Gibson suing to have DiMarzio’s trademark vacated.

[EndTime]

Is this Gibson's way of forcing Dimarzio to either protect their trademark or to go ahead and vacate it? Seems like Gibby is wanting to get into the double cream business without threat of being sued for trademark violations.

Yeah they want it to be vacated. As in, public domain. I don't think DiMarzio will even defend this, as it seems they do not care or need it at this day and age. The company is known for a lot of other models and colors now.
Gibson is already selling double creams btw, they're calling it off white or something, but you can buy them at the gibson website.

Edit: nope, they're not available anymore... that explains it looks like they got the cease and desist. Which is funny for Gibson, since they're the reigning masters of cease and desist letters lol.

In the end that might just be why Dimarzio might defend this. Of course I have no proof of that, but Gibson has put many companies in touch with their lawyers. And they aren’t the reason Dean is just about done but they sure put a nail in the coffin.

Maybe Dimarzio, is like yknow, we don’t even really sell much cream or advertise the cream shit anymore, But Gibson… Gibson is the one asking us to vacate it..? Yknow, I just might re-up. Lol

[ZEEGLER]

I mean, I think DiMarzio would have a pretty weak argument. A trademark is there to protect the intellectual property of a brand, and to prevent others from using a brand's recognized symbols or designs and benefitting from them. This implies that if other manufacturers were making double cream colored pickups, then they are somehow benefitting from DiMarzios established use of a double cream colored pickup. I don't see it this way at all. I'm not buying a pickup based on what color it is. Back to the car analogy. If I wanted to buy a green Honda Civic, but Honda Civics aren't available in green, I'm not going to buy a Chevy Cruze just because it's available in green. That's not to say that everyone would follow the same reasoning. Of course there are people who would buy a Super Distortion simply because they absolutely had to have a double cream colored pickup. Those people are what I call stupid.

Perhaps back when DiMarzio trademarked the double cream pickup, Gibson should have trademarked the double black pickup.

[fretless]

The are still up

https://www.gibson.com/en-US/Product/57 ... e/PU57DCW2

[GuitarBilly]

I mean, I think DiMarzio would have a pretty weak argument. A trademark is there to protect the intellectual property of a brand

No. That's a patent.

Trademark is an identification mark. Name, logo, product color. Anything that you use to identify your product. It has nothing to do with IP.

We're going in circles here because you have the 2 things confused. And personal bias.

BTW, every car model out there is loaded with trademarks. Name, emblem, body, front grill headlights shapes, any identifying words (like HEMI etc). Car companies don't care about trademarking colors for whatever reason, but they trademark just about everything else that is cosmetic in a car.

[Dave]

I hate that Bill is right

[GuitarBilly]

I hate that Bill is right

:

Honestly, I don't even know why I am defending this. I think double cream is my least liked pickup color. Every time I tried them in my guitars I ended up covering them. I don't even like Zebras, let alone full cream.

And out of my 10 guitars, only 2 have DiMarzios, I like a few of their models but they're far from being my favorite brand. And they're black. But I buy Duncans like 20:1 over DiMarzio.

But there's nothing wrong with their trademark. It's a really common business practice. Any business lawyer or marketing person will tell you that if you have a color scheme that identifies your product, you should trademark it.

[MikeO]

Everyone:

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

Dave:

Fuck off Larry

I think it's healthy to let Angry Dave out once in a while, otherwise he could go all Mount St Helens on someone. Also, it's nostalgic for us old timers who remember when Dave was angry all the time. Reminds us of the good old days before we had to get up and pee 15 times a night.

In small doses, Angry Dave is actually very entertaining. And Regular Dave is a treasure trove of knowledge with a lot of insightful opinions about gear.

Also, Fuck DiMarzio!

[GuitarBilly]

Yeah I like when Angry Dave pops in just to keep the forum in check lol

[GuitarBilly]

Oddly enough, this thread inspired me to use the DiMarzio PAF Pro I had laying around here. I put it in my HS strat and I've been playing it all morning. I forgot how much I like this pickup.

[ZEEGLER]

I mean, I think DiMarzio would have a pretty weak argument. A trademark is there to protect the intellectual property of a brand

No. That's a patent.

Trademark is an identification mark. Name, logo, product color. Anything that you use to identify your product. It has nothing to do with IP.

We're going in circles here because you have the 2 things confused. And personal bias.

BTW, every car model out there is loaded with trademarks. Name, emblem, body, front grill headlights shapes, any identifying words (like HEMI etc). Car companies don't care about trademarking colors for whatever reason, but they trademark just about everything else that is cosmetic in a car.

I don't have anything confused. I just have a hard time explaining myself.

I am well aware of what a patent is, and I know this isn't that. What I meant is that a trademark is a type of intellectual property that in most cases would be a logo or a mascot of some kind. You may be of the opinion that a double cream pickup says DiMarzio. That's an opinion. I've never equated a double cream pickup with Dimarzio because I've had dozens of double cream pickups that were not DiMarzios, and most Dimarzio's I've owned were black. I have no personal bias because I never felt one way or the other about DiMarzio. What does bother me is greedy companies grabbing up things that aren't theirs to grab. I'll say again, color is simply a particular wavelength of light. It's not a unique design. It's not a specific identifying logo or mascot or brand name. It's not even something they did first. Your opinion on the matter is no more valid than mine. 'Nuff said!

[GuitarBilly]

It's not an opinion. It's their trademark.

You can say all day long that brown trucks doesn't mean UPS but it's still their trademark.

Your opinion is that product colors shouldn't be trademarked, only mascots or logos. Good for you, but US IP law says they can trademark a product color.

So it's not my opinion vs yours. It's your opinion vs the law as it currently stands. I'm just quoting it.

btw, this doesn't apply where you live. Canadian companies can double cream all they want for their domestic market. So, buy local?

[Diddlybo]

I was at a gig last summer and a guy came up to me asked if my double cream pickup was a Dimarzio Super Distortion, which it is. So some people are still aware of Dimarzio's claim to that color.

It was a big thing in the early 70's. Back in those days, most of the people I knew probably didn't know which part of the guitar was the pickup. There was really no aftermarket pickup industry to speak of, you bought a guitar and played it like it was.

Larry had to educate the public about pickups and why you might want to replace them. Part of that process was to come up with a visual identification, so if you saw a player playing a Dimarzio pickup, you could easily tell. That brought us to the uncovered double cream bobbins.

It might seem silly now but it wasn't in 1975. It was Larry Dimarzio's way of bringing attention to his brand and to the concept that you might be able to improve your guitar sound by changing out those rectangular things under the strings.

But I do think they should let it go now. Times have changed, it doen't seem to be that important these days.

[GuitarBilly]

Gibson argument is that, by now, the pickup color is generic and even DiMarzio uses other colors.

And I actually agree with that argument! I do think by now it is indeed pretty generic.


BUT I also think that's an incredibly dangerous argument for Gibson to make. Because you know what else is generic? The Les Paul, SG, V, Explorer body shapes and a lot of other trademarks Gibson owns.

So it's a risky precedent for them to set.


I don't think they will win though, unless DiMarzio decides not to defend it. It takes a LOT for a court to vacate a trademark, especially one that's 50 years old.

[Diddlybo]

On a side note, I wonder if Paul Reed Smith has offered to pay Dimarzio's attorney fees?

[Telephant]

I hate Dimarzio

These are proper double cream pickups in a proper Les Paul:




Just because that New York wanker ripped them off and lawyered up doesn't change anything. I hope his company goes under.