Trademarks need active defense and use, and Gibson's been terribly spotty on both.
as has DiMarzio.
first off, yes, Gibson looks really bad right now. they guy that made the video should be out of a job and whoever gave him that green light to make that video might should be in the unemployment line with him. from as near as I can tell in the articles that have been published, the lawsuit against Dean started when Henry was still in charge... now, it is curious if the new guy didn't know about it or didn't have the power to stop it or was OK with it going ahead. of course, Dean might be an easy target, as the new guy in charge has made a few bush league mistakes which can be tantamount to chumming the waters.
at the end of the day, Gibson isn't going anywhere. they survived decades of Henry and they'll survive a little bad press.
as for DiMarzio's enforcement of it's double cream and "PAF". honestly, I don't care. the law of the land allowed DiMarzio to gobble up rights to things they didn't invent or name or whatever you want to call it. so be it. a lot of people find it intellectually vacuous and I also see their point. there are people that literally make a living from buying up the rights to things and cashing in on the licensing of it. some people think that requires a certain moral flexibility and they aren't wrong in their take on it.
the bottom line is that DiMarzio didn't come up with double cream or "PAF". and DiMarzio doesn't go after everyone that crosses those lines any better than Gibson does in the examples previously provided in this thread. but more so when DiMarzio determines a company crosses an imaginary line that makes them a threat to something DiMarzio owns but didn't make... which makes it even more ludicrous.
so yes, I maintain that opting that putting a DiMarzio in a LP clone because of this is humorously ironic.
