Why is Double Cream not available on customer orders?

[uOpt]

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

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

I don't. Never have.

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

That doesn't mean the trademark authorities have to play ball with this nonsense.

 

[AlexR]

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

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

Thats cause he has a TM and no-one else can make the double creams.

 

[voggin]

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

I bet Ibanez/Maxxon wish they had trademarked "tube screamer green". Pretty hard to buy an overdrive that doesn't look like Shrek boogers.

 

[ItsaBass]

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

Thats cause he has a TM and no-one else can make the double creams.

That's a statement that is true when isolated, but which is misleading because it is not placed in context.

In the '70's, before the TM, double cream was already de facto "the DiMarzio look." DiMarzio was pretty much THE aftermarket pickup company at that time. So when others started creating confusion in the marketplace by using the look on their pickups too, Larry wanted to protect this mark that had come to indicate his brand. So he got the TM to make de jure what was already de facto. And that's where Scott's, and your, statements come in, in context, to mean simply: "the TM worked." I.e. protected the identifying marks of the DiMarzio brand.

There really isn't a legal leg to stand on when arguing against the trademark. DiMarzio had every right to TM the way they did, when they did. People have a problem with it because: 1) they don't actually understand what a trademark is, 2) they don't like being told they can't buy something they want to buy (or manufacture something they can't legally manufacture), 3) they think Larry DiMarzio is an ******* anyhow.

 

[uOpt]

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

That's a statement that is true when isolated, but which is misleading because it is not placed in context.

In the '70's, before the TM, double cream was already de facto "the DiMarzio look." DiMarzio was pretty much THE aftermarket pickup company at that time. So when others started creating confusion in the marketplace by using the look on their pickups too, Larry wanted to protect this mark that had come to indicate his brand. So he got the TM to make de jure what was already de facto. And that's where Scott's, and your, statements come in, in context, to mean simply: "the TM worked." I.e. protected the identifying marks of the DiMarzio brand.

There really isn't a legal leg to stand on when arguing against the trademark. DiMarzio had every right to TM the way they did, when they did. People have a problem with it because: 1) they don't actually understand what a trademark is, 2) they don't like being told they can't buy something they want to buy (or manufacture something they can't legally manufacture), 3) they think Larry DiMarzio is an ******* anyhow.

So, then, if DiMarzio rightfully and successfully defended the double cream trademark that they based on the 1970ties photos posted in this thread...

... can you post more recent photos where double cream on stage establishes a brand like the old pics did? Let's say 20 years?

For the record, the only reason why I think Larrzy DiMarzio is a dick is because of his abuse of the U.S. intellectual property system.

 

[uOpt]

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

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.

You completely mixed up patents and trademarks there. Of course you can get patents on things that are parts of more complete things.

For trademarks the idiot Americans did not clarify like the Euros did. That's all that DiMarzio's trademark here stands on.

... 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.

Errr, legal risk? You can't just go ahead knowingly and willingly violating a trademark that you can be proven to know is currently in effect.

 

[ItsaBass]

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

So, then, if DiMarzio rightfully and successfully defended the double cream trademark that they based on the 1970ties photos posted in this thread...

... can you post more recent photos where double cream on stage establishes a brand like the old pics did? Let's say 20 years?

First of all, this is no longer relevant, since the TM is already registered. In order for the TM to be valid, it doesn't need to continually be proven that double cream is still seen as an acquired, unofficial mark of the DiMarzio brand. It is now a registered, fully official mark, regardless of what it actually is seen as out in the marketplace.

Secondly, do you seriously think that most people who know guitars don't think "DiMarzios" when they see double creams in use? That seems silly to me.

Duncan has stated that the TM only got registered because they didn't want to get involved in a big legal drama and expense at the time, and that if they had really thought it was worth it, they could have prevented the TM from being registered. If they had had the wherewithal to see their points through legally back then, maybe they would have won (but probably not IMO). But they chose not to get into it, and the TM stands, so they can't really complain about it at this point. They decided to let DiMarzio have double creams, basically.

That's all that DiMarzio's trademark here stands on.

No, it isn't. The basis for their trademark has nothing to do with the distinction between pickups being components of a larger device, or them being standalone products. Their TM stands on the fact that when the TM was registered, double cream was in fact an acquired mark of the brand out in the aftermarket guitar parts marketplace. The TM simply made it official. The ability to brand your products, and legally claim/protect the branding mark, has little to do with what the product actually is – only in that TMs often don't apply across different industries. (For instance, two companies can have similar marks, as long as they are in very different areas of the marketplace, such that no confusion is created.)

 

[Nostalgic Distortion]

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

Parchment bobbins & a pack of cigarettes will fix you right up! Make a smoker out of a shoe box and aquarium pump, they'll stink for a while but the vintage patina will look much better than just regular cream bobbins? I've made reliced double cream Duncan's out of white and parchment pup's several times and they have always turned out great! Then again, if you are one of those guys who hates the idea of cigarette smoke even being anywhere near your gear this may not be for you....

 

[uOpt]

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

No, it isn't. Their TM stands on the fact that double cream was an acquired mark of the brand. The TM simply made it official.

No, what made them get this trademark is the fact that US trademark law is lazily underspecified and that they found some lazy $8/hour clerk that was assigned to the application because musical instruments are not important. Now you can't fight it.

 

[Myaccount876]

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

Parchment bobbins & a pack of cigarettes will fix you right up! Make a smoker out of a shoe box and aquarium pump, they'll stink for a while but the vintage patina will look much better than just regular cream bobbins? I've made reliced double cream Duncan's out of white and parchment pup's several times and they have always turned out great! Then again, if you are one of those guys who hates the idea of cigarette smoke even being anywhere near your gear this may not be for you....

Or you can just use anything that yellows your teeth. Cigarettes are an obvious one, but you can also use tea, coffee, or if you're rich - saffron.

 

[Myaccount876]

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

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.

Uh Fender's headstock design is still trademarked. The body designs aren't, but all other necks with the Fender headstock must be licensed by Fender, or the manufacturer gets a cease and desist order. All the Fender shaped Warmoth necks are licensed (it says so on the website, and on the heel of each neck), and brands like Charvel can use the headstock shape because they are owned by Fender.

Thats cause he has a TM and no-one else can make the double creams.

That's flawed/circular reasoning. Do people recognize the McDonald's golden arches solely because they have it trademarked? Well, the very intent of the trademark is to keep the intellectual property affiliated with the trademark holder by barring anyone else from using that intellectual property. If you have a problem with double cream bobbins being recognized as DiMarzio's pickups because of their trademark, then you would have a problem with the fundamental idea of trademark laws - but people should have a right to protect their intellectual property.

I would argue that people recognized double-cream as DiMarzio's pickups before there was even a trademark in place. Who else commonly made and sold double cream aftermarket pickups in the 1970s? If you saw Ace Frehley, Glenn Tipton, "Fast" Eddie Clarke, Dave Murray etc using double cream pickups in the '70s (and even the '80s), you knew they were using DiMarzio pickups, usually a Super Distortion (or in Eddie Clarke's case, a X2N).

 

[RockinRollur]

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

How funny some of these arguments are because I never new what Dimarzio was until I saw something like this in a Paul Gilbert video in the early 2000's. I asked around and heard he uses Dimarzio pickups and came to know the brand by those double creams. Seymour Duncan seems to have the lion's share of the world pickup market so how could anyone complain about that? The misguided anger makes me laugh because you would think the resentment and emotion would be better applied to something that matters so it's crazy.

I think Larrzy DiMarzio is a dick is because of his abuse of the U.S. intellectual property system

the idiot Americans did not clarify like the Euros did

You're crazy man and that's some offensive stuff. You need to chill out especially on the idiot American thing.

 

[AlexR]

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

that's flawed/circular reasoning. Do people recognize the McDonald's golden arches solely because they have it trademarked? Well, the very intent of the trademark is to keep the intellectual property affiliated with the trademark holder by barring anyone else from using that intellectual property. If you have a problem with double cream bobbins being recognized as DiMarzio's pickups because of their trademark, then you would have a problem with the fundamental idea of trademark laws - but people should have a right to protect their intellectual property.

Thats the whole point here.....its all circular reasoning - including the basis of the TM. Initially you could see some people who had aftermarket pickups with doublecreams.......of course those with original Gibsons could have been seen to be Dimarzio users to the uninitiated/unexperienced. How would you know in a Gibson who had the orginals and who had aftermarkets. Imagine if the original PAF EVH rewound had been a 59 doublecream

Then the TM got registered and of course it got more and more widespread. So afterward it spread much more quickly as only Dimarzio could make DC......so not only the Guitar Player but The Layman could then see the double cream being Dimarzio.

 

[Johnny the Kid]

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

Fun Fact: Fiskars trademarked orange-handled scissors.

Huh, I guess I just never noticed the name on them.

 

[jmcorey]

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

Parchment bobbins & a pack of cigarettes will fix you right up! Make a smoker out of a shoe box and aquarium pump, they'll stink for a while but the vintage patina will look much better than just regular cream bobbins? I've made reliced double cream Duncan's out of white and parchment pup's several times and they have always turned out great! Then again, if you are one of those guys who hates the idea of cigarette smoke even being anywhere near your gear this may not be for you....

You should start a business. $10 per pickup or pair of pickups.

 

[Archer_of_Fish]

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

You can buy from overseas makers, they dont have to concern themselves with DiMarzio's trademark. Bare Knuckle, IP, Häussel and others can do double creme as they see fit and there is nothing Dimarzio can do about it.

 

[Myaccount876]

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

Thats the whole point here.....its all circular reasoning - including the basis of the TM. Initially you could see some people who had aftermarket pickups with doublecreams.......of course those with original Gibsons could have been seen to be Dimarzio users to the uninitiated/unexperienced. How would you know in a Gibson who had the orginals and who had aftermarkets. Imagine if the original PAF EVH rewound had been a 59 doublecream

Then the TM got registered and of course it got more and more widespread. So afterward it spread much more quickly as only Dimarzio could make DC......so not only the Guitar Player but The Layman could then see the double cream being Dimarzio.

You completely missed my point. Circular reasoning fallacy - when your argument is just a reiteration of your conclusion: "Double cream bobbins are only identifiable as DiMarzios because DiMarzio has a trademark - a legal protection of brand identification - on double cream bobbins." Duh. What else is the purpose of a trademark? You want your trademarked property to be a form of advertising for your brand - a feature/image/appearance that only your brand has.

Also, double cream bobbins aren't exactly Gibson's IT property - they only produced double cream bobbins for a short period of time (by accident - it was solely because that's what was available, and they completely stopped making cream humbuckers by the mid '60s), that were concealed by metal covers. DiMarzio official started up as a company in 1972, where his pickups came only as double cream, and they trademarked the bobbin color scheme two years later. They had a right to claim the trademark - they were the only ones at the time making double cream humbuckers, as Gibson wasn't, and DiMarzio was the first aftermarket pickup company. The double cream bobbins became associated with DiMarzio two years before there was any trademark. It doesn't matter that Gibson had the color scheme first - because it wasn't an indicator of brand like it was for DiMarzio, and the bobbins in Gibson's pickups were never meant to be exposed in the first place. That's the way trademark law works; if you don't like it, too bad. If a company has a logo or identifying cosmetic, it doesn't infringe upon any other existing trademarks/isn't considered public domain, and they don't want it to be used by anyone else, they have every right to trademark it, and they usually have to trademark it pretty early to avoid it either being a) trademarked by someone else or b) becoming public domain.

 

[Rand-O-Monium]

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

:deadhorse:

 

[uOpt]

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

How funny some of these arguments are because I never new what Dimarzio was until I saw something like this in a Paul Gilbert video in the early 2000's. I asked around and heard he uses Dimarzio pickups and came to know the brand by those double creams. Seymour Duncan seems to have the lion's share of the world pickup market so how could anyone complain about that? The misguided anger makes me laugh because you would think the resentment and emotion would be better applied to something that matters so it's crazy.

Seymour Duncan has more market share than DiMarzio because they spend their money on making pickups. Not on a permanently hired lawyer firm that contributes nothing to the products.

And the result of the lawyering doesn't hurt Seymour Duncan (obviously), it only restricts choice on part of the consumer.

 

[uOpt]

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

You can buy from overseas makers, they dont have to concern themselves with DiMarzio's trademark. Bare Knuckle, IP, Häussel and others can do double creme as they see fit and there is nothing Dimarzio can do about it.

Worth nothing that the European Union has color trademarks, too. The laws are almost the same over there.

The difference is that the Europeans have clarified that DiMarzio's double cream trademark isn't good enough to be a trademark. Whereas the Americans have not clarified that it is - they didn't specify one way or another in the law and you can't clarify because it is too expensive in the North American lawyer market.