Comments on: Guest Commentary: Second Life Artists Rightfully Upset Over “SLART” Trademark Registration

By: Some implications of the Second Life Trademark Policy | Nexeus Fatale

Some implications of the Second Life Trademark Policy | Nexeus Fatale — Sun, 14 Aug 2011 20:19:43 +0000

[...] in Second Life especially on Flickr, it created a community backlash. There has been some great and insightful commentary over the dispute which boils down to the fact that Linden Lab owns the copyright and trademark to [...]

By: panik atak

panik atak — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 23:02:28 +0000

The basics of trademarks section of the article just skips over suggestiveness entirely going from fanciful to descriptive and generic and abruptly ends that portion of the discussion. I suppose understanding trademarks could be as ‘easy as pie’ when you omit relevant portions of the law from the discussion.

By: Dan Wilfred

Dan Wilfred — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 06:47:34 +0000

I’m not sure why people are so upset about the trademarking of the SLART name. Has anyone even bothered to read the description of services? According to the USPTO, the trademark covers “Multimedia publishing of books, magazines, journals, software, games, music, and electronic publications; On-line publication of art,” etc.

By: Minsky sueing over SLart? | VintFalken.com

Minsky sueing over SLart? | VintFalken.com — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 00:14:39 +0000

[...] on, guest writer at ‘Virtually Blind’ and trademark attorney Thayer Preece already concluded that – although the trademark should probably not have been appointed to Richard [...]

By: Nexeus Fatale » Some implications of the Second Life Trademark Policy

Nexeus Fatale » Some implications of the Second Life Trademark Policy — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 16:32:35 +0000

By: thayer

thayer — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 08:18:16 +0000

For those who wonder what we’re talking about with respect to “suggestive marks,” check out this primer on the basics of trademark law, published by Harvard Law School:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm

By: thayer

thayer — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 08:15:15 +0000

Tamiko,

There are many marks that do fall into a grey area between descriptiveness and suggestiveness. However, I left a discussion of this issue out of my article because in my opinion it is irrelevant to this particular matter.

Obviously everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but it is my view that when a mark literally means “Second Life Art” (a fact which the Applicant did not contest in his office action response) and it is used on a publication about Second Life art, there is no doubt that the mark is descriptive, and therefore there is no doubt to be resolved in the Applicant’s favor.

By: Tamiko

Tamiko — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 07:47:16 +0000

Well, I also very much appreciate the article. I must admit however that after reading it I found myself asking: Where is the suggestiveness discussion?

The ‘basics of trademarks’ section of the article just skips over suggestiveness entirely going from fanciful to descriptive and generic and abruptly ends that portion of the discussion. I suppose understanding trademarks could be as ‘easy as pie’ when you omit relevant portions of the law from the discussion.

Whatever happened to :

If there is any doubt in drawing the line of demarcation between a suggestive mark and a merely descriptive mark, such doubt is resolved in the applicant’s favor. In re Atavio, 25 USPQ 1361 (TTAB 1992).

Give the examiner a break! GEEEZ….

By: Cyberlaw Central » Blawg Review #144

Cyberlaw Central » Blawg Review #144 — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 06:51:50 +0000

[...] Virtually Blind examines the issues raised by the “SLART” trademark application. It has rightfully upset many “Second Life” artists. [...]

By: Vint Falken

Vint Falken — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 11:07:27 +0000

Taran, I’ll shortly summarize where we were:

Vint (and some others) want:
Minsky to stop calling them liars and slanderers.
The wrongfully acquired trademark on SLart being handed back to the SLart community, preferable by Mr. Misnky.
If this is not going to happen, find a way to get the trademark claim over SLart annulled.

Minsky wants:
To keep his trademark on SLart
Us all to cease and desist.
Us all to recognize that by registering the SLart trademark although he has no – even legal – right to it, he’s doing the SLart community in SL a big favour

Hmm. Not much ‘getting closer’? Although I do think the ‘Free SLart from Trademark Oppression’ front is getting somewhere. ;)