Gibson files to cancel DiMarzio’s PAF and Double Cream pickup trademarks
- Thread starter uOpt
- Start date
Clint 55
OH THE DOUBLE THICK GLAZE!
Because of the trademark. It was granted in 1981. There's no better instance of circular reasoning than that lol - Dmz deserves the trademark because they have the trademark.
And noone else could legally produce double cream over the years.
Last edited:
beaubrummels
Well-known member
Not entirely accurate and a bit of reverse logic. They managed to trademark it in the U.S. Had no affect on foreign makers. The prevalence of double cream being mainly DiMarzios was because of their litigation, not because of any legitimate innovation on their part. If they lose the lawsuit, they will have no choice but to lose the trademark.
uOpt
Something Cool
I don't think any damages are being sought, so class action doesn't apply.
thank you Gibson!
Securb
One of Jerry's Kids
Inflames626
New member
I think it was unnecessary/unfair of DiMarzio to trademark these rather generic terms and it's also unnecessary/unfair for Gibson to try and cancel them.
It's like arguing over general terms like "SUV," "crossover," "sedan," etc.
Gibson's inflated prices pay for these adventures, adventures they don't deserve to undertake because they went bankrupt and still don't innovate, yet people continue to reward them. A "lifestyle brand" means nothing.
As for the double cream, does it matter what it's called? It's a slightly off white pickup. Strictly speaking, all pickups are "patent applied for" when they are designed, are they not? Ah, but are we supposed to infer that we mean a specific Gibson product from a specific time period when we say PAF?
If Gibson wins this, are they going to try to trademark "humbucker" because Seth Lover was working for them when he designed it?
Stop trying to make generic terms proprietary.
All these semantics seem unnecessary because gear companies will find synonyms in marketing to go after the same customer.
The rush of so many companies to make EVH inspired gear after his death comes to mind. Kramer Eruption. SD 78. EVH Frankenstein.
And then there's all the controversy over various people using Bill Lawrence designs.
As long as I know, and my ears can tell, what they're getting at, what it's called doesn't really matter to me.
That said, I'd appreciate people pointing out any nuances to me, like DiMarzio's Airbucker technology, that actually make any of this justified.
I mean, Airbucker is a specific construction method that gives a specific sound. All saying "double cream" does is make me hungry.
Edit: also, EMG, don't get any ideas about trademarking "active pickup."
It's like arguing over general terms like "SUV," "crossover," "sedan," etc.
Gibson's inflated prices pay for these adventures, adventures they don't deserve to undertake because they went bankrupt and still don't innovate, yet people continue to reward them. A "lifestyle brand" means nothing.
As for the double cream, does it matter what it's called? It's a slightly off white pickup. Strictly speaking, all pickups are "patent applied for" when they are designed, are they not? Ah, but are we supposed to infer that we mean a specific Gibson product from a specific time period when we say PAF?
If Gibson wins this, are they going to try to trademark "humbucker" because Seth Lover was working for them when he designed it?
Stop trying to make generic terms proprietary.
All these semantics seem unnecessary because gear companies will find synonyms in marketing to go after the same customer.
The rush of so many companies to make EVH inspired gear after his death comes to mind. Kramer Eruption. SD 78. EVH Frankenstein.
And then there's all the controversy over various people using Bill Lawrence designs.
As long as I know, and my ears can tell, what they're getting at, what it's called doesn't really matter to me.
That said, I'd appreciate people pointing out any nuances to me, like DiMarzio's Airbucker technology, that actually make any of this justified.
I mean, Airbucker is a specific construction method that gives a specific sound. All saying "double cream" does is make me hungry.
Edit: also, EMG, don't get any ideas about trademarking "active pickup."
Last edited:
Rex_Rocker
Well-known member
As someone said before, I would so like to be able to buy a double cream Blackened Black Winter, personally.
beaubrummels
Well-known member
DiMarzio's 'cream' was a very specific color mix designed to match Gibson's aged butyrate plastics, which is why other companies in the U.S. could still make ivory, mint and other simulated aged white colors.
Inflames626
New member
Thanks for the clarification. I can see how that color might look aged or relic'ed. There is a unique quality about it.
And yet, do car companies trademark their color codes? This is such a waste of time for both Gibson and DiMarzio and the costs will only be passed down to their customers.
This controversy makes me glad I like most of my pickups, like I like most of my guitars, black.
eclecticsynergy
New member
Two facts I think are relevant to the two facets of the case here:
A - The term 'PAF' that Larry claims to own is derived directly from the stickers on Gibson's early humbuckers, and was already being used at the time referring to those specific Gibson pickups.
B - As beaubrummels pointed out, DiMarzio's shade of cream was chosen deliberately to imitate uncovered Gibson PAFs which had aged a bit by the time Larry filed his claim.
Kudos to Gibson, using their team of lawyers for the greater good rather than for pushing around smaller builders.
Of course it isn't pure altruism - trying to salvage their reputation after being known as the big bad corporate bully.
Still a good thing in my book.
A - The term 'PAF' that Larry claims to own is derived directly from the stickers on Gibson's early humbuckers, and was already being used at the time referring to those specific Gibson pickups.
B - As beaubrummels pointed out, DiMarzio's shade of cream was chosen deliberately to imitate uncovered Gibson PAFs which had aged a bit by the time Larry filed his claim.
Kudos to Gibson, using their team of lawyers for the greater good rather than for pushing around smaller builders.
Of course it isn't pure altruism - trying to salvage their reputation after being known as the big bad corporate bully.
Still a good thing in my book.
marcello252
Well-known member
to me the fact that it is possible to patent a color pattern that it's not even in a trademarked logo is something umbearable, I understand why lawyers are one of the most hated categories over there
Inflames626
New member
PAF still seems like too general a term to trademark even if it is associated with Gibson. By this logic someone could try and trademark the term patent pending.
Applied for sounds a little silly. Okay. It's applied for. What now? Is it in force?
beaubrummels
Well-known member
Not a patent, just a trademark. The bar is lower for trademark. For a patent, it has to be a novel innovation, a process or physical, functional product. For trademark, it just has to be something that identifies your brand and is recognized by the average consumer as your brand.
Chistopher
malapterurus electricus tonewood instigator
Now there's something I never thought of. Whatever Gibson was trying to patent they clearly were not awarded it.
Inflames626
New member
I'm not sure if patent pending and patent applied for mean the same thing (kind of like the U.S. Inc. vs. the British Ltd.), but I'd think if Gibson were granted a patent they'd have a patent number stamped on every pickup they produce.
However, since each pickup has a slightly different design (wind, magnet, etc.), they can't really patent the PAF as a general idea because none of them are strict copies of Gibson's design. PAF and single coils are form factors. Like an ATX motherboard, a smartphone, or, again, a sedan or SUV. These general designs work their way into the language as generic terms.
Again, waste of everyone's time and money. I wish they'd void DiMarzio's trademarks and strike down Gibson's desire to own those trademarks at the same time, because that will be Gibson's next logical step.
Besides, how can you trademark a color you "own" that was based off the result of the natural aging process? Okay, I suppose you find a specific formulation to reproduce that color. But what's next now? Trying to trademark/patent new guitars and hardware that are relic'ed and artificially aged?
However, since each pickup has a slightly different design (wind, magnet, etc.), they can't really patent the PAF as a general idea because none of them are strict copies of Gibson's design. PAF and single coils are form factors. Like an ATX motherboard, a smartphone, or, again, a sedan or SUV. These general designs work their way into the language as generic terms.
Again, waste of everyone's time and money. I wish they'd void DiMarzio's trademarks and strike down Gibson's desire to own those trademarks at the same time, because that will be Gibson's next logical step.
Besides, how can you trademark a color you "own" that was based off the result of the natural aging process? Okay, I suppose you find a specific formulation to reproduce that color. But what's next now? Trying to trademark/patent new guitars and hardware that are relic'ed and artificially aged?
Similar threads
- Locked
