Guitar Gear Forum

So it looks like Gibson is going after DiMarzio to have their claim to double cream and the term PAF vacated. Not sure how this all will play out but it’s interesting for sure. Not sure how much of a leg to stand on Gibson has, legally.

https://guitar.com/news/industry-news/g ... bz6w6iuamd

A lot of companies are making double creams now. I don't think DiMarzio cares about it anymore.

Honestly, I don't think double cream pickups look that good to begin with. But it's representative of the mid-late 70's. There's a tone that comes with that look and yes it's the DiMarzio Super D/PAF combo.

If I picked up a guitar with double creams that didn't sound like the 70's DiMarzio tone, I'd be disappointed, tbh. What I want from double creams is Ace, Joe Perry, Tom Scholz, Maiden, NWOBHM etc which is without a doubt a Super Distortion. Anything different would be lame IMHO. It's like the EVH stripes on a Jazz box.

I think it's more of a matter of people wanting it because they can't have it. I doubt we will see a surge of players using non-DiMarzio double creams if this happens. I think every company will offer it, it will sell well while it's novelty (like a month), every insufferable YouTuber will celebrate the "victory" to clickbait people to their videos, then it will fizzle out.

And people wanting the 70s vibe will continue to get Super Ds and PAFs in double cream. Because again, there's a sound associated with that look.

GuitarBilly wrote:A lot of companies are making double creams now. I don't think DiMarzio cares about it anymore.

Honestly, I don't think double cream pickups look that good to begin with. But it's representative of the mid-late 70's. There's a tone that comes with that look and yes it's the DiMarzio Super D/PAF combo.

If I picked up a guitar with double creams that didn't sound like the 70's DiMarzio tone, I'd be disappointed, tbh. What I want from double creams is Ace, Joe Perry, Tom Scholz, Maiden, NWOBHM etc which is without a doubt a Super Distortion. Anything different would be lame IMHO. It's like the EVH stripes on a Jazz box.

I think it's more of a matter of people wanting it because they can't have it. I doubt we will see a surge of players using non-DiMarzio double creams if this happens. I think every company will offer it, it will sell well while it's novelty (like a month), every insufferable YouTuber will celebrate the "victory" to clickbait people to their videos, then it will fizzle out.

And people wanting the 70s vibe will continue to get Super Ds and PAFs in double cream. Because again, there's a sound associated with that look.

That's actually what I think too. I think starting out for DiMarzio it was something needed, but at this stage most folks know DiMarzio for a variety of pickups. And 100% to both bold parts. I saw a beautiful Norlin Tobacco Burst LP at the Lansing GC that had double cream DiMarzios in it. Super Distortion and PAF. When I sold my Helix, I met the buyer at the GC so he could test it and I didn't have time to play it. Otherwise, I'd have grabbed that, a Marshall and ripped out some KISS and Maiden riffs to everyone's chagrin.

Also I was stoked to have double cream HBs in my Goldtop, but I wanted PAF style pickups and grabbed a set of Mules in double cream. And funnily enough, I preferred the look of the guitar with covers on the pickups anyway and soldered them on. The only guitar I loved with double creams I had was a honey burst trad I sold.

Screw gibson. I hope dimarzio trademarks everything and ruins gibson. I hope my cousin vinny represents them in court.

my wagners in my LP are double creme

Seth Lover invented the humbucker while At Gibson. It was double black and double cream. Over the years Gibson lost track on the importance of maintaining its property and Larry trademarked it. It was originally Gibson designed and we are all better for it today. They obviously got around it by calling them classic white but I can see why they want to fight this one out. It’s theirs to begin with.

fretless wrote:Seth Lover invented the humbucker while At Gibson. It was double black and double cream. Over the years Gibson lost track on the importance of maintaining its property and Larry trademarked it. It was originally Gibson designed and we are all better for it today. They obviously got around it by calling them classic white but I can see why they want to fight this one out. It’s theirs to begin with.

Exactly. I understand trademarking something you created, but just trademarking something because no one else did yet is ridiculous, especially when it's a color. Imagine Ferrari had a trademark for red cars. Then Aston Martin gets a trademark for silver cars, and so on and so forth.

I mean patent trolling is very much a thing unfortunately.

ZEEGLER wrote:

fretless wrote:Seth Lover invented the humbucker while At Gibson. It was double black and double cream. Over the years Gibson lost track on the importance of maintaining its property and Larry trademarked it. It was originally Gibson designed and we are all better for it today. They obviously got around it by calling them classic white but I can see why they want to fight this one out. It’s theirs to begin with.

Exactly. I understand trademarking something you created, but just trademarking something because no one else did yet is ridiculous, especially when it's a color. Imagine Ferrari had a trademark for red cars. Then Aston Martin gets a trademark for silver cars, and so on and so forth.

I think most people confuse patents with trademarks. Trademarks are not inventions, they're just a brand identifier and yes, it can be a color. UPS didn't invent trucks or the color brown, but they have a trademark on brown delivery trucks, DHL has it on yellow delivery trucks, John Deere has it on green farming equipment.

If you take the picture of Race4Her Les Paul posted here and show it to another guitar player without any explanation, most will say that's a "Les Paul with DiMarzios" because people identify double cream pickups with them. DiMarzio chose this color precisely because they wanted people to know they weren't stock Gibson pickups.

Gibson used double creams under the covers sometimes, but it was just whatever color they had on hand. They wanted their pickups to be covered and didn't care what the bobbins colors were.


It has nothing to do with inventions. That's for patents.

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.

I think it's angry Dave season. Here's hoping for a happy Dave 2024.

GuitarBilly wrote:I think it's angry Dave season. Here's hoping for a happy Dave 2024.

Sorry, my disdain for Larry's trademark nonsense is deep rooted and dating back decades at this point

Some anger is so deep rooted that it just summons angry Dave

Everyone:

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

Dave:

Fuck off Larry

This is why I heart you guys



and everyone but Larry Dimarzio.

Never one to shy away from a strong opinion

GuitarBilly wrote:

ZEEGLER wrote:

fretless wrote:Seth Lover invented the humbucker while At Gibson. It was double black and double cream. Over the years Gibson lost track on the importance of maintaining its property and Larry trademarked it. It was originally Gibson designed and we are all better for it today. They obviously got around it by calling them classic white but I can see why they want to fight this one out. It’s theirs to begin with.

Exactly. I understand trademarking something you created, but just trademarking something because no one else did yet is ridiculous, especially when it's a color. Imagine Ferrari had a trademark for red cars. Then Aston Martin gets a trademark for silver cars, and so on and so forth.

I think most people confuse patents with trademarks. Trademarks are not inventions, they're just a brand identifier and yes, it can be a color. UPS didn't invent trucks or the color brown, but they have a trademark on brown delivery trucks, DHL has it on yellow delivery trucks, John Deere has it on green farming equipment.

If you take the picture of Race4Her Les Paul posted here and show it to another guitar player without any explanation, most will say that's a "Les Paul with DiMarzios" because people identify double cream pickups with them. DiMarzio chose this color precisely because they wanted people to know they weren't stock Gibson pickups.

Gibson used double creams under the covers sometimes, but it was just whatever color they had on hand. They wanted their pickups to be covered and didn't care what the bobbins colors were.


It has nothing to do with inventions. That's for patents.

Yeah, I'm not saying it's not done. I just think it's overreaching. A logo?, fine. A mascot?, of course. A color? Dumb!

Again, imagine Ferrari trademarked red cars? It's something they're known for.

I'm with Dave. Fuck DiMarzio and their shitty-ass pickups!

ZEEGLER wrote:
Yeah, I'm not saying it's not done. I just think it's overreaching. A logo?, fine. A mascot?, of course. A color? Dumb!

Again, imagine Ferrari trademarked red cars? It's something they're known for.

That's one company that didn't trademark their color (sort of, they have a trademark for fully red racing cars, but not for passenger cars, racing has always been Ferrari's main business). But a lot of companies do. It's not "overreaching". It makes good business sense and it actually helps the public to identify products. If I am waiting from a package from UPS and one from Amazon, I can tell which one is arriving just by looking at the color of the truck down the street.
DiMarzio did something similar when they started out, you could tell a guitar had DiMarzio pickups because they were cream. All of a sudden, Ace etc had cream pickups in their guitars and that's how people knew they were using DiMarzios. That's the purpose of a trademark.

You're having an emotional response to this, because you don't like DiMarzio . But logically, from a business standpoint, trademarking the colors that identify your product is a good idea.

I mean he also trademarked the term PAF and he sure as shit didn't invent those.


Gibson did it first, and created the PAF, and Larry Dipshitarzio trademarked the appearance and name to prevent Gibson from selling them uncovered. He just made it financially impossible to challenge, and his lame ass lawyer tactics lead to his pickups being identified with that look.


Plus his pickups suck. Fuck Larry Dimarzio.

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.

Dave wrote:Larry Dipshitarzio

Lol. Quoted in case someone wants a new sig.

Diddlybo wrote: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.

GuitarBilly wrote:

ZEEGLER wrote:
Yeah, I'm not saying it's not done. I just think it's overreaching. A logo?, fine. A mascot?, of course. A color? Dumb!

Again, imagine Ferrari trademarked red cars? It's something they're known for.

That's one company that didn't trademark their color (sort of, they have a trademark for fully red racing cars, but not for passenger cars, racing has always been Ferrari's main business). But a lot of companies do. It's not "overreaching". It makes good business sense and it actually helps the public to identify products. If I am waiting from a package from UPS and one from Amazon, I can tell which one is arriving just by looking at the color of the truck down the street.
DiMarzio did something similar when they started out, you could tell a guitar had DiMarzio pickups because they were cream. All of a sudden, Ace etc had cream pickups in their guitars and that's how people knew they were using DiMarzios. That's the purpose of a trademark.

You're having an emotional response to this, because you don't like DiMarzio . But logically, from a business standpoint, trademarking the colors that identify your product is a good idea.

Nope. I only dislike DiMarzio because I think trademarking a color is ridiculous. We can agree to disagree I suppose. A color is simply a reflected wavelength of light. Every color exists in nature, therefore yes, trademarking a color is absolutely overreaching.