Wolfetone announces intent to push back on Dimarzio trademark

Jbird said:
Carvin has made cream pickups for years. My '84 DC160T came with them. I'm assuming they must've paid DiMarzio a fee to do this?
Click to expand...

The DiMarzio trademark is on the cream/black combination, not just the cream color. Nobody could get a defensible trademark on cream or white alone because Fender was doing those in the 1950s.
 
jp_nyc said:
The DiMarzio trademark is on the cream/black combination, not just the cream color. Nobody could get a defensible trademark on cream or white alone because Fender was doing those in the 1950s.
Click to expand...
Ah! I was thinking it was just cream colored, thanks.
 
Chad said:
I hate the cream/black pickups anyways. So it doesn't really matter to me. If I get a humbucker, I want it with a cover.
Click to expand...

Ah, you hurt me to the quick.

dd64469f778faf61d1135fb57a1526d2.jpg
 
Kerouac said:
I hate cream pickups and binding; especially cream zebra pickups.
Click to expand...
You, too, hurt me to the quick. Why all the hate? Can't we all just get along??

MonkeyZero said:
Can I sue over the word bobbins? That's just a stupid word.
Click to expand...

Now you made me just say it. And I discovered I like saying it. Come on, say it with me . . . "bobbins." Let's try it again. "Bobbins." :)



And yeah, I am not an intellectual property lawyer, but I do understand you have to enforce those rights or lose them. Whether the company would really want to or not would be another question for the company's owners/management.
 
Last edited:
It would be funny to go a shade off of cream and call it something else for laughs as mentioned earlier. I'm kinda diggin' tapioca or oatmeal as alternatives.
 
linthat22 said:
It would be funny to go a shade off of cream and call it something else for laughs as mentioned earlier. I'm kinda diggin' tapioca or oatmeal as alternatives.
Click to expand...
Funny thing is that DiMarzio's cream is wildly inconsistent to the point where people have had trouble matching pickups purchased at separate times.
 
Denverdave said:
How on earth is a pickup bobbin color trade markable anyways? It is a freaking color not a technology or innovation. I mean some some stupid reason it is, but that seems pretty lame.
Click to expand...

You are confusing trademark and patent.

Trademarks are on visual appearance (there are audio trademarks, but they are harder to get and rarer). If a company deems the appearance has value to the brand or product sales, they can trademark it. It's in Dimarzio's favor that the cream bobbins are purely cosmetic, if the cream bobbins are essential to their operation, than they wouldn't be trademark-able (they would have been patent-able...and patents expire).

Dimarzio has the trademark on the uncovered double cream HBs, a definitive look for the Super Distortion in the '70's and often associated with Dimarzio in the hard rock/metal world. People argue that Gibson had made double cream HBs back in '57, but those were all sold covered, so the double-cream bobbins were not inherent to their marketing. Plus, unlike patents and copyrights, you can trademark previously existing features...even items that were a previous trademark was not renewed. Since Dimarzio still makes double-cream HBs, and has continuously for 40+ years, they should have an easy defense of this. I think the pickup maker is getting some poor advice, I would guess Dimarzio will take his business in a counter-suit to recover court fees.

Lollar had two strong points in a recent case against Rickenbacker over the horseshoe PU... 1) the horseshoe design is part of the operation of the PU and 2) Rickenbacker hadn't made a horseshoe PU for years. Ric ended up settling and licensing the design to Lollar. Neither of those points apply here. Also, lots of people note that Peavey and Mesa Boogie file and hold patents on technology that may be pre-existing, making their patents invalid...that may be true (or not), they could lose in court (or not) but once again...that doesn't apply to trademarks.

I haven't seen any complaints with buying and selling raw cream bobbins (but I'm not in the business), Dimarzio doesn't have the trademark on cream bobbins...only double-cream, six pole HBs, it doesn't cover single bobbins, bladed PU's, square-bobbin HB's, 11-pole PUs or any other visually different designs. I never see other makers complain they can't get cream bobbins for zebra and reverse zebra PU's

BTW, Coke has won cases over their trademark shade of red.

Chad said:
I would just make pickups that say Fuck Dimarzio on them and see how long it would take for them to let me use cream.

I hate the cream/black pickups anyways. So it doesn't really matter to me. If I get a humbucker, I want it with a cover.
Click to expand...

They own the trademark on "Dimarzio" as it applies to guitars and electronics, so they can sue over that too.
 
Last edited:
Oh, and to get subjective...love zebra (cream bobbins on slug side)...don't like reverse zebra (PRS style) or double cream...nickel is king.
 
Last edited:
Wyatt said:
You are confusing trademark and patent.

Trademarks are on visual appearance (there are audio trademarks, but they are harder to get and rarer). If a company deems the appearance has value to the brand or product sales, they can trademark it. It's in Dimarzio's favor that the cream bobbins are purely cosmetic, if the cream bobbins are essential to their operation, than they wouldn't be trademark-able (they would have been patent-able...and patents expire).

Dimarzio has the trademark on the uncovered double cream HBs, a definitive look for the Super Distortion in the '70's and often associated with Dimarzio in the hard rock/metal world. People argue that Gibson had made double cream HBs back in '57, but those were all sold covered, so the double-cream bobbins were not inherent to their marketing. Plus, unlike patents and copyrights, you can trademark previously existing features...even items that were a previous trademark was not renewed. Since Dimarzio still makes double-cream HBs, and has continuously for 40+ years, they should have an easy defense of this. I think the pickup maker is getting some poor advice, I would guess Dimarzio will take his business in a counter-suit to recover court fees.

Lollar had two strong points in a recent case against Rickenbacker over the horseshoe PU... 1) the horseshoe design is part of the operation of the PU and 2) Rickenbacker hadn't made a horseshoe PU for years. Ric ended up settling and licensing the design to Lollar. Neither of those points apply here. Also, lots of people note that Peavey and Mesa Boogie file and hold patents on technology that may be pre-existing, making their patents invalid...that may be true (or not), they could lose in court (or not) but once again...that doesn't apply to trademarks.

I haven't seen any complaints with buying and selling raw cream bobbins (but I'm not in the business), Dimarzio doesn't have the trademark on cream bobbins...only double-cream, six pole HBs, it doesn't cover single bobbins, bladed PU's, square-bobbin HB's, 11-pole PUs or any other visually different designs. I never see other makers complain they can't get cream bobbins for zebra and reverse zebra PU's

Reading the post, Wolfe isn't suing anyone, we was just contributing to the fund. I couldn't see Wolfe sticking out his own neck, for those of us who have been around long enough...he has no reputation/respect/sympathy left to lose.
Click to expand...
munch0
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top