Dimarzio's defending their double cream

WolfeMacleod

V.I.P. Member
MLP Vendor
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
2,760
Reaction score
3,703
The further back I go. the harder these are getting to find.

1973 catalogue.

 

Jeremiah

The Worst
Joined
Aug 11, 2009
Messages
3,451
Reaction score
3,033
edited for being out of step with the thread.

I'll say this: I'm a dimarzio guy, but I do wish you the best of luck with the litigation, Wolf. More people making more pickups in more colors helps everyone
 

WolfeMacleod

V.I.P. Member
MLP Vendor
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
2,760
Reaction score
3,703
I'm not sure I understand your post.

Those guitars ^^^ are CLEARLY made to steal the look of another company.........If I had a "look" that was taking off with the public, and seeing that look immediately copied by the likes of Mity Mite or Ibanez, I'd apply for a trademark to protect my products (at least in the US).
The guitars themselves have nothing to do with it, and everything to do with this portion of the statement which I posted earlier.

1973.

Before Dimarzio's claimed Feb 1974.





Oh, and looky here. Here's a guitar being sold with exposed bobbins in 1972. At least three bleeding years before the legal existence of Dimarzio.




 

geetarfreek82

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2012
Messages
1,147
Reaction score
975
He might just dislike the company, regardless of the quality or function of their products.
Exactly. No company should be able to try to monopolize and entire area of a market. Apple makes things that are only compatible with their own products. They FORCE you to buy their brand. Plus I am an android user when it comes to cell phones and IPhones are consistently about 3 or more years behind android products, but the sheeple will continue to buy them "because everyone else buys them." If there is an entire store dedicated to replacing your cell phone screen, I want no part of it. :facepalm:

This brings me back around to Dimarzio... To trademark something that you did not come up with is just shady, and this litigation is long overdue!
 

J-Dizzle

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
3,015
Reaction score
2,534
No way were Dimarzios & super distortions well known before about 1975/76. That date of 1972 is BS.

I remember reading an Ace Frehley interview from about 1975 when they asked him what pickups be used and he said "its a really hot pickup wound by Larry Dimarzio".

He did not refer to it as a super distortion, nor did he refer to the company name, just Larry. That would indicate that everything regarding Dimarzio as a company & his pickup designs was still in the embryonic stages.

This is the guitar/pickups Ace was referring to.




I hope Dimarzio loses. I have no ill will against them as a company but their patent over the double cream is and has always been BS.

I would support Dimarzio's claim if it were for those hexagonal screws, to me, that is a distinctly Dimarzio look. But to claim ownership of double cream is just BS.
 

woolenmammoth

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2011
Messages
977
Reaction score
321
I remember reading an Ace Frehley interview from about 1975 when they asked him what pickups be used and he said "its a really hot pickup wound by Larry Dimarzio".

He did not refer to it as a super distortion, nor did he refer to the company name, just Larry. That would indicate that everything regarding Dimarzio as a company & his pickup designs was still in the embryonic stages.
the *only* thing this is indicative of is what a musician once told a reporter remembered by a third party and absolutely not one thing beyond that. The quality of clear, concise, fact based evidence in this thread should not be muddied by conjecture.
 

J-Dizzle

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
3,015
Reaction score
2,534
the *only* thing this is indicative of is what a musician once told a reporter remembered by a third party and absolutely not one thing beyond that. The quality of clear, concise, fact based evidence in this thread should not be muddied by conjecture.
well duh.

I was simply describing the way Dimarzio was being perceived by working musicians in the mid 70s.
 

WolfeMacleod

V.I.P. Member
MLP Vendor
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
2,760
Reaction score
3,703
I would support Dimarzio's claim if it were for those hexagonal screws, to me, that is a distinctly Dimarzio look. But to claim ownership of double cream is just BS.
I would support that as well.

FWIW, I have the editor of of of the magazine from the 1970's, that advertisements was claimed in, looking through his archives for any indication of ads between Feb 74 and Sept 75.
The earliest ad we can still find in Sept 75 Guitar Player.
 

darthphineas

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2014
Messages
553
Reaction score
183
I just want to see Duncan and Gibson step in and join the fight, since they'd profit the most from the trademark being cancelled. Only fair.
they understand how much filing a suit against DiMarzio would cost and how many double cream pickups they'd have to sell to break even. think of that in terms of years.... Cathy and Henry aren't spring chickens, you know.

easier for them to wait and to let their competition take the hit, not have to do the leg work, and then be in line to cash in with little/no effort spent.



Duncan and Dimarzio are the big two of aftermarket pickups but look at the difference in how they conduct business. Clearly there is no need to be a litigious and gimmicky dickbag to be a successful pickup winder
listen to the Lutherist podcast from a few days back. within the first 15 minutes Perry Ormsby talks about how the Duncan company has treated him. some might say that Cathy isn't running her company in the same spirit as when Seymour was actively there. hardly as dramatic and theatrical as the double cream issue, but some people might not consider one any more or less an angel than the other.
 

Walt_T

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2014
Messages
3,628
Reaction score
3,395
I have to admit, I love my late '70s SD/PAF set and the Twang King sets I own.
I haven't bought any new pickups in around 15 years. If I recall, the last three sets were a set of Joe Barden "Danny Gatton", Fender Vintage Noiseless Tele set, and a set of Harmonic Designs Z-90s.
Should I decide to change anything, I'd go with a current custom winder. Dimarzio is not even a consideration, there are so many choices now that were not available then.
With all the evidence presented here, a reasonable court (good luck) should revoke the Trade Mark.
Best of luck to you all!
 

LPSGME

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
3,953
Reaction score
3,215
re:..."Blow by Blow" [1975] ... "original pickups were exchanged for Gibson humbuckers"

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_lAy1sGMys[/ame]
 

cooljuk

Transducer Producer
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
17,378
Reaction score
25,960
I wish Seymour would trade/sell/give Jeff his Esquire back. :(
 

joesatch

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2009
Messages
4,213
Reaction score
2,824
it would seem Dimarzio would be well served to just charge a $5 royalty per double cream pickup. That way we can buy any brand double cream we want and Dimarzio gets their money, in the end everyone is happy.
 

cooljuk

Transducer Producer
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
17,378
Reaction score
25,960
it would seem Dimarzio would be well served to just charge a $5 royalty per double cream pickup. That way we can buy any brand double cream we want and Dimarzio gets their money, in the end everyone is happy.
I see what you're saying, but unfair taxes still deserve Boston Tea Parties.

As I understand it, they don't offer licensing. Not that they can't. They just don't.
 

joesatch

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2009
Messages
4,213
Reaction score
2,824
I see what you're saying, but unfair taxes still deserve Boston Tea Parties.

As I understand it, they don't offer licensing. Not that they can't. They just don't.
That's their loss because there are ways around it, like buying from Bareknuckle or other boutique makers.
 

trapland

Senior Member
Joined
May 18, 2015
Messages
486
Reaction score
386
Not that I read this whole thread, but why can't Gibson trademark silver and gold covered humbuckers and stick it to Dimarzio?

Hell, why didn't Gibson sue Dimarzio for patent infringement back in the day? Wasn't that a 20 year patent?

I accidentally bought a Dimarzio for a tele once. I forgot about this silly topic. Had it been a Humbucker, I would have remembered and NOT BOUGHT IT. Since the tele pickup, I've never make the mistake of buying a Dimarzio again. If they admitted they were wrong to trademark a color of a pickup they didn't invent, if they did that, I would say "Good for you, I think I'll try your pickups now." I'm not holding my breath.
 


Latest Threads



Top