I have been saying this for years. Double cream being lorded over by Dimarzio is simply bizarre. Gibson is right here,Larry and the patent office were wrong.

They didn't apply for the color, only the construction. Why is that hard to understand?

Thats needs to go on a shirt ASAP

But it’s Gibsons innovations that Dimarzio has trademarked

Of all the cases this is the worst possible one to use that on

Except that Gibson actually did innovate almost every single thing they’re suing over. They may have not done what they should’ve to receive or maintain the trademarks but they were the innovators.

@@kelleywhite5761 so.. NO ONE but Gibson can make Humbuckers?? REALLY???

Trademarking a color isn't new. I dare you to try to make and sell anything in Tiffany Blue. It will be the end of your financial existence.

@@IndyRockStar Wow, you dare me? LOL "Tiffany blue" is a name like "Daphne blue". It's a unique color and name. "Cream" is not a unique name or color. See the difference? I dare you to not see it. LOL

Plus Dimarzio offers an excellent selection of coloured bobbins in different color combinations.

@@PhilthyCasual Yes! Good point.

Could be! Great call on the 57 Classic HB

John Deere, Pepsi, Target, UPS and many others have trademark colors. It's not uncommon.

How much detail must you provide on the patent? For instance, assuming a pickup would you need to specify the bobbin color(s), gauge of wire used to wind bobbin,, color of wire etc.? Now we know that Gibson changed the bobbin color from black to cream due to the black pigment shortage due to the war and figured n0obody would know since the difference since it was covered by the cover. BUT...If all of the details listed above were required wouldn't Gibson have violated it's own patent by changing bobbin color, wire gauge, gauss, magnet types, etc. would require new patents indicating all changes to be enforcable?

Is John Deere suing the Green Bay Packers ?

Love it. I am surprised in the 70’s nothing was brought up by Gibson then. I hope Gibson kicks Dimarzios ass up and down the courthouse.

Allegedly, Gene Simmons trademarked the term “oj” . Whenever anyone says “oj” (in a film or on tv) they owe Gene money😁

@@PhilthyCasual that’s what Ronnie James Dio said lol

When was the quality issue?

Exactly. I like double cream but don’t like Dimarzio pickups. I’ve had other pickup manufacturers refuse to make a double cream bobbin bc of Dimarzio’s patent. Zebra looks like hell, black is boring and I hate metal covers.

same@@PhilthyCasual

So you agree that Gibson should never have sued Dean ? I can't believe that a judge even heard that case.

Because they are enforcing their trademark.

I'm on neither team, but that's a great question.

Gibson didn't invent the guitar.... Gibson and Fender perfected it. Gibson and Fender are the entire reason for the existence of every other American guitar company today.

@@IndyRockStarLike Martin or Rickenbacker?

Gibson didn't invent the guitar but the invented the PAF... And had double cream humbuckers before DiMarzio. The fact Dimarzio has both those things trademarked has always been beyond me

Very well put and we're exposed for being pathological liars the first miserable failed lawsuits..

Okay, then trademark a specific hue of cream. The fact that Gibson made double cream first settles it imo.

@@PhilthyCasual First of all, the one who has the trademark or the patent can sue someone for copying, it doesn't matter who did it first. You can argue in the trademark agency at the start, not after 50 years. Then, when Gibson made double cream pickups they were selling them covered, not as a color choice. Under the cover was whatever was at hand the moment the employee made the pickup, be it double cream, cream+black (zebra) or double black.

Ferrari does not have a certain colour called, “Ferrari Red.”

@@nkmcfrln For Ferrari is just red. But if you copy the exact red tone to a car you'll get sued (many years ago that happened and I found out this). It's just like Fiesta Red that Fender uses. For Ford Fiesta is just red.

Legally, you are right of course but the whole thing is rather silly when it inconveniences a guitarist who wants double cream/off white but not a Dimarzio pickup.. I think Larry should at least have to pick a hue of cream,lol. @@gkol69

John Deere did it , Pepsi. UPS, etc.

Okay but in Deere’s case, i think it is a specific hue of green that is trademarked. In Dimarzio’s case, it does not appear to be a specific hue of “double cream”.

@@vorpalblades John Deere does NOT own a trademark on the color green. I invite you to read John Deere v. Farmhand. In this the color green was found to be functional because farmers wanted to color-coordinate their farm equipment. UPS's brown color serves no function. Blue on ice-cream packaging has a psychological function suggesting the contents are colder. Yes, there's a case about it. If you believe that color cannot serve a function, then tell us.... why are traffic cones brightly colored orange?

@@PhilthyCasual Deere does not own a trademark on the color green. People may think that, but it's not the case.

@@WolfetonePickups you were saying what? January 15, 2018 John Deere Wins Trademark Case Regarding its Green and Yellow Colors Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle  "Some companies’ products have become so associated with a particular symbol or color in the public mind that it is effectively impossible to separate them. Think of McDonald’s “golden arches” or the Apple logo. Almost everyone is familiar with the green-and-yellow logo with the leaping deer found on John Deere tractors, lawnmowers, and caps. Deere & Co. wants to make sure that those colors remain associated with Deere products and only Deere products, and it is celebrating a recent trademark victory in a Kentucky federal court. The Illinois-based farm equipment giant brought a trademark infringement suit against FIMCO, Inc., a South Dakota-based maker of pesticide sprayers, for its use of green and yellow on its equipment. The complaint alleged federal trademark infringement, unfair competition, and trademark dilution, as well as trademark infringement under Kentucky state law. Deere’s iconic color scheme was registered as a trademark in 1988, and the company has been aggressive about enforcing it in court. Deere claimed that by using the recognizable color combination, FIMCO knowingly attempted to associate its products with the Deere brand in the public mind, with the effect of diluting the value of the trademark. District Court Judge Thomas B. Russell of the Western District of Kentucky found in favor of Deere on all claims after a week-long bench trial, permanently enjoining FIMCO’s use of the color scheme on its equipment. The court found that John Deere’s green and yellow color combination has qualified as a “famous” trademark since the late 1960s and that FIMCO intentionally chose the colors to create an association with the John Deere brand. The court also found that FIMCO’s use of the colors on its machinery was likely to cause confusion among consumers as to whether its agricultural equipment was made by or endorsed by John Deere. Russell rejected FIMCO’s argument that green and yellow are colors generally associated with agriculture, and ruled that FIMCO could use either green or yellow on its products but not the two colors together."

Me too, considering it was Gibsons intellectual property even before DiMarzio was a company

Appreciate it! It's made by a company called Output! By far the best desk I've found. They generally make software instruments and plug-ins, but kind of randomly also make some of the best studio furniture in the game. Go figure.

For decades.

@@vorpalblades smart move by Larry

Ignorance. I don’t think you cab sue for that despite it being the cause of most problems.

Well, obviously they won't be suing anyone for outstanding quality control . . .

After 40 years though ? If they filed it soon after I could see it. But 4 decades later ?

Gibson is arguing that no one can trademark the double cream thing or PAF because it’s so “generic” (even Gibson themselves) so I’m left wondering why?

PAF is a generic term. Patented colors are stupid. EVH patented the D-TUNA, not droptuning.

And what is his device used for again? can't play EVH songs without drop tuning, unless you want them to have a bright sound @@darkmamba7025

DiMarzio shouldn’t be able to trademark a color lmao. While I agree Gibson pursues frivolous lawsuits, DiMarzio is just as petty in this case.

They are not trying to stop DiMarzio from using the term PAF or stop them from making double cream pickups. They just want the patent office to end the patent so Gibson, and other companies, can make them too.

That’s not the issue. DiMarzio won’t let Gibson reproduce their own historical products.

They don't care if DiMarzio makes it, the lawsuit is arguing that any pickup producer should be able to make "double creme" and "PAF" humbucking pickups, currently this is not the case as DiMarzio will sue any pickup maker (in the US) that makes or markets them. Seymour Duncan Custom Shop used to build double creme as a custom order but would have to install a nickel cover which you could later take off, however due to lawsuits they can nor will no longer do even that. I love DiMarzios but it's time for this to happen.

Ok, this is really funny. Lol

Makes sense!

It's not the phrase "double cream" that Dimarzio claims. It's the actual color of the pickup. You could call a black humbucker "double cream" and Dimarzio could do nothing about it. But if even if you call a cream humbucker "double black", they they will send you a cease and desist. The words "double cream" have nothing at all to do with it.

Really are you serious?

😂

Going to look it up! I should have gone to law school...

@@TomButwin I never did. Lol. I read about back when it when it happened and everytime cases like this happen I remember it

Blues lawyer confessional youtube chanel might cover this.

Interesting point and it makes sense to me…except for the timeline. Why now?

Might want to research "aesthetic functionality doctrine" and reach a bunch of material about color trademarks.

@@WolfetonePickups I know about the color issue. The thing is Gibson messed up in the past, as did Fender by not trade marking body shapes of guitars etc when they could have. Industry was small and their mindset was mutual respect and not lagalities. One was the case of Fender using the name Broadcaster and Gretsch sending them a notice. So fifty plus years late for Gibson pulling these issues is absurd. The market filled a void Gibson and Fender were not filling. Dean, Hamer even B.C Rich took over because of a lack of quality from Gibson, Fender etc. Also Charvel/Jackson etc. I had great ‘70’s Gibsons and Fenders but those were often the exception. Gibson seemingly wants to eliminate competion by legal means and not quality improvement creating more robust competition.

@@kennygardner5041 I hope you understand that Gibson effort here is to put these back into the public domain for use by all builders. Gibson is not claiming sole rights to either the PAF nickname or the color. If they win, Gibson will not turn around and seize them.

@@WolfetonePickups I understand that part. The concern around those by me is Gibson has been a suing spree. The double open coil look started with those in the ‘60’s who took their covers off their humbuckings. Will all open coils be next? Sounds crazy but Gibson sued Dean over shapes they failed to register for patents after Dean had been making guitars with those shapes since 1977. Hamer had since 1974. Look I love Gibsons and just bought a new Les Paul Sunburst. Love it! The issue is they cater to those with money and not the player. Been the way since Henry J. I get their current take on the coil color issue. I did not agree with DiMarzio, do like their pickups, when they filed exclusivity on the double creme coil look. At the time if you had them most would ask “ are those DiMarzio’s? Yes Gibson created them but never exploited the look, never intended covers to be removed. They, Gibson, only utilized the open coil look in and around 1978-‘79 with the Explorer II or Les Paul KM. If this is ALL Gibson is trying to do then fine. Considering they have been doing this since the PRS case I doubt it. We shall see! Nice conversation by the way! Really! Enjoyed it!😊😊😊

It's not an expiration, as far as I understand it. It's being argued that a trademark should have never been granted in the first place because these characteristics are so "generic" in nature.

How dare you call me out for gleefully shelling out thousands for my "Greeny-Moore" it's worth every penny and "Moore" LoL!

@@davidmarks5400 LOL... no harm or insult intended at you good sir... I promise lol... I am just as guilty of having my own fandoi-ism I am sure!

None taken. I was just trolling on the Gibson fan-boy bandwagon. I don't own a Greeny-Moore- just saturated from hearing about it everywhere I turn and the ridiculous prices people will gladly pay. @@JamesDillard-gk2xb

Gibson is a shitty company. They don't care about their workers, they don't care about their quality, they don't innovate or do anything. Gibson spend more money and time on throwing out lawsuits at anyone, and if you can't realize how asinine and anti-consumer/anticompetitive they are, you just fuel the shitty "leadership" of Gibson.

Seymour never trademarked the Zebra humbucker.

I sure hope not.

Well, I'm simply asking the question of "why?" but more specifically, "why now?" DiMarzio has owned the trademark for more than 40 years, rightfully or wrongfully. I love both companies and their products!

Officially, and currently, DiMarzio owns that mark. Depending on the outcome here, it might be something no one can "own."

You obviously didn't even watch the video. Or you simply did not understand what the lawsuit is about.....

@@emartinezr I certainly did watch the video. In addition, I read the actual legal documents associated with these cases…which I am relatively sure you did not. To claim that “two-tone” pickup covers is sufficient reason to sue a competitor is petty and will look to most customers as an attempt to hurt small competitors who produce products that are of higher quality and lower cost. These lawsuits may backfire.

You’ll have to speak up, I’m wearing a towel.