TRUly Lame

The word TRUly is forbidden and specially when used in the phrase TRUly lame.

It is a Violation of the TOS hahaha


I congratulate the person who thinks the word TRUly belongs to her. I wonder if the words Moron or Idiot will soon be not allowed anymore when used in conjunction with Customer and Service and You.


This concludes the test of the Emergency Broad _CAst system

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1xiFRccd88

hahah talk about double TRUly lame

hahahaha
i saw another post of yours and i think i know why you were given some trouble..

i think the name TRU is copyright protected

look here
http://www.texturesrus.net/cms/front_content.php?idcat=97

I hate you. That song will NEVER leave my head.

NEVER?
oh i think it will i have the antidote right here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--ZTrKPFwJc

ARGH.

I am not a lawyer, but it's my personal understanding copyrights aren't even worth the paper they're printed on when your copyrighted name is being used for the purposes of parodying your company or otherwise making fun of it. Such as for example if you don't agree with something that said company above has decided and you say it's TRUly lame, their copyright they own in TRU doesn't give them any rights to nail you for using their acronym in that manner.

I'm no doctor, but it's my understanding that the legbone isn't always connected to the shin bone.

Typically, a company name would not receive copyright protection, becaues it's not a work or expression. It may, however, be a trademark.

Whether a trademark were infringed (or close enough that Linden Lab wanted to play safter than sorrier) would depend on the facts of its usage, which we are not provided.

Some of the basics on trademarks can be found from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office faqs: http://www.uspto.gov/main/faq/index.html

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

(although I do like Lionel Richie. )

Truely Lame?

Wow, I can't believe I have never seen that music video before. Thanks for both smashing my belief that a hot chick sang that song and making me question my sexuality there for a second LMAO

The use was " you won't find this in one of those TRUly lame 10 packs" word for word

Fact is that LL or those people that were SLX and are still allowed to play the Pennsyltucky Ring around the rosie with us, shook me down and held my 700+ item Account Hostage over the word TRUly!

TRU is actually a Trademark brand name owned by a US corporation. I will have my scumbag lawyer call the Owner of that trademarked word on Monday at 9 AM and see if he will give me permission to use it as part of TRUly in my sentences. Maybe if SLTOS prohibits me using a small part of another SL companies name in an ad, Trademark Law can make that name go away from SL so I can then use the word TRUly without viloating their Kindergarden CartoonLaw

you are refering to parody which is a perfectly legit case of fair Use in copying creative works - not exactly the case here, but thanks for the great idea though, simply brilliant no less.


I love this video game - its almost as cool as Duke-Nukem but I think it has way more levels.

If you're lawyer helps you out, then he isn't a scumbag, is he?

The one thing I could think of is that you didn't acknowledge the trademark with the little (TM) or a sentence that says, "___ is a registered trademark of ____" or whatever.

But I doubt your specific case was run by Legal. The Lindens handling the abuse reports probably have standing orders to play it safe, don't try to analyze anything on their own, and just delete anything referencing the trademark. Besides, the one who owns the trademark is the one most likely to be able to afford lawyers to sue someone.

And I wouldn't necessarily fault them for that. The Lindens who respond shouldn't be making legal analysis on their own; they should be playing it safe when there is any sort of fuzzy line, and letting the questionable cases go to Legal.

But they could play it safe without being draconian. They could give you a chance to remove the reference to ____ pending further review by their Legal team or something. There is no reason they can't give you a chance to comply, or any reason why they have to lock you out or disrupt your business. As long as you are talking to your lawyer, don't forget to ask about what liability Linden Lab might have to you. (Of course, I'm sure that's not something you haven't already been thinking about.)

i don't know if this is why they did anything to Von or not but it is the closest thing that came to mind..
maybe copyrights are a bit tougher in here than RL..who knows..

one thing i am sure of is a lot of people have had things pulled from xstreet and inworld for the same reasons..

I don't get it. Is TRU some sort of in world business or something?

RL-legally, I would have thought that Textures R Us could be in more trouble that "TRUly Lame". There's a budget airline in the UK called Easy Jet, that successfully goes after anyone using "Easy <This>", "Easy <That>", etc. as a trading name, for the simple reason that "Easy <Anything>" implies a connection with the Easy Jet company and, therefore, trades on its name. So I'm sure that Toys R Us would be successful for the same reason.

Also, the use of a trading name is perfectly legal and cannot be prevented in some circumstances, such as "<Brandname> Sucks"; e.g. "Paypal Sucks" (paypalsucks.com). I think it's because it's a comment rather than an attempt to trade on the name.

I agree with Phil, the owner should be more concerned about using the "R us" in her brand name as she cannot complain about your phrase when she blatantly uses another trading style.

If Easy Jet do it I wonder what Toys r us would do if they were made aware of this person using their trading name style.

Are you allowed to directly name and insult other companies in advertising?
I know in the UK that doesn't normally happen so I *assume* it isn't allowed. Perhaps it is?

Do American adverts name and insult other companies ?

Spuds R Us has been around for a long time.

If the OP simply loses the upper case R and U and uses a font colour instead surely there could be no complaint?

There was a rule at one time, I think, that you couldn't even name another company in the UK. That has changed now and we see Tesco and Asda having polite digs at each other by claiming they're cheaper than the other.

Although saying that, there did used to be the "It's a lot less bother than a hover" lawnmower adverts.

American advertising as I recall has always been a bit more aggressive in this area.

I thought I remember reading that Toys R Us only has a problem with it, if the 'R' is backwards

ETA: Although TRU is their stock symbol...

Thats why I asked it as a question, I wonder where the lines should be drawn, to me using the word truly is no biggie especially as its a word but I would imagine it was because they got funny as maybe they saw it as an insult.

Wasn't that aimed at a type of product and not a brand? What I mean is, was there more than one brand of hover mower at the time?


I can't see anything wrong with the way that "TRUly" was used. It could have been "you won't find this in one of those lame Textures R Us 10 packs" without any problem. There can't be anything legally wrong with criticising a named business. It's perfectly legitimate comment and/or oneupmanship - at least it is here in the UK, judging by the sort of ads we see here that Ciaran mentioned. I don't see it as being a good way of selling ones own textures though. For me, it's one thing to point out the differences, but another to insult the competitor's product while doing it. It would greatly put me off the sellers product. Leaving out the word "lame" would suit me better.