Dimarzio's defending their double cream

rabidhamster

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
7,282
Reaction score
7,980
Dimarzios distinctive Pink hued cream color doesnt look like the genuine aged creamy white color on most pickups that predated them. Its noticeably pinker IMO.

Still, I don't think Cream should be a protected color name for the color that Dimarzio uses, either. I think their pinkcream might be distictive, but no one wants to copy them. they want to keep making the aged white pickups that have been around since the early 50s at least. Ive seen examples of guild and fender pickups in aged white - looked a lot more like cream to me than Dimarzios pinkyellow.


Dimarzio I think has to "admit" black as a standard color - otherwise they would not be able to claim they're doing something different. Though if the majority of their products dont use the color as their identity - then what exactly were they on about?
 

woolenmammoth

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2011
Messages
977
Reaction score
321
so much fun to read intellectual property threads on the internet where people cant discern the difference between a trade mark, a patent or a copyright but have all kinds of opinions on the subject. Maybe read up on this stuff first...
 

truckermde

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2012
Messages
17,331
Reaction score
21,736
Thank you for your input Mr. Macleod.

I'm with ya!

:thumb:
 

geetarfreek82

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2012
Messages
1,147
Reaction score
975
Dimarzio has to "admit" black as a standard color - otherwise they would not be able to claim they're doing something different.
It's been listed on their website as the standard color for over a decade.... I'd say that's an admission. Quick, someone screenshot it before Larry reads this and changes it!

Edit: here, I did it myself

 

WolfeMacleod

V.I.P. Member
MLP Vendor
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
2,760
Reaction score
3,703
Dimarzio I think has to "admit" black as a standard color - otherwise they would not be able to claim they're doing something different. Though if the majority of their products dont use the color as their identity - then what exactly were they on about?
They do. It's in their literature.
 

Kris Ford

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2011
Messages
4,751
Reaction score
4,121
My thing is this, what shade of cream is their trademark? I submit into evidence these pickups from my personal collection:



The pickup on the left is a very early ('72 or '73) Super Distortion, middle is a Super D from about '77, and third on the right is an '83 Steve Morse bridge pickup. It's kind of hard to see in the photo, but the '72 is very yellow (not from age), the '77 is more of a normal cream, and the Morse is bone white. That's a huge variation there, from the years in which this trademark was filed.
Mine were probably '74 or '75's and were more of the yellowish cream than the '77s you show. I *think* they were pre Made in USA stamp bases..:hmm:


Kinda makes you wonder...if it was a PROPRIETARY cream color, that's one thing, but these are all over the place!
 

JohnnyN

Just another old geezer
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
5,160
Reaction score
14,360
I don't think it holds here in Europe. Not that I care much since I prefer covers on my humbuckers. Double white/cream are nice though :)
 

WolfeMacleod

V.I.P. Member
MLP Vendor
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
2,760
Reaction score
3,703
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.

Wow, this is a rough crowd.

I hope Larry wins his case. He filed for the trademark, no one contested it and it was granted. Good for him.
So, essentially what the two of you are saying is that you feel that Dimarzio should retain the ability to suppress and eliminate legitimate competition through exclusive control of a color? Is that right? Do you feel that trademark law is made to prevent competition? Because it's not, it's there to bolster and increase competition.

I have news for you. Competition is what drives the economy.

Do you also believe that Goodyear should be able to trademark black tires? or Ford to trademark black cars? Honda red motorcycles?
How about if PRS trademarked a flamed-maple top? Or a sunburst? How do you feel about that?
 

WolfeMacleod

V.I.P. Member
MLP Vendor
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
2,760
Reaction score
3,703

Kris Ford

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2011
Messages
4,751
Reaction score
4,121
I think I found out why!

It says PEE bobbins..those must be the more yellowish ones?:laugh2:

Seriously though... Pee bobbins?:hmm:
Did they make a P Bass pickup in 1977?
 

MCAN

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2011
Messages
893
Reaction score
473
Let anyone on this site get the slightest whiff of a non-Gibson guitar with an "open book" profile headstock.... we get all :run:
The difference there though is those non-Gibsons are not trademarking the open book profile and then preventing Gibson from using it
 

WolfeMacleod

V.I.P. Member
MLP Vendor
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
2,760
Reaction score
3,703
I think I found out why!

It says PEE bobbins..those must be the more yellowish ones?:laugh2:

Seriously though... Pee bobbins?:hmm:
Did they make a P Bass pickup in 1977?
Haha. Yes, they did make P-b ass pickups in 1977. Or, at least they did in 1978.
A look at page 30 here will show the 1978 catalogue page.

That link contains all the paperwork Dimarzio ever filed to get and maintain the trademark. An interesting bit is page 26, where it's claimed that, basically, because of the cream mark, "reproduces.... the appearance and hardware of the originals" which is touting an advantage of the mark.
When reading this, keep in mind it has NOTHING to do with their trademark for the term "PAF" -- only for the double-cream mark. (starred in pen on the picture)
 

freefrog

Senior Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
1,541
Reaction score
952
Dimarzio sued Kinman is a New York court. Kinman could not afford to come to the US and defend himself. He lost by default.
Kinman's patent was valid for about two years before the Dimarzio patent, as I recall from reading back then.

Yes, Dimarzio stole the Kinman patent.
Just to be clear: that's what I had understood and the reason why I've posted the related link. :thumb:
 

OldBenKenobi

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
8,281
Reaction score
10,849
WolfeMacleod dropping knowledge in this ****ing thread, good lord.

I don't know how anyone can defend Dimarzio after the assblasting they just got handed.
 

RAG7890

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2010
Messages
17,515
Reaction score
31,725
I hope Dimarzio's loses. They should never had been given that patent. Both Gibson and Fender made double cream humbuckers before Dimarzio's.
100% correct. :thumb:

Another BS lawsuit.
1,000% correct.

That nonsense is enough for me to never consider purchasing his pickups.
Totally agree. :thumb:

Douchemarzio
:lol: :lol: :lol:................Lunchbox gets a Cigar. :laugh2: :thumb: :applause:

Larry stop being a knob.........this is total BS.

Hence I'll never consider anything DM makes.

My 2c FWIW.

:cheers2:
 

WolfeMacleod

V.I.P. Member
MLP Vendor
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
2,760
Reaction score
3,703
Just to be clear: that's what I had understood and the reason why I've posted the related link. :thumb:
Chris Kinman's patent in question.

Filed March 1996 http://www.google.com/patents/US5668520

Dimarzio patent that was claimed infringed upon
Filed Feb 1997 http://www.google.com/patents/US5908998

Note that the Dimarzio patent references the Kinman patent.

Dimarzio patent #2 which Dimarzio claimed was infringed upon
From 1982 http://www.google.com/patents/US4442749

Note that #2 was referenced by the Kinman patent. Similar patents and inventions are valid if they improve upon or are significantly different from existing designs. Kinman improved upon #2 "749", a patent from 1982.
Kinman's design was significantly different... Dimarzio's "749" used solid poles extending through both top and bottom coils, whereas Kinman used split poles, separate for top and bottom coils. Kinman used two isolating U-shaped barriers situated between and surrounding both coils for complete isolation, wheras 749 used only one, to extend around the uppermost coil.

Not only that, but this other 1997 patent by Dimarzio also references the valid Kinman patent: http://www.google.com/patents/US5811710

Dimarzio was aware that the Kinman patent was valid, as well as a better product. They snuffed out the competition of a better product.
 

WolfeMacleod

V.I.P. Member
MLP Vendor
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
2,760
Reaction score
3,703
WolfeMacleod dropping knowledge in this ****ing thread, good lord.

I don't know how anyone can defend Dimarzio after the assblasting they just got handed.
I've researched this trademark and every color trademark consistently, weekly, for 18 years, 10-15 hours per week. For 18 years. I have mountains of knowledge and documentation on the subject.
Just call me the Ben Kenobi of color trademark knowledge. :applause:
 

RAG7890

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2010
Messages
17,515
Reaction score
31,725
Not that anyone cares, but I concur with Wolf. :thumb: :applause:

Trademark (edit) on a Color is just dumb. It would have to be a Design & Colour, like a specific print.

Someone should take Larry to task over the actual Color.

The PU's posted showing various shades of DM's would make for an interesting argument in Court re Masterbatchs & what competitors are doing.

Did Larry actually submit a Masterbatch Color in his original Patent?

:cheers2:
 

WolfeMacleod

V.I.P. Member
MLP Vendor
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
2,760
Reaction score
3,703
Not that anyone cares, but I concur with Wolf. :thumb: :applause:

Patent on a Color is just dumb.


Trademark:facepalm:

And no, there is no Pantone shade claimed for the Mark. In fact, is is overly broad and could theoretically cover anything from off-white to yellow to somewhat brown. It reads as follows:


Description of Mark The mark comprises the double design representation of an electronic sound pickup for guitars, which is disclaimed apart from the mark as shown. AND IS LINED FOR THE COLOR YELLOW WHICH RESEMBLES THE DISTINCTIVE SHADE OF CREAM.
Ok, so what,exactly, is the "distinctive shade" of cream? Yellow resembles cream?
 

RAG7890

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2010
Messages
17,515
Reaction score
31,725

Trademark:facepalm:

And no, there is no Pantone shade claimed for the Mark. In fact, is is overly broad and could theoretically cover anything from off-white to yellow to somewhat brown. It reads as follows:


Ok, so what,exactly, is the "distinctive shade" of cream? Yellow resembles cream?
D'oh! Sorry I changed it to TM. My bad. :D

:cheers2:
 


Latest Threads



Top