Tweet
This is an interesting topic. This has been stated at various times before but bears repeating.
The main issue seems to be DiM's trademark wording concerning the color 'cream' - 'that shade of yellow commonly known as cream'. (sic) This seems very unnecessarily broad, as everybody sees colors in different ways. One person's 'cream' is another's 'sand' is another's 'taupe'.
I worked in a web printing press for a summer awhile back, and the pressmen have equipment that can shine light on any color and read it as Pantone color values for CMYK, or cyan, magenta, yellow, or black. This is done so everything they print comes out exactly the same color every time. Big deal, you say. Who cares. Why is this important?
Now, we all know what color DiM's 'cream' is. It's the color of a brand new Super Distortion (SD) pickup bobbin. We also know what passes for 'cream' by various pickup bobbin molders.
IMO the best way out of this is to take a new SD pickup and get a Pantone color reading printout of the bobbin, as well as that of various other pickup bobbin suppliers. Or, get samples of bobbins ranging from 'natural uncolored butyrate white' to 'bottom of the ashtray brown' and let them try to tell the court exactly which shade of 'yellow' is the 'cream' color they trademarked. This way it can easily be proven that no two 'cream' shades are truly alike, and also easily shows how broad the original wording actually was.
In other words... let them prove which shade is theirs, as they can't possibly claim them all. Then, having two visible parts to a product colored the same shade (not 'their' shade) is a moot point.
You can say for example green Mountain Dew soda bottles are a color trademark. This is true... to the extent that they are a *specific shade* of green easily differentiated from other shades. I highly doubt the makers of Dew stated their trademarked color 'was the shade of green commonly known as somewhere between yellowygreen and sea green, unless it's full of errr.... some kind of liquid... in which case the color of the full part of the bottle may differ from that of the empty part...' (joke)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Think about it.
I think putting a logo on the top of any pickup you make is a great idea. I belong to a guitarmakers' forum on social media, and we have been going on this same subject for a week now. If you are proud of your creation, why would you not want to sign your work? Just for the sake of arguing... here's one of mine. Not 'double cream' of course. I've been logoing them since 2006 or so.
One more thing... before anyone asks the 'tube and halo' logo on this pickup is my own trademark - all rights reserved. For real.
Rant over...
ken
The main issue seems to be DiM's trademark wording concerning the color 'cream' - 'that shade of yellow commonly known as cream'. (sic) This seems very unnecessarily broad, as everybody sees colors in different ways. One person's 'cream' is another's 'sand' is another's 'taupe'.
I worked in a web printing press for a summer awhile back, and the pressmen have equipment that can shine light on any color and read it as Pantone color values for CMYK, or cyan, magenta, yellow, or black. This is done so everything they print comes out exactly the same color every time. Big deal, you say. Who cares. Why is this important?
Now, we all know what color DiM's 'cream' is. It's the color of a brand new Super Distortion (SD) pickup bobbin. We also know what passes for 'cream' by various pickup bobbin molders.
IMO the best way out of this is to take a new SD pickup and get a Pantone color reading printout of the bobbin, as well as that of various other pickup bobbin suppliers. Or, get samples of bobbins ranging from 'natural uncolored butyrate white' to 'bottom of the ashtray brown' and let them try to tell the court exactly which shade of 'yellow' is the 'cream' color they trademarked. This way it can easily be proven that no two 'cream' shades are truly alike, and also easily shows how broad the original wording actually was.
In other words... let them prove which shade is theirs, as they can't possibly claim them all. Then, having two visible parts to a product colored the same shade (not 'their' shade) is a moot point.
You can say for example green Mountain Dew soda bottles are a color trademark. This is true... to the extent that they are a *specific shade* of green easily differentiated from other shades. I highly doubt the makers of Dew stated their trademarked color 'was the shade of green commonly known as somewhere between yellowygreen and sea green, unless it's full of errr.... some kind of liquid... in which case the color of the full part of the bottle may differ from that of the empty part...' (joke)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
If this statement is true:
A trademark is an identifier of quality to indicate to consumers the origin of the product, thus enabling them to rely on the marks in their purchase decisions.
Then you should be able to make pickups any color you want- as long as you clearly identify them with your logo.
A trademark is an identifier of quality to indicate to consumers the origin of the product, thus enabling them to rely on the marks in their purchase decisions.
Then you should be able to make pickups any color you want- as long as you clearly identify them with your logo.
Image Trademark with Serial Number 73150505
Status: 800 - Registered And Renewed
Mark Drawing 2S15 - Illustration: Drawing or design without any word(s)/letter(s)/ number(s)
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.
Does that mean you could avoid infringing DM's trademark simply by putting some word(s)/letter(s)/number(s) on the front of the pickup? Like, say, your logo? Yes, I realize this might increase production costs by some trivial amount. But if you are proud of your product, why wouldn't you want it to be easily identified? Unless, of course, your actual intent is to infringe on DM's trademark....
Status: 800 - Registered And Renewed
Mark Drawing 2S15 - Illustration: Drawing or design without any word(s)/letter(s)/ number(s)
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.
Does that mean you could avoid infringing DM's trademark simply by putting some word(s)/letter(s)/number(s) on the front of the pickup? Like, say, your logo? Yes, I realize this might increase production costs by some trivial amount. But if you are proud of your product, why wouldn't you want it to be easily identified? Unless, of course, your actual intent is to infringe on DM's trademark....
One more thing... before anyone asks the 'tube and halo' logo on this pickup is my own trademark - all rights reserved. For real.
Rant over...
ken
Comment