Why is Double Cream not available on customer orders?

[JeffB]

Re: Why is Double Cream not available on customer orders?

Yes you all hate Larry for the double cream thing but using "jb", "evh", and "whole lotta" but claiming it stands for something else to avoid paying those artists doesn't bother you in the least. Get real.

Want a double cream duncan? Easy. Get zebra, Rev zebra, swap coils.

Yeah that bugs me too. Some.of the BS thrown around here by employees in years past trying to weasel around the obvious naming conventions was ridiculous.

Larry having double creme doesn't bother me as much as insulting my intelligence about the JB/EVH (renamed) and WLH.

 

[Johnny the Kid]

Re: Why is Double Cream not available on customer orders?

Yes you all hate Larry for the double cream thing but using "jb", "evh", and "whole lotta" but claiming it stands for something else to avoid paying those artists doesn't bother you in the least. Get real.

Want a double cream duncan? Easy. Get zebra, Rev zebra, swap coils.

Describing a sound doesn't bother me as much as trademarking a color design.

 

[LLL]

Re: Why is Double Cream not available on customer orders?

IMO, their pickups look jaundiced anyhow

Yes; jaundiced.

Like a rotten stick of butter.

 

[uOpt]

Re: Why is Double Cream not available on customer orders?

Yes you all hate Larry for the double cream thing but using "jb", "evh", and "whole lotta" but claiming it stands for something else to avoid paying those artists doesn't bother you in the least. Get real.

Want a double cream duncan? Easy. Get zebra, Rev zebra, swap coils.

I'm frequently speaking out how misguided some of SD product naming is, not to mention how much I dislike that endorsement nonsense is (when the artist does agree). None of this makes me want to stop using SD's products, much less encourage people to boycott them. SD describes their products to the best of their ability so that consumers know what they get, and SD does not restrict the actions of their competitors like DiMarzio does.

DiMarzio is abusing the intellectual property rights system in the US, plain and simple.

 

[Little Pigbacon]

Re: Why is Double Cream not available on customer orders?

Fun Fact: Fiskars trademarked orange-handled scissors.

 

[Funkfingers]

Re: Why is Double Cream not available on customer orders?

Who trademarked orange stegosaurus soft toys?

 

[ItsaBass]

Re: Why is Double Cream not available on customer orders?

The problem I have with this is that a color trademark should only apply to a whole thing, but a pickup is a small part of a large guitar. For that reason alone this trademark is clearly invalid.

That logic just doesn't hold up according to how TM law works. Why wouldn't they be able to trademark their products, just because they're components? It's silly. Of course they can TM anything about their products that specifically indicates/differentiates what brand they are...even when that "mark" was acquired semi-unofficially in the eyes of the overwhelming majority of the market, as was the case here.

Bottom line: when the trademark was filed, if most folks saw double creams in a guitar, they thought they were DiMarzios (even in the few instances in which they weren't, i.e. they were Duncans, Gibsons, etc.). Today, this is probably to a certain degree lesser the case, due to how much bigger the aftermarket guitar parts industry is these days. But when the TM was filed, it certainly was the case.

 

[BloodRose]

Re: Why is Double Cream not available on customer orders?

Yes you all hate Larry for the double cream thing but using "jb", "evh", and "whole lotta" but claiming it stands for something else to avoid paying those artists doesn't bother you in the least. Get real.

Want a double cream duncan? Easy. Get zebra, Rev zebra, swap coils.

First, I think protecting a color is crazy. Unless of course its something completely new you created.. I see your point on the name things. But there is a difference between using a point of reference and using an actual name and or trademark. I see that nearly every pickup maker has somekind of pickup that is trying to capture a "brown sound" or sound from that "78 period". MOST, state brown sound. There are amps, and even a 78 pedal. Duncan's use of the Evenly voiced harmonics was a stretch. They have since stopped.. JB is no longer called Jeff Beck in Duncan literature, so they arent trying to benefit off of Mr Beck, and sadly, many kids today probably dont even know who Jeff is.. One thing that is different too, is the fact that Seymour ACTUALLY DID wind his pups and the ones now out as the whole lotta. So that makes some diff to me. Its not like he is an upstart that has no foundation with the actual artists and such. And with the Whole lotta, I know that if the original artist requested, they would change the name. I know other pup companies that make "Duane" pickups and other sorts that probably never even met the artists whom they are referencing, let alone actually wound pickups for them. Again, I definately understand your thoughts/feelings on the subject. This is just my thoughts when I see these things associated with This company.

 

[uOpt]

Re: Why is Double Cream not available on customer orders?

Fun Fact: Fiskars trademarked orange-handled scissors.

Yes, the western world supports color trademarks. Whether or not that is a good idea in general isn't the question.

The question is whether DiMarzio's trademark for double creme humbuckers should fall under it. There are multiple problems here. Unlike the scissors, guitar pickups as such are not a functional product, only when put into a guitar, which then has any color scheme (this is the reason why this trademark is only in the U.S. and not in the E.U. The E.U. clarifies this aspect better). Secondly, Gibson did (randomly) make double cream humbuckers before DiMarzio and in combination with other factors that should be taken into account.

In my view the only reason why DiMarzio still holds this trademarks and enforces it is that in the current landscape of intellectual property conflicts no musical instrument maker can fight a patent or trademark in court. The courts and the lawyers are all clogged up in lawsuits around biotech and computers. Just the price for a reasonable IP lawyer is at $800+ per hour.

It is my opinion that DiMarzio only holds this trademark because we can't effectively fight it, and because congress is too busy doing nothing so that we can't update U.S. trademark law to E.U. standards where at least it is clarified one way or another how complete the trademarked product has to be to count. In the U.S. it is just unclear and we can't make anybody in the U.S. decide one way or another.

DiMarizo has their specific pet lawyer company that is well dialed in with them to uphold this nonsense from a blocking position. Seymour Duncan prefer to spend their money on developing and making products.

 

[AlexR]

Re: Why is Double Cream not available on customer orders?

Yes you all hate Larry for the double cream thing but using "jb", "evh", and "whole lotta" but claiming it stands for something else to avoid paying those artists doesn't bother you in the least. Get real.

Well, even if they name something so it gives you a hint as to the sound its supposed to emulate, at least the naming was all the brainchild of the pickup maker. Lets face it, plenty of people make clones of EVH and Page pickup setups. Apart from your cynical take on matters, I'd bet they aren't thinking when naming them 'lets try and get away with not paying an artist'.

Plus the artists don't own their sound, nor do they solely own the specs of the pickups that happened to come in a guitar they own........

 

[Artie]

Re: Why is Double Cream not available on customer orders?

First, I think protecting a color is crazy. Unless of course its something completely new you created..

Exactly. I don't mind if DuPont trademarks "Daphne Blue". (Or Cadillac, who commissioned it). But double-cream! I think someone else did it first.

 

[KeeperOS]

Re: Why is Double Cream not available on customer orders?

Interesting tidbit, apparently DMZ holds the following PATENTS:

US patent 4133243, DiMarzio, Lawrence P., "Electric pickup", issued 1979-01-09
US patent 4227434, DiMarzio, Lawrence P., "Adjustable soundhole mount for a musical pickup", issued 1980-10-14
US patent 4320829, DiMarzio, Lawrence P.; Altilio, Daniel, "Merchandise display container", issued 1982-03-23 — a special container for merchandising pickups.
US patent 4442749, DiMarzio, Lawrence P.; Blucher, Steven L., "Electrical pickup for a stringed instrument having ferromagnetic strings", issued 1984-04-17

Aren't patents 1 and 4 basically the guitar pickup as we all know it?
How could he have applied and be awarded the patent for guitar pickups?
Or is it a specific, non-standard construction method that was simply given a very broad name that isn't in practice being used by anyone?

 

[Johnny the Kid]

Re: Why is Double Cream not available on customer orders?

Both of them appear to be specific non standard constructions for pickups. The first is a Strat pickup with a magnet on either side of the coil, not underneath the polepieces. The second is a stacked humbucker, but featuring two full size coils instead of the half sized coils of a stacked hb. Both of them appear to be for very specific applications. And unfortunately for DMZ, their patents are no longer valid so anyone can start producing them. Possibly even trademark them.

 

[RayBarbeeMusic]

Re: Why is Double Cream not available on customer orders?

Yeah one parties locking of intellectual property is horrible, another's theft of it is fine. Got it.

In any case, everyone ignored the second part of my post. GET ZEBRA AND REV ZEBRA AND SWAP COILS! I do it. Since almost all Duncan pickups are symmetrically wound, this works just fine. Hell you can even make double screw versions of screw/slug pups if you wanna, or double slugs, or whatever.

Don't need the black one you have left over? Put a cover on it, sell it, whatever.

IIRC back when Duncan was doing 'double cream under non-soldered cover" there was a premium on those, I don't recall it being much, if any, more than it would cost you to buy two pickups, swap coils, sell one.

 

[AlexR]

Re: Why is Double Cream not available on customer orders?

^ No, one person imagining of theft is different to another actual case. Tell me what part of Duncan designing the wind and making the WLH set makes every other winder unable to do one themselves? Does Mr Page own the design rights to the pickups that came in his guitar just because he happened to buy it and sell lots of records, or does he own his own tonal signature.......NO.

Its the same as a lot of the Boutique winders......they use similar terms to describe pickups....ECP has The Fool set, BKP has Stormy Monday, VH II etc etc.

 

[Myaccount876]

Re: Why is Double Cream not available on customer orders?

To be fair, I used to dislike DiMarzio, as I thought the double cream trademark was an abuse of IT laws.

However, my views changed, simply because of this:

Take a wild guess at whose pickups they're using? You can identify the brand just by looking at the color of the pickups. I can understand why they trademarked it now.

 

[uOpt]

Re: Why is Double Cream not available on customer orders?

Interesting tidbit, apparently DMZ holds the following PATENTS:

US patent 4133243, DiMarzio, Lawrence P., "Electric pickup", issued 1979-01-09
US patent 4227434, DiMarzio, Lawrence P., "Adjustable soundhole mount for a musical pickup", issued 1980-10-14
US patent 4320829, DiMarzio, Lawrence P.; Altilio, Daniel, "Merchandise display container", issued 1982-03-23 — a special container for merchandising pickups.
US patent 4442749, DiMarzio, Lawrence P.; Blucher, Steven L., "Electrical pickup for a stringed instrument having ferromagnetic strings", issued 1984-04-17

Aren't patents 1 and 4 basically the guitar pickup as we all know it?
How could he have applied and be awarded the patent for guitar pickups?
Or is it a specific, non-standard construction method that was simply given a very broad name that isn't in practice being used by anyone?

Both of them appear to be specific non standard constructions for pickups. The first is a Strat pickup with a magnet on either side of the coil, not underneath the polepieces. The second is a stacked humbucker, but featuring two full size coils instead of the half sized coils of a stacked hb. Both of them appear to be for very specific applications. And unfortunately for DMZ, their patents are no longer valid so anyone can start producing them. Possibly even trademark them.

The problem I have with those patents is that the idea is trivial. Really, from what electronics professionals work with. Compare "regular" patents in the space of electronic equipment with what DiMarzio brings forward here. Of course the patent clerk assigned to deciding whether musical instrument stuff is worthy is a $8/hour person with no specific knowledge of electronics (those clerks are reserved for big business industrial patents).

The reason why DiMarzio gets so many nonsense patents and trademarks is that they have a long-term partnership with a law firm that is routineously doing this nonsense for them for decades.

The fact that most DiMarzio patents are expired and no longer a practical problem also illustrates quite nicely why the non-expiring trademarks should have a much higher bar of being granted (and that applies even more to color patents). Myaccount876 shows this quite nicely. Some 1970ties dudes. Is there really a need or justification to have this trademark still in place 4 years later? A patent wouldn't.

 

[uOpt]

Re: Why is Double Cream not available on customer orders?

This is what happens to electronic patents in musical instruments (because electronic patents in valuable industries eat up the competent clerks in the patent office).

s/Amazon/DiMarzio/g because a company already established with many patents has an easier time with the clerks.

 

[JeffB]

Re: Why is Double Cream not available on customer orders?

Myaccount876 shows this quite nicely. Some 1970ties dudes. Is there really a need or justification to have this trademark still in place 4 years later? A patent wouldn't.

40 years later we recognize this as "the dimarzio look".

Like it or not, that is "branding" and Larry was smart enough to do it 3 decades before it became a worlwide business model.

 

[Liko]

Re: Why is Double Cream not available on customer orders?

In my view the only reason why DiMarzio still holds this trademarks and enforces it is that in the current landscape of intellectual property conflicts no musical instrument maker can fight a patent or trademark in court. The courts and the lawyers are all clogged up in lawsuits around biotech and computers. Just the price for a reasonable IP lawyer is at $800+ per hour.

It is my opinion that DiMarzio only holds this trademark because we can't effectively fight it, and because congress is too busy doing nothing so that we can't update U.S. trademark law to E.U. standards where at least it is clarified one way or another how complete the trademarked product has to be to count. In the U.S. it is just unclear and we can't make anybody in the U.S. decide one way or another.

Tell that to Fender. In 2009, the USPTO ruled that the shape and functional design of the Stratocaster in general could no longer be validly trademarked because Fender has been allowing other companies to make designs so similar they are indistinguishable to the casual observer, and thus the PTO ruled Fender's defense of the trademark had lapsed. Fender got to keep the Stratocaster name, but even the headstock design can now be used freely by other brands including aftermarket/custom builders. The case, looking at the briefs filed, was pretty much Fender vs. Every Other Guitar Manufacturer.

As far as trademarking small pieces of the whole that wouldn't work independently, another notable shape trademark is Spyderco's round hole. Spyderco originally patented this design for a one-hand opening feature, and it became popular enough and brand-specific enough that when the patent expired Spyderco re-registered it as a trademark. All other pocketknife manufacturers like Gerber, Victorinox and all those no-name Chinese makers have to make due with either a thumb stud or a hole that isn't round. By your logic, no design element that is a part of the whole thing that would be non-functional on its own can't be trademarked, and Gerber and Victorinox would love to agree, but nothing doing.

... And the backlog in the courts hearing IP cases can only be bad for DiMarzio, because it will take that much longer for any infringement case to be heard and for any preliminary injunction to be weighed and granted. The question would really be decided at that injunction hearing; if DiMarzio's case for keeping the trademark is weak enough that a judge refuses to grant the injunction, by the time the actual case is heard every pickup maker in the planet will have been producing double-creme pickups for years.

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk