Just Got This Link in an Email From Gibson...

Pushing around other pickup makers is one thing. Taking on Gibson is another - they've got trademark lawyers on retainer who are probably eager for a break from the usual business of hassling other builders makers for selling Explorer-shaped guitars.

That is my thinking also. Someone n legal found a way around Larry's trademark claim, and they are baiting him into another lawsuit with new ammo.
 
Thinking back, wasn't there a big trademark battle over double cream that ultimately got settled out of court on the grounds of if DiMarzio continued the case, they would have no chance of winning?

Maybe this is the rest of the world saying "we know you can't protect your TM anymore"
 
https://d2emr0qhzqfj88.cloudfront.ne...rademark_0.pdf

I support DiMarzio's trademark of double creme. The U.S. Patent and Trademark office did so 40 years ago and they still do. Bravo DiMarzio. He invented replacement pickups and Larry was smart to trademark double creme because he made his brand instantly recognizable, and trademarks do not expire. Patents do expire.

DiMarzio recently posted "The birth of the Super Distortion" article written by Larry DiMarzio. on their website. It's a fascinating read and he writes about the double creme idea.

https://www.dimarzio.com/stories/birth-super-distortion

BTW I'm not a "DiMarzio" only customer. I own and play several excellent Seymour Duncan pickups. My Strat has the YJM Fury Bridge and Vintage rails in the neck and middle. Great combination!
 
Last edited:
weird, like a day after I posted here about those double cream stew Mac pickups, they got removed (before i could even order a set), so curious to see how it shakes out with gibson
 
https://d2emr0qhzqfj88.cloudfront.ne...rademark_0.pdf

I support DiMarzio's trademark of double creme. The U.S. Patent and Trademark office did so 40 years ago and they still do. Bravo DiMarzio. He invented replacement pickups and Larry was smart to trademark double creme because he made his brand instantly recognizable, and trademarks do not expire. Patents do expire.

DiMarzio recently posted "The birth of the Super Distortion" article written by Larry DiMarzio. on their website. It's a fascinating read and he writes about the double creme idea.

https://www.dimarzio.com/stories/birth-super-distortion

BTW I'm not a "DiMarzio" only customer. I own and play several excellent Seymour Duncan pickups. My Strat has the YJM Fury Bridge and Vintage rails in the neck and middle. Great combination!

I don't support a trademark of double cream pickups for Dimarzio . . . since Dimarzio didn't invent them and they were commonly seen long before Dimarzio was a company:

clapton%20beano__png.png
 
maybe at the time of the trademark, it made sense. now, it just pisses me off so i dont buy dimarzio pups
 
I don't support a trademark of double cream pickups for Dimarzio . . . since Dimarzio didn't invent them and they were commonly seen long before Dimarzio was a company:


Lots of people have the initials TB, but no one trademarked it.. until Tom Brady did. Just as no one else saw (or created) marketing value in double creams before Dimarzio did. He saw an opportunity and took it. To my knowledge he didn't steal it, but he capitalized on the fact he was there with the idea first. Business 101.
 
Lots of people have the initials TB, but no one trademarked it.. until Tom Brady did. Just as no one else saw (or created) marketing value in double creams before Dimarzio did. He saw an opportunity and took it. To my knowledge he didn't steal it, but he capitalized on the fact he was there with the idea first. Business 101.

Your argument is that one completely stupid trademark is a good idea because another stupid trademark also exists? Not convincing logic.
 
Lots of people have the initials TB, but no one trademarked it.. until Tom Brady did. Just as no one else saw (or created) marketing value in double creams before Dimarzio did. He saw an opportunity and took it. To my knowledge he didn't steal it, but he capitalized on the fact he was there with the idea first. Business 101.

Exactly.
 
I don't support a trademark of double cream pickups for Dimarzio . . . since Dimarzio didn't invent them and they were commonly seen long before Dimarzio was a company:


CAN YOU REALLY TRADEMARK
A COLOR?
In certain cases where a color is identifiable
with the brand, yes. DiMarzio was the first to
market with exposed double cream bobbins,
and that is their trademark.
Similarly, Tiffany trademarked their blue color,
UPS trademarked brown, Christian Louboutin
trademarked red soles on their shoes, John
Deere trademarked green equipment, and
3M trademarked purple tape.

https://d2emr0qhzqfj88.cloudfront.net/s3fs-public/2021-05/DiMarzio_DoubleCreamTrademark_0.pdf

Gibson's pickups were under a metal cover. They used whatever bobbins were available and they didn't care what color they used.
 
CAN YOU REALLY TRADEMARK
A COLOR?
In certain cases where a color is identifiable
with the brand, yes. DiMarzio was the first to
market with exposed double cream bobbins,
and that is their trademark.
Similarly, Tiffany trademarked their blue color,
UPS trademarked brown, Christian Louboutin
trademarked red soles on their shoes, John
Deere trademarked green equipment, and
3M trademarked purple tape.

https://d2emr0qhzqfj88.cloudfront.net/s3fs-public/2021-05/DiMarzio_DoubleCreamTrademark_0.pdf

Gibson's pickups were under a metal cover. They used whatever bobbins were available and they didn't care what color they used.

For the record, John Deere did not get a trademark for green equipment. They lost that suit. I thought we established that earlier. You also earlier said trademarks don't expire, but that's not entirely accurate. You can lose a trademark if you don't use it or enforce for a period of time, or if you allow another business to use it without permission for a period of time, effectively expiring the trademark.
 
For the record, John Deere did not get a trademark for green equipment. They lost that suit. I thought we established that earlier. You also earlier said trademarks don't expire, but that's not entirely accurate. You can lose a trademark if you don't use it or enforce for a period of time, or if you allow another business to use it without permission for a period of time, effectively expiring the trademark.

Interesting. So fighting off would-be trademark infringers has to be worth the battle. And that battle has to be relentless or all is lost.
 
Your argument is that one completely stupid trademark is a good idea because another stupid trademark also exists? Not convincing logic.

Its not logic. Its another example. Then aren't all trademarks "stupid"? Intel is a word in the English language, yet it is trademarked. Smith, one of the most common surnames and an English word is trademarked.

What is the dividing line where a TM is not stupid? It is a protection of something of value to a business' identity and brand.
 
Back
Top