You want doublecreams?

Re: You want doublecreams?

I'm thinking he's probably not gonna make his 100K. Maybe a cost effective campaign would be organizing folks to sign a petition "urging" Dimarzio to allow manufacturers to build double creams without being sued. Politicans usually pay no attention to constituents (until election time anyway) but maybe Dimarzio would if they got enough signatures. I think there are petition sites.
Or, maybe Dimarzio could be urged to take royalty payments. Maybe a buck or two per double cream pickup. Not sure how that would work though. Some winders would likely take advantage of an honor system.

Oh well, just a couple of thoughts.
 
Re: You want doublecreams?

IMO a petition would be worthless. A million people asking larry to let somebody else make money off his registered trademark will change his mind, how? Boycotting him means nothing. For every customer who wants double creme there are far more who want black, or covered.

Licensing would be a good thing for him, but for small winders its probably not worth the cost, and necessity of dealing legal/contract law.

If folks want double creams they are going to have to beat him at his own legal game. Personally I am not on the bandwagon, and am not interested. But there are people online always making a big fuss they want xyz in double creme, and they hate Larry and blah blah blah. This is their chance to do something about it. Pull together, fund the fight, and take it to court.

My prediction though- is few winders will pull together, very few customers/individuals will be willing to put any money towards a court case, and nothing will happen, and they will continue to B&M that they can't sell/buy double creme.
 
Last edited:
Re: You want doublecreams?

The screwed up thing here is that it shouldn't take a hundred thousand dollars to clarify whether a trademark is justified or not.

That's just making the people rich who drive this insanity in the first place.
 
Re: You want doublecreams?

For all the threads I've read regarding it, I still don't understand the fuss over double creme.

Sent from my MotoE2(4G-LTE) using Tapatalk
 
Re: You want doublecreams?

But it's not forbidden. Make your own or buy a Dimarzio.

Sent from my MotoE2(4G-LTE) using Tapatalk
 
Re: You want doublecreams?

I'll put my money where my mouth is, the question is whether or not Cathy Duncan thinks it's a worthwhile endeavor. I think that will decide whether it lives or dies.
 
Re: You want doublecreams?

PFDarkside said:
Forbidden fruit.
Click to expand...

^^^ this ^^^

and

Demanic said:
But it's not forbidden. Make your own or buy a Dimarzio.
Click to expand...

^^^ this ^^^



the double cream thing is no secret with the many pickup companies and boutique guys. even though guys like Wolfetone have put a lot of resources into the legal aspects of the double cream issue, there are very simple ways around it that some business don't want to deal with. there are also ways around it that end users don't want to deal with (see Demanic's post above, for example). sure, a bigger pickup company like Cathy's could try to take it on... but... what would the cost be and would end users want to risk pricing increases to fund a legal campaign against a color? #CreamPickupsMatter?

if licensing were of interest to DiMarzio, is it really that far fetched? look at all the tremolo bridge makers that are paying licensing to Floyd Rose for all these years. and don't think Floyd isn't lawyered up to stay on top of those things, just like DiMarzio is. but that doesn't seem to be as much of an issue in the industry or with end users.
 
Re: You want doublecreams?

JeffB said:
IMO a petition would be worthless. A million people asking larry to let somebody else make money off his registered trademark will change his mind, how? Boycotting him means nothing. For every customer who wants double creme there are far more who want black, or covered.

Licensing would be a good thing for him, but for small winders its probably not worth the cost, and necessity of dealing legal/contract law.

If folks want double creams they are going to have to beat him at his own legal game. Personally I am not on the bandwagon, and am not interested. But there are people online always making a big fuss they want xyz in double creme, and they hate Larry and blah blah blah. This is their chance to do something about it. Pull together, fund the fight, and take it to court.

My prediction though- is few winders will pull together, very few customers/individuals will be willing to put any money towards a court case, and nothing will happen, and they will continue to B&M that they can't sell/buy double creme.
Click to expand...

I will beat Larry at his own legal game. I've researched the Mark for 18 years, and have made several startling discoveries.

How about false and misleading statementds made to the USPTO in statements?
Larry apprenticed with Bill Larence in the early 1970's, just after kent Armstrong. There's no way Larry didn't know about previous exposed-coil humbuckers being made.. and in cream, for that matter.

Larrylie.JPG


Dimarzio claims the Super Distortion was introduced in 1972, and the Mark was used in 1974. And they also claim "extensive advertising" of "The Mark" but guess what...
They ween't a company untill the latter half of 1975.
Dimarzio1975.JPG


and the earliest ad I've found so far? Sept 75 Guitar Player. Dimarzio claims "extensive" advertisement since it's first use in Feb 1974.
Sept75Gplayer.jpg


This February 1975 invoice is not the invoice of a comany with "extensive" advertisement. It is the invoice of a company JUST starting out.
Don't ask where I got this. Just know that 18 years of research uncovers a ton of dirt.

Feb1975.JPG


Dimarzio claims that nobody was offering uncovered coils prior to him. And even if true, other people were offering uncovered CREAM coils before he registered. But again, I refer to the Bill Lawrence apprenticeship I mentioned above...
January 1977
Jan77Guitarplayer.jpg

Ibanez
Ibanez2340.jpg

1975
Ibanez1975pt2.jpg



Want to see more? Visit http://www.wolfetone.com/trademark to read many legal rulings regarding color trademarks, documents, case histories, and even a 2005 refusal by the USPTO to register yet another color to Dimarzio due to it being aesthetically functional.
 
Last edited:
Re: You want doublecreams?

Ohh.. and one other thing. If there's one thing that invoice up there does prove,it's that Dimarzio was not know for ONLY making double cream. Otherwise, why would they have ordered black components?
 
Re: You want doublecreams?

Luke Duke said:
Wolf, I see that funding is complete, congrats!
Click to expand...

I'm not the one being sued. There have been some new developments that caused the GoFundMe to be reduced and ended, and he's trying to refund everyone.

However, depending on what happens with it, I may go for my move soon.
 
Re: You want doublecreams?

WolfeMacleod said:
Want to see more? Visit http://www.wolfetone.com/trademark to read many legal rulings regarding color trademarks, documents, case histories, and even a 2005 refusal by the USPTO to register yet another color to Dimarzio due to it being aesthetically functional.
Click to expand...

What exactly was the "mirrored surface" that was attempted to be trademarked?

Was it *all* metallic pickup covers (nickel, gold, chrome, etc.)? That seems crazy if true.

Or just chrome ones? Or maybe the application refers to the chrome bobbins that Dimarzio uses?

The proposed mark is the mirrored surface of electronic sound pickups for guitars and basses, and the goods are electronic sound pickup for guitars and basses. The particular features of this proposed mark, namely, the mirrored surface, are functional for the goods because goods of this nature often have a stainless steel or mirrored surface.
 
Re: You want doublecreams?

darthphineas said:
if licensing were of interest to DiMarzio, is it really that far fetched? look at all the tremolo bridge makers that are paying licensing to Floyd Rose for all these years. and don't think Floyd isn't lawyered up to stay on top of those things, just like DiMarzio is. but that doesn't seem to be as much of an issue in the industry or with end users.
Click to expand...

Floyd is a technology. Cream is a color. Not even the same thing.
 
Re: You want doublecreams?

stratguy23 said:
What exactly was the "mirrored surface" that was attempted to be trademarked?

Was it *all* metallic pickup covers (nickel, gold, chrome, etc.)? That seems crazy if true.

Or just chrome ones? Or maybe the application refers to the chrome bobbins that Dimarzio uses?
Click to expand...



yeah, I was also thinking that was applying to those chrome ones


dp220cc.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top