country.

It's an interesting look at doing business in the early twentieth century and the birth of a mega corp.

In October, 1920 the decision was set down in favor of Benjamin Ansehl. Williams had to stop using the Lash-Brow-Ine name. From then on the ads, like the one at left featuring film star Phyllis Haver, featured only the Maybelline name. Williams had lost the battle. But a walk down any cosmetics aisle will tell you he clearly won the war.
Posted by
The Chicago History Journal
Chicago Law History by Joe Mathewson


Recommended reading:

Phyllis Haver: When Stars Burn Out (Tattered and Lost Ephemera)

Lash-Brow-Ine (Cosmetics and Skin)

Maybelline during Prohibition and Hollywood's Heyday -1920's.

Women became aware of Lash-Brow-Ine, as Hollywood  broke the Victorian code of sexual silence. 

Risque photographs in the early 1900's revealed skin, as well as theatrical make-up - still not accepted on the street yet!

Hollywood introduced a new standard of beauty through the lens of a camera, and the public slowly replaced virtue - as a measure of beauty - for vanity.

Tom Lyle, through Hollywood Star endorsements, promoted Lash-Brow-Ine, as films were being pumped out and sent to theaters all over the country.

In 1920, Gloria Swanson, one of Hollywood's biggest Stars, endorsed Lash-Brow-Ine - raising the bar for courageous women to makeup their eyes - the same year women got the vote and Prohibition became the Law of the land.

Read more about Hollywood Silent Film Stars, Lash-Brow-Ine and Maybelline in The Maybelline Story.

Watch PBS PROHIBITION (click here)

Check out the trailer for Season 3, Boardwalk Empire, and get the feeling of Prohibition and the 1920's. 

 

The Maybelline Story, also captures Prohibition in gangland Chicago and Hollywood.  Be sure to purchase a copy at www.maybelliebook.com