New EVH "Circles" guitar - double creme?

Re: New EVH "Circles" guitar - double creme?

Actually that does happen, there are lots cola drinks using red and white colors, because Coca-Cola does not own the colors!!!!!

im no fancy big city lawyer, so im gonna bow out of this debate. but trademarking and owning are two different things, and i am pretty sure coca cola has the trademark on their particular shade of red. but if im wrong im wrong.
 
Re: New EVH "Circles" guitar - double creme?

And thanks Evan for clearing up some facts. Most of the arguments I've seen here over the years have been that it was unlawful for Dimarzio to TM that color because gibson did it first/i want a dbl creme pearly gates/it was a ******** move. I never knew some of the stuff you brought up. Changes things a little in my mind. Dimarzio also trademarked PAF, something they definitely didn't have a part in creating, didn't they?
 
Re: New EVH "Circles" guitar - double creme?

If you don't think colors matter, try selling a red, white and black striped guitar.
 
Re: New EVH "Circles" guitar - double creme?

If DiMarzio was exclusively selling double-cream during those five years, then they achieved acquired distinctiveness. If others competitors were selling during those five years, they did not.

That's just not the case, and any lawyer who is being honest, not just trying to take your money, will tell you that. Exclusivity of manufacture is not what determines acquired distinctiveness. It has nothing to do with what is being produced, or what is available to customers. It has to do with overwhelming customer association of a certain image with a certain brand, whether it is justified or not by what is available in the marketplace. If enough consumers associate a certain image with a certain brand, that's acquired distinctiveness; it's not being the only company that makes something. In other words...just what I said above: It doesn't matter who was making what; it matters what symbol had come to represent what brand in the market. Double creams in no way ever read as "Duncans" to customers. But they did read as "DiMarzios" quite a lot of the time. They were only trying to prevent one of their de facto symbols in the marketplace from becoming legally generic. If there is anyone to "blame" for DiMarzio getting the TM, it's the consumers in the aftermarket guitar parts world in the '70's, for coming to overwhelmingly associate double creams with the DiMarzio brand.

Perhaps it's taking things to an extreme for them to have actually gone ahead and patented it. That's a matter of opinion. I'm not on their side or on Duncan's side; I don't care. I just think that people getting all up in arms over nothing, and/or stating that DiMarzio had no legal grounds to do it is ridiculous and ignorant. It's easily arguable that they did, based on the law...and you can get much better looking double parchments from Duncan than the sickly looking DiMarzio double creams anyhow, so it's not an issue worthy of complaint in my eyes. They probably had grounds for a TM, but even so, Duncan still makes the more attractive pickup anyhow!
 
Last edited:
Re: New EVH "Circles" guitar - double creme?

If you don't think colors matter, try selling a red, white and black striped guitar.

And EVH has been known to defend that trademark I know of at least one small time pedal builder that was doing red while and black striped cases that received a cease and desist letter.
 
Re: New EVH "Circles" guitar - double creme?

Dimarzio also trademarked PAF, something they definitely didn't have a part in creating, didn't they?

The stickers on original PAFs say "Patent Applied For" it was users later that came up with the P.A.F acronym. So gibson didnt really invent it either. But as a name as a single word Dimarzio did trademark PAF.

I really think though people should get a grip on this that this effects ALL industries not just guitars. Try building a lawn mower and paint it green and yellow... or open a store using stencil type face in orange and see what happens. The NFL has a freaking trademark on the words "Super bowl" there have been more than 1 instance of bars receiving nasty letters for advertising "super bowl" specials. Everyone around here gets bunged up at Dimarzio without realizing what a temptest in a tea cup it is in the grand scheme of things.

Ill give you a scratch your head example. A friend of mine build a drag car based off a 63 Corvette. When it was first painted all red he though it looked boring but didnt want an elaborate scheme so he had the local paint shop add a wavy white stripe that wrapped around the car. The car was like this for over a year (and we even joked that it looked like a coke can) then he took it to the mile high nationals in Denver. There a coca cola executive spotted the car and some phone calls were made and soon we had guys from NHRA and some Coke reps standing in the trailer. The Coke guys said you cant have a car that looks like that cause you arent affiliated with us. The NHRA said you cant have a car that looks like that cause you might piss off Mountain Dew who was partial sponsor in the event. But get this there were other cars that had the coke banner (but were officially sponsored) and that was ok. But apparently this home gown car from Idaho was unauthorized advertising. To get around all this I broke out blue masking tape for taping off cars to paint and covered what I could of the stripe and then argued with officals that it now changed.. While the arguing went on others got into the spirit of it and added some duct and electical tape striping to the car. Eventually they let us run 1 pass. After the pass the NHRA safety team said no the tape is a hazard that it might blow off the car (Wha? Yeah so what) We spent the night with some dish soap and a plastic razor blade removing that white stripe.

Ok not sure why I typed that whole story but it does show you that all industries take this seriously sometimes to silly extremes
 
Re: New EVH "Circles" guitar - double creme?

Basically, they got the trademark by claiming that for five consecutive years, they were the only ones selling double-cream humbuckers. And after those five years concluded, they now "owned" the design since no one else was selling them during that period. The only problem is that SD was also selling them during that period.



If DiMarzio was exclusively selling double-cream during those five years, then they achieved acquired distinctiveness. If others competitors were selling during those five years, they did not.

If SD is able to demonstrate they were selling the same during that time, can't they reopen the challenge anytime? I haven't heard of a statute of limitations on this kind of stuff.
 
Re: New EVH "Circles" guitar - double creme?

...and you can get much better looking double parchments from Duncan than the sickly looking DiMarzio double creams anyhow, so it's not an issue worthy of complaint in my eyes. They probably had grounds for a TM, but even so, Duncan still makes the more attractive pickup anyhow!

I checked that the SD double parchment is nowhere near cream as we know kit, so the complaint is warranted. Off white/ parchment is definitely NOT in the same shade as cream.
 
Re: New EVH "Circles" guitar - double creme?

If you don't think colors matter, try selling a red, white and black guitar.

Warren-Demartini-Charvel-Group.jpg
 
Last edited:
Re: New EVH "Circles" guitar - double creme?

...You can't get double cream pickups from Seymour Duncan unless you happen to get an Antiquity or Seth Lover that was built that way, by happenstance, and even then it would be covered...

How SD calls this color?

 
Back
Top