In 1987, a series of six Matchbox Toys were issued in Dinky Toys blister packs. There is an enduring myth among some collectors that Universal issued these blister packs unilaterally, in order to hijack the Dinky Toys trademark at no cost, or at the very least as a gambit that would somehow reduce the price it paid General Mills to obtain it. I hope I will be clear when I denounce this myth as “balderdash,” “poppycock,” or “nonsense.”
General Mills had gained international rights to the Dinky Toys brand when it purchased what was left of Airfix and Meccano France S.A. in 1981. And all agree that General Mills did not want to continue producing Dinky Toys. It wanted to leave the toy business entirely, besides which space figurines and video game cartridges were the in thing, not diecasts.
When I learned about the Dinky trademark being reunited, I wondered what would happen to it, and so corresponded with General Mills’ toy division (Kenner Parker) in France and the UK. Eventually I was referred to their US legal office and received this letter.
Unfortunately at the time I was was an under-employed journalist with a young family, and had no means to purchase the trademark and enter into the production of toys (which would have been necessary to defend the trademark). So no further action was taken. If we could just go back via a time machine and do something about it...
Anyhow, the letter shows that Kenner Parker was not ignoring the Dinky trademark, nor were they unaware of its value, as the myth-makers like to believe. It’s pretty certain that one of the two suitors for the brand mentioned in the letter was already Universal Toys.
Fiat 131 Abarth
Now, we come to the eventual issue of the Matchbox cars in Dinky Toys blister packs. I’m sure it’s true that they were sold in a toy store in Enfield, England, and that this was publicized, They were produced in very large quantities (still common today) and were available worldwide. A sophisticated corporation, as Universal was, does not engage in production of that sort and make specific legal statements on packaging without being on solid legal ground, and already being the trademark owner.
The Dinky-labeled Matchbox models were not produced to steal the trademark or get a lower price for it. They were produced to satisfy the requirement by various trademark offices worldwide that a trademark be in active use.
Back of the card
On that last point, I don’t find any evidence that the Dinky Toys trademark was used actively by General Mills between 1981 and 1986–87 when they sold it. (Though, Airfix Dinky Toys could still be found in shops as old stock until 1983 or 1984 at least.) So, yes, General Mills were sailing “close to the wind” and had to sell the trademark if they weren’t going to use it themselves.
All in all, it seems that Universal got the Dinky Toys trademark at a knockdown price, relatively speaking, but I don’t think that the Dinky-labeled Matchbox toys were any sort of bargaining gambit. In the end, these six little Dinky Toys are a fun part of the 1980’s Matchbox story and well worth searching out if you are a completist!
