Back from vacation, and it’s been a big two weeks in virtual law. Some of these items deserve a longer write-up (and they’ll eventually get one) but there’s hot sun outside, cold Sauvignon Blanc in the refrigerator, and three episodes of Entourage on my DVR. So without further ado, here’s two weeks worth of virtual law updates in one big post.

• Second Life creator Linden Lab filed its Answer and Counterclaims in the Bragg case (for the non-litigators who read VB, this is standard operating procedure in a lawsuit). It’s available as a PDF here. I’ve only skimmed it, but it doesn’t appear to contain any big surprises. One thing did stand out to me: Linden Lab is asking the Court to hold on to the proceeds of the sale of Bragg’s virtual land during the lawsuit. That looks like a smart move that helps them paint themselves as the good guys here, and really, to Linden Lab, this isn’t exactly about the money. It’s also interesting to me because you could argue it’s a tacit admission that there is real value in virtual land ownership. Should be interesting to see how that plays out. There’s a lengthy press release from Linden Lab about the Answer, available here.

• In a good piece of international news for Linden Lab, it turns out French courts are saner than French parental watchdog groups. I was just in France, of course, and since I couldn’t help but notice that topless models grace the covers of Maxim-type magazines for sale at kiddie-eye-level on a number of Parisian street corners, this result seems more than reasonable. Somewhat oddly, however, Linden Lab says that the result “confirms that French law, and in particular the law of Confidence in the Digital Economy, should be applied to Second Life.” Did they just say that French law should be applied to Second Life? All of it? Yes they did. I hate to bang this drum again, but somebody in the legal department has got to start checking these things before they get posted; that looks like Exhibit 1 in a deposition somewhere down the road to me.

• Along these same lines, Linden Lab issued a confusing press release about its casino and gambling advertising policy. Linden Lab acknowledges the existence of “casinos” for “gambling related activities” in Second Life without any qualification (while last time, you’ll recall, it was just “simulated casino activity”) and merely asks owners to “not advertise your Casinos in our classified section.” It then states that “those that have posted classifieds for businesses in Second Life where the posts are related to Casinos or other Gambling related activities will be removed by Linden Lab with no refunds given.” Wait, what will be removed, the ads themselves or “those that have posted” them? Oh, who cares. You’re all advertising “Kasinos” now anyway.

• Something very interesting is about to happen: we’re going to find out whether Linden Lab will willingly comply with a subpoena for information about the real-life identity of a user. Kevin Alderman (aka ‘Stroker Serpentine’ in Second Life) is suing a John Doe (avatar ‘Volkov Catteneo’ in Second Life) for violating the copyright on Alderman’s popular Eros SexGen bed. Here’s a pdf of the complaint. Reuters covered this in a thorough piece that is worth your click if you’ve not read it already. Alderman is a fixture of the Second Life business community. His product is expensive (around $45 US), incredibly popular, and very press-friendly (it’s a piece of virtual furniture that contains sex animations for avatars). As such, this suit is likely to draw some mainstream press attention. Alderman’s attorney’s first move will be to subpoena documents that establish the real-life identity of alleged perpetrator ‘Volkov Catteneo’ from Linden Lab. ‘Catteneo’ claims to have no identifying information on file with Linden Lab (he actually told Reuters, “I’m not some kind of noob,” a comment which I see projected on a great big screen while he’s testifying if this ever goes to trial). “Noob” or not, I bet you a bag of Lindens that he’s got a traceable IP address or two, a PayPal account, and who knows what else Linden Lab keeps hidden in the darker corners of its servers. (And really, don’t you want to find out?) It will be interesting to see what happens when the subpoena hits, to say the least.

• A handful of reports are floating around that Coca Cola is “releasing” its trademark in Second Life. Trust me on this one: it really isn’t. It might be choosing not to enforce the mark in certain contexts, but it’s not “releasing” (the legal term would be “abandoning”) the trademark in Second Life or anywhere else. It can’t “release” it without abandoning it actually, because trademark law is considered a matter of consumer protection in the U.S. One of the ramifications of that is that transferring a trademark requires transfer of the underlying product — which Coca Cola is pretty clearly not doing. In reality, what Coca Cola appears to be trying to do here is issue a free license to the trademark to allow it to be used in Second Life in a limited context. That it can do, but it has to monitor the quality of the goods being produced or it risks an abandonment argument. As a result, a trademark license usually includes provisions dealing with quality control, inspection, and monitoring. The best clarification I’ve seen so far is here (at the reBang weblog) which basically says that Coca Cola is going to exert some control over who makes what with the Coke logo on it in Second Life. While there’s undoubtedly been a breakdown in communication somewhere, it is good to see a big brand talk about working with potential infringers — arguably the smartest approach.

Sorry to disappear again so soon, but my wife and I are about to leave for eleven days in France. We’re attending the wedding of a good friend near Saint Lô, and exploring Paris and the Normandy countryside.

Though I plan to check email regularly, I do not plan to post from the road. You guys are great, and the fifty cents or so I make each day from the ads is tempting, but you really can’t compete with the world’s best soft cheese and bread, amazing wine, and castle-like B&Bs.

Regular posting will resume shortly after July 4. We’ve got a pretty open itinerary, so if you have any suggestions — particularly for hidden-gem restaurants in Paris or the Normandy region — drop me a note. Incidentally, the image above was shot at “New Paris” in Second Life. Here’s a SLURL.

Trademark infringement in virtual worlds is getting more lucrative. A Second Life Herald writer going by ‘Tenshi Vielle’ (herself a designer) reports that designer ‘Elexor Matador’ (doing business as “Elexor Matador Jewelry”) is selling twenty-five knockoff Cartier Himalia jewelery sets as limited editions for L$10,000 each (just under US $40). Proving that all press is good press, the sets are now advertised as having been “Featured in the Second Life Herald.” If the sets all sell, the designer stands to make a little under US $1000.

To put this in perspective, when VB covered widespread trademark abuse in Second Life last month, the most expensive single infringing item found was a virtual Ferrari selling for about US $7.75.

Prediction? This is just the tip of the iceberg; well-crafted limited-edition luxury goods selling at relatively high prices will become trendy accessories, and that will make it much more likely that a real-world company will take action to protect its trademarks in virtual worlds. Nothing will invite attention quite like an army of miniature Paris Hiltons flaunting knockoff jewelry that costs more than most games themselves do.

‘Elexor Matador’ appears to be trying to avoid treading on Cartier’s intellectual property, however unsuccessfully. For example, the set is not referred to as “Cartier” jewelry in in-store advertising — in marked contrast to the products featured in VB’s earlier article on trademark infringement in Second Life. However, the set is called the “Himalia,” which is a registered trademark of Cartier that is used on the real jewelry that this set appears to be based on. As such, there is little question the designer is infringing at least that Cartier-owned mark.

As is traditional when one designer accuses another of something in the SLH, there’s all sorts of associated drama. If you’re interested, the comments to the Herald piece are here, and ‘Elexor Matador’ has responded on his blog here.

My wife and I are moving into our new house over the weekend. (Yes, for those keeping score at home, that’s two moves in five months. This is the last one for a long time though, and that’s a nice feeling.) Regular posting will resume next week.

In the meantime, I’ve got a question for VB readers: can you help me come up with a current list of virtual worlds? I’m going to do a series of posts over the next few months comparing Terms of Service. I want to include any place where user-created or manipulated content remains available to other users after individual users log off. So games count, if they match that criteria. By this criteria, World of Warcraft is barely on the list (I end up including it because of the guilds, but it’s a very close call), Ultima Online obviously goes on the list (because of the ability to own and customize property); and Second Life and There are clearly included.

I know there are probably a dozen more that have at least some popularity out there, but there are only so many hours in the day and I haven’t checked them all out. Help me out here, readers? Just drop a quick note in the comments or shoot me an email to tell me about any virtual world (or MMO game with virtual world attributes) that you know of. If you know of a semi-comprehensive list that someone else has compiled, that would be great too, though I haven’t found anything other than this, and it’s not clear to me what their criteria is (for example, I know the most popular kids site is Club Penguin, and that isn’t on there — maybe Club Penguin doesn’t have static content? Dunno. That’s the kind of question I’m hoping you can help me with).

See you all in a few days.