Looking for dimarzio double-cream trademark #

[belwar]

Anyone have the trademark number. For some reason I cant find it and its driving me nuts!

[jonson]

trade mark

the only one I know that covers this is
Serial no 73150505
Registration no 1169205
Dated sept 15 1981.
Trade mark for double cream.

[salvarsan]

Bon appetit

The trademark number is 73150505 and is still alive.

Search the US Trademark and Patent Office at www.uspto.gov

Content of the trademark text follows.


Goods and Services IC 015. US 036. G & S: Electronic Sound Pickup for Guitars. FIRST USE: 19740200. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19740200
Mark Drawing Code (2) DESIGN ONLY
Design Search Code 22.01.25 - Batons, orchestra conductor's; Bows, violin; Conductor's wands, batons; Drumsticks (musical instrument); Harmonicas; Instrument cases (musical); Music stands; Picks, guitar; Wands, conductors' and magicians'
26.11.27 - Oblongs not used as carriers for words, letters or designs
Serial Number 73150505
Filing Date December 1, 1977
Current Filing Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1A
Published for Opposition June 23, 1981
Registration Number 1169205
Registration Date September 15, 1981
Owner (REGISTRANT) DiMarzio Musical Instrument Pickups, Inc. CORPORATION NEW YORK 643 Bay St. Staten Island NEW YORK 10304

(LAST LISTED OWNER) DIMARZIO, INC. CORPORATION BY ASSIGNMENT NEW YORK 1338 RICHMOND TERRACE PO BOX 100387 STATEN ISLAND NEW YORK 10310
Assignment Recorded ASSIGNMENT RECORDED
Description of Mark The mark comprises the double design representation of an electronic sound pickup for guitars, which is disclaimed apart from the mark as shown. AND IS LINED FOR THE COLOR YELLOW WHICH RESEMBLES THE DISTINCTIVE SHADE OF CREAM.
Type of Mark TRADEMARK
Register PRINCIPAL-2(F)
Affidavit Text SECT 15. SECT 8 (6-YR). SECTION 8(10-YR) 20010928.
Renewal 1ST RENEWAL 20010928
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

[belwar]

so what kind of changes have to be made to the humbucker design in order to bypass this TM?

im thinking of trying the hollow slug idea that glen mcdougal patented and has expired. that or make the slug adjustable but the same diameter. if I understand correctly the tm is only valid if the top of the slug looks like a standard slug. im wonder if it looked the same from the top and was adjustable from inside the pickup if that would fly.

b.

[greenfingers]

How about changing the colour of the part of the coil know one sees to black ? you could call it a coffee & cream coil

[jonson]

trade mark

My taking on it is the colour. You could stick a dozen phillips screws in there but it would still be double cream.

[David Schwab]

so what kind of changes have to be made to the humbucker design in order to bypass this TM?

Well take a look at Carvin and Bill Lawrence (original L-500). They both make double cream pickups. But the DiMarzio trademark shows a pickup with double cream bobbins and 12 round poles, and neither of those other pickups have 12 round poles.

I'm not sure if 12 hollow round poles would get past it. Maybe 12 square hollow poles?

I thought a nice alternative is a cream & brown zebra. It has warmer tones than black or a regular zebra, but isn't double cream.

Ironically on the DiMarzio FAQ they write:

What is the "standard" color for DiMarzio® pickups?

Unless otherwise noted, the standard color for all full-sized Humbuckers, Soap Bars, Tele, Bass and Acoustic pickups is black. The standard color for all Strat replacement pickups is white. The standard finish on pickups with metal covers is polished nickel.

So how is this trade make still valid if it's not their standard trade dress?

I'd bet a good lawyer could get this dismissed.

[J S Moore]

I bet they could. It's probably as easy as proving cream is not a shade of yellow. I've never seen cream that colour and if I did I certainly would not put it in my coffee.

Actually being the smartass I usually am I probably would show up in court with a carton of cream and a pair of double cream bobbins to prove the colours were not related.

[David Schwab]

It has nothing to do with the shade of the color, just prove that the color is no longer their trademark. It used to be. You always knew it was a DiMarzio because it was double cream. Nothing else was double cream. They even sold binding and plastic parts for les pauls in that shade of cream.

But it's no longer their trade mark color. It's like H&R Bloc. They have a green square. You can make a red square, but a green square is their trade mark. If they started using a blue square, and now they stated a blue square was their standard logo color, you can show that a green square is no longer their standard color.

So with DiMarzio, they are keeping people from using something that they really don't use anymore unless you custom order it. So now the color of the pickup does not show that someone is using a DiMarzio. They even have it in writing on their website!

[JGundry]

There is probably an easy challenge to this if you have a large enough company. Get your lawyer to get a PMS color chip number from Dimarzio for the color they claim under trademark. Your lawyer will require this from Dimarzio because your company is going to trademark your own color and must know Dimarzio's PMS color number so you don't infringe upon their trademark. Dimarzio then has to produce a specific PMS color and then has no claim against your color which may in fact end up closer to a vintage cream color. Companies incorporate specific color mixes into their logo trademark all the time but they have to quantify the exact color. Artists like Alexander Calder have even trademarked specific colors but the key word is specific. Peopl have to know the exact color mix to avoid a trademark violation.

[belwar]

jon that is a really good idea. I have one trademark of my own so I know we have a trademark layer somewhere. your concept passes the logic test that's for sure.

I think no one has wanted to challenge this tm when as it is something as simple as a bobbin. if can be done cheaply then it should be done out of principle.

[David Schwab]

Yes, have them define the color, as the trademark is very vague (as is many patents), but I think the main thing is that it is an abandoned trademark, and with that they can not claim any color as their own. That would get rid of the thing entirely.

[JGundry]

Yes the color has to be defined. There is an industry standard language to do this, the PMS number. You can create your own color as well. The amount of CMYK or RGB is laid out specifically for the color.

[David Schwab]

Oh yeah, I know about the Pantone Matching System, I've been working in print for the last 28 years. There are other ways to define the color (even RGB or LAB), and any of them are valid as long as they do it. But they haven't done it. PMS is a good standard to use.

Their exact wording is dodgy at best. But that was admitted into the trademark, so that's why I'd also focus on the fact that they no longer sell double cream as their standard color. The trademark is all about their trade dress, and double cream ain't it any longer.

[belwar]

Yes the color has to be defined. There is an industry standard language to do this, the PMS number. You can create your own color as well. The amount of CMYK or RGB is laid out specifically for the color.

It just so happens I have a complete set of pantone PMS color swatches so that will help - cost me a fortune too. Perhaps I'll trademark a vintage color and licence it to everyone for free :>