LL protests Minksy’s SLART trademark

Second Life creator Linden Lab has filed a Petition for Cancellation with the USPTO seeking to cancel registration of ‘SLART’. Linden Lab’s core argument is that Minsky made a series of misrepresentations to the USPTO in order to secure registration of the mark and so Minsky ‘is not entitled to Registration No. 3399258 because committed fraud in the procurement of the subject registration.’ More on this over at Virtually Blind.

How infringement on ‘SLART’ is handled, for now…

Minsky asked for - and was granted! - a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) that obliged Linden Lab to ‘stop hiding the identities of users of its service who infringe on the SLART trademark‘. Auwch. That far for SLanonymity. This was reverted by the judge though, and LL & Minsky agreed on the following process:

1. If Minsky - in good faith - thinks somebody is violating his trademark, he drops an email at removals@lindenlab.com (“Notice to Linden”).
2. LL then has 2 business days time to alert the ‘infringing user’ via his (or hers) registered avatar email address and warn him to take the content down. LL will confirm Minsky via email that & when the user was notified. If three business days after the notice the user did not remove the ‘infringements on Minsky’s SLART trademark’ him/herself, Linden will do so.
3. If the infringing use is not exactly the use of ‘SLART’ as one word, with all letters depicted in a uniform size, font and colour, LL may refuse to remove the content and/or warn the resident avatar. LL should notify Richard Minsky of this. If Minsky still wants it to be removed, an U.S. Magistrate will determine if this is needed.

In understandable - but still - legalese, more at Virtually Blind.

SL & other trademarks up for opposition

Linden Lab filed several trademark applications for which you can still file a Notice of Opposition, or a Request to Extend Time to Oppose with the USPTO for the next two weeks: SL ,YOUR WORLD. YOUR IMAGINATION. , SECOND LIFE GRID , SL GRID , SECOND and 2ND LIFE.

Parties who feel that the mark would be damaging, cause confusion or be otherwise invalid by, for example, being ‘merely descriptive’ rather than uniquely identifying the originator of goods and services; or by being somehow generic. Opposition based on descriptive use or genericity can be rather tricky, unless you’ve got a good case. Damage, that is costs or other difficulties, that arise from allowing the registration of the mark are the most straightforward to demonstrate.

For those who wonder how one could try to trademark ’second’, it is only in limited ‘fields’:

1. Software that is used for providing multi-user access to an on-line 3D virtual environment; computer 3D virtual environment software, namely, software for use in creating, manipulating and participating in 3D virtual environments.
2. Communication services in the nature of text messaging and electronic mail services used in an online virtual environment
3. Computer services, namely, hosting an on-line 3D virtual environment featuring a wide variety of user-defined subject matter, and hosting an on-line 3D virtual environment featuring a wide variety of user-defined subject matter that may be accessed by means of communications networks; design and development of multimedia and three dimensional virtual environment software.

Linkage: Massively & Virtually Blind.

Tags: law, linden lab, SLart, trademark

• Minsky sueing over SLart?
• 10 000L$ Bounty for Best Trademark Parody - Winners
• More of The Same on Trademarks