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

[GuitarStv]

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.

Dividing line is sometimes tricky but usually pretty straightforward - if you were the first one to use the colour for something and because of that it differentiates your product from others there's clearly an argument for it. Like John Deere tractors and green/yellow - they started using those colours in 1910 across their fleet as most tractors were at the time were red. It makes sense in that context - they were doing something new/unique to differentiate a product. Very clear cut.

Dimarzio started out selling replacement Gibson pickups and copied the colour that the older Gibson pickups were. Not unique or new. No differentiation between them and the original product that did it. It's stupid to grant that as a trademark.

 

[AniML]

Dividing line is sometimes tricky but usually pretty straightforward - if you were the first one to use the colour for something I can see an argument for it. Like John Deere tractors and green - they started using green in 1910 across their fleet as the standard colour most tractors were at the time was red. It makes sense in that context - they were doing something new/unique to differentiate a product. Very clear cut.

Dimarzio started out selling replacement Gibson pickups and copied the colour that the older Gibson pickups were. Not unique or new. No differentiation between them and the original product that did it. It's stupid to grant that as a trademark.

Dimarzio did not COPY a color. He used INTERNAL parts from Gibson pups that happened to be cream color. Later, he decided to make that color his brand identity. Gibson did not invent, choose or in any way identify their product or brand with that color. It was a commodity part. Gibson could have molded them in vomit green or bakelite brown for all they cared. It was what was available during the dawn of plastics.

Following your tractor analogy, Gibson's pickups were covered. Let's pretend they were red covers over green bobbins. Larry didn't put covers on his pickups and instead exposed the green bobbins and trademarked them. I don't get the objection.

 

[Securb]

The thing is at the time Larry was registering his trademark, other companies like Mighty Might, Bill Lawrence, Maxon and others had exposed double cream pickups. DOuble cream was not unique to the DiMarzio brand and the trademark should have not ben issued in the first place.

 

[GuitarStv]

Dimarzio did not COPY a color.

Yep, he did. He copied the colour of the existing Gibson pickups . . . like many other parts manufacturers of the time. It's absolutely stupid that the colour was granted as a trademark, as it was not in any way unique or distinguishing from other parts being sold at the time.

Following your tractor analogy, Gibson's pickups were covered. Let's pretend they were red covers over green bobbins. Larry didn't put covers on his pickups and instead exposed the green bobbins and trademarked them. I don't get the objection.

Gibson's pickups were covered . . . and the covers came off. Regularly. That's a big part of the reason the double cream thing is desirable - many guitar heros from the 60s/70s had done so. But even if we're going to ignore this for some reason . . . the fact that multiple other pickup manufacturers were also using cream should have stopped Dimarzio's stupid trademark before it became a thing. It was clearly used by Dimarzio as a way to limit his competition, rather than to protect something novel and different.

 

[Chistopher]

I'd say if Gibson is willing to bait DiMarzio into a lawsuit, clearly they've already got an argument together. If Gibson were to lose a trademark battle, that would further cement the validity of the trademark.

 

[Securb]

As I always say, follow the money. Who has the most to gain from a Gibson/DiMarzio lawsuit? The lawyers. No matter who wins, the lawyers get paid.

A lawyer at Dewey Cheatham & Howe LLC. is looking to make a partner and knows he has to pump up their billable hours to do so. They go through their client portfolio and look for opportunities the create litigations that will generate revenue and give them visibility. Bingo! They find the file on Gibson's last suit against DiMarzio—time to bring it back to court with a fresh argument and make some money.

I am sure the law firm representing Gibson told them to start promoting double cream, not Gibson's marketing department.

 

[Artie]

A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away, Evan Skopp mentioned that they missed one little detail in their case against DMZ for the double cream lawsuit. Unfortunately, he didn't mention what that detail was. And I don't think he's talking now.

 

[Aceman]

As I always say, follow the money. Who has the most to gain from a Gibson/DiMarzio lawsuit? The lawyers. No matter who wins, the lawyers get paid.

See Post #19


Wake me when Duncan grows a sack and I can buy Double Cream again.

 

[eclecticsynergy]

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.

T-Mobile trademarked the hideous pink that they use in their ads.
Owens-Corning had already trademarked pink, so T-mobile had to call theirs magenta.