Dimarzio's defending their double cream

Discussion in 'Pickups' started by Big John, Jul 15, 2016.

  1. Big John

    Big John it's all about the shirt V.I.P. Member

    Messages:
    7,244
    Likes Received:
    6,426
    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2007
    Don't know the details, but it appears that 'ol Larry is going after a boutique winder for making and selling double cream humbuckers. That's all I know. Feel free to add your 2¢...
     
  2. DavidRamey

    DavidRamey Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,575
    Likes Received:
    1,595
    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2013
    I hope Dimarzio's loses. They should never had been given that trademark. Both Gibson and Fender made double cream humbuckers before Dimarzio's.
     
    1 person likes this.
  3. TheX

    TheX Voice of Reason

    Messages:
    18,439
    Likes Received:
    29,172
    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2008
    Another BS lawsuit.
     
  4. copperheadroad

    copperheadroad Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,334
    Likes Received:
    532
    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2010
    Tricky Larry ........:hmm:
     
  5. vmjoe

    vmjoe Senior Member

    Messages:
    498
    Likes Received:
    102
    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2009
    That nonsense is enough for me to never consider purchasing his pickups.
     
    5 people like this.
  6. Guitar Rod

    Guitar Rod Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,439
    Likes Received:
    689
    Joined:
    May 29, 2016
    How's about everyone crowdfund their defense and challenge of this unreasonable copyright?
     
    3 people like this.
  7. ezra1

    ezra1 Senior Member

    Messages:
    897
    Likes Received:
    608
    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Who is getting served ?
     
  8. tazzboy

    tazzboy V.I.P. Member

    Messages:
    20,658
    Likes Received:
    13,990
    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Believe Wolfe of Wolfe Tone Pickups is helping a competitor challenge DiMarzio in Lawsuit over this. You might want to contact Wolf for the Deets.
     
    2 people like this.
  9. Who

    Who I'm back. Back in the New York groove.

    Messages:
    15,753
    Likes Received:
    27,960
    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2012
    It's neither. It's a "trademark". And saying "Gibson did it first" doesn't change that.

    "Burger King" was not the first company to be "The Home of The Whopper", but they did trademark it. And then forced a local business around here to take down their sign that had been on display for decades.


    DiMarzio trademarked something that stood out on their product. if they don't defend the trademark, they will forfeit it. I support DiMarzio on this. Not because "I like it", but because they ARE working within a system. We have rules. You'd hate it if we didn't.
     
    1 person likes this.
  10. cooljuk

    cooljuk Transducer Producer Premium Member

    Messages:
    14,097
    Likes Received:
    17,962
    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2009
  11. Who

    Who I'm back. Back in the New York groove.

    Messages:
    15,753
    Likes Received:
    27,960
    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2012
    Let anyone on this site get the slightest whiff of a non-Gibson guitar with an "open book" profile headstock.... we get all :run:

    But another company holds a trademark, and we're all "he's a dick", "we don't like that", "I can't believe a company can trademark that".


    This forum has specific rules that we don't display "replica" guitars. But show a pic of your non-DiMarzio double-cream set, and no one says a darn thing.



    [​IMG]
     
    3 people like this.
  12. lunchbox

    lunchbox Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,670
    Likes Received:
    8,850
    Joined:
    May 29, 2011
    Douchemarzio
     
  13. Who

    Who I'm back. Back in the New York groove.

    Messages:
    15,753
    Likes Received:
    27,960
    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2012
    Funny story, while looking up this trademark just now, I saw a trademark for "Death Star".

    It was first used in trade in 2014, and had the trademark applied for in 2016.


    I'm pretty sure that name predates 2014. In fact, I believe it was used.. [​IMG]
     
  14. lunchbox

    lunchbox Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,670
    Likes Received:
    8,850
    Joined:
    May 29, 2011
    Yeah, so like OJ is innocent since he won working within the system.

    And Wall St crashing the economy of the world is ok since they worked within the system.

    Etc...

    Got it.
     
  15. copperheadroad

    copperheadroad Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,334
    Likes Received:
    532
    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2010
    The one word when bringing up Larry name is Scumbag
    Funny you don't see factory tours of Dimarzio like you see with Duncan .. I suspect they are made overseas ...Who knows ?
     
  16. Guitar Rod

    Guitar Rod Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,439
    Likes Received:
    689
    Joined:
    May 29, 2016
    I'm of the opinion that you can't trademark a color that is a standard part of a particular product, in this case a guitar. Binding is cream. Pick guard, cream. Pickup surrounds, cream. Cavity covers, cream. Kluson style tuners, cream. And pickup bobbins were double cream long before Larry started a company and decided they were his. It is not unreasonable for consumers to want double cream pickups from any aftermarket company because they are a historical and standard color of a Les Paul guitar and there is no way that it would hold up in court. If he created a non-standard color pickup that became his company's image, that would hold up in court.
     
    3 people like this.
  17. Mark V Guitars

    Mark V Guitars バナナフライング...

    Messages:
    6,090
    Likes Received:
    6,995
    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2011
    No trademark on a color is gonna hold up in court. How that happened in the first place is ridiculous.
     
  18. Who

    Who I'm back. Back in the New York groove.

    Messages:
    15,753
    Likes Received:
    27,960
    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2012
    The law doesn't concern itself with our opinions.


    No company marketed or sold double-cream exposed-bobbin pickups before DiMarzio.

    If they had, they could have challenged the trademark, if they chose to. No one did.



    Something existing (even in trade or print) before a company is issued a trademark doesn't have a huge bearing on whether the trademark is issued, or is "valid".

    Example:

    1937:
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    1977:
    [​IMG]
     
  19. Who

    Who I'm back. Back in the New York groove.

    Messages:
    15,753
    Likes Received:
    27,960
    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2012
    They didn't trademark a color.

    And.. if you think a company can't trademark the color of its products, go try to put some delivery vans on the street that are a certain shade of brown.

    Or make scissors with a certain shade of orange handles.
    [​IMG]

    You'll find out that a color trademark DOES stand up in court.
     
  20. OldBenKenobi

    OldBenKenobi Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,714
    Likes Received:
    7,198
    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    What?

    There's an entire subforum filled with guitars with open book headstocks (which also use trademarked body shapes).

    People can question the validity of a trademark without being anarchists or hypocrites.

    Dimarzio having the trademark for double cream pickups is asinine, and I don't give a **** if it's legal or not. Dimarzio also has the trademark for the term "PAF," as well as (I believe) chrome bobbins. Also retarded. That doesn't mean I'm running around in a Guy Fawkes mask trying to upend law and order.
     
    1 person likes this.

Share This Page