LL needs to sue CERN

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article3689881.ece

Seems like CERN is calling their uber-interweb project The Grid.

Quick! Someone tell LL so they can "protect" their trademark!

is Grid SL's ? i remember Grid being used before sl

See Tron: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084827/

hey what was the name of that cartoon that used to be on saturday mornings ..it was like when the first cgi cartoons were coming out ..infact i think it was the first series..they bad guys name was megabite and the little guy i think was called cad

It was called Reboot.

-

- [url=http://www.retrojunk.com/details_tvshows/216-reboot/]

thank you!! now i can stop racking my brains..they used grid and mainframe in there also lol

LL should sue the producer of that show as well.

LL invented the word "grid." They also invented the word "reboot." They just don't feel like tradmarking that one.

coco

LL is claiming "Second Life Grid" and "SL Grid", not just the single word.

so Al gore did invent the internet?
it all makes sense now..thank you all for clearing thigs up for me..i am soo blonde i swear!!

According to the USPTO (.gov), LL has applied for trademark on the following words:

SECONDLIFE
INSL
HIPPO
THE HIPPOS
YOUR WORLD, YOUR IMAGINATION
SL GRID
GRID
SL
SECOND
SECOND LIFE GRID
SECOND LIFE
2ND LIFE
LINDEX

So it looks like the word "grid" to me, both alone and in combination with Second Life and with SL.

These are in various stages of Live or Dead, which I don’t entirely understand. I don’t know how these were gotten to, because I’ve forgotten how to navigate the uspto site. But this info can also be found on SLU, with a screenshot of the page listing them, here:

http://www.sluniverse.com/

php/vb/general-sl-discussion/9109-linden-lab-trying-trademark-second-grid.html

(Divided that into two parts so the page won't scroll too badly.)

coco

"Applied" is the key term there. Linden's application for "grid" was refused by USPTO,
They do have a response on file in an attempt to get them to change their minds, but that's not too likely.

there has to be so rational thinking here

If that is so, then it still remains true that LL was applying for the single word.

Right? Right.

coco

But they are not claiming it as a trademark, they only asked for it. And if you ask for a billion dollars and aren't given it, you can't claim to be a billionaire. So it's irrelevant.

In other words, they were trying to claim it, as a single word.

coco

Do, or do not. There is no try.

The actual list of marks Linden Research really does claim is at http://secondlife.com/corporate/brand/trademark/tm_chart.php and "Grid" by itself is not there.

I do believe there IS a try. It's the point at which you submit application, and then wait for approval.

I take it from your answers, though, that you didn't actually intend to leave the impression that LL had never wanted to or tried to claim the individual word, "grid," which is the part I was correcting.

Or that you did, because you were mistaken.

coco

You're wrong. Microsoft invented and *perfected* "reboot" over a decade ago.

But it is listed with the US Trademark office... http://www.uspto.gov/main/trademarks.htm

For the full list, click Search on the right, select the Free Form Search and enter "Linden Research", one of their 38 listed trademarks is Grid! (#77213692)

Most of them don't have registration numbers though, anyone know what that means? I guess they haven't received approval yet?

Mmmm, so they are trying to trademark the word "Second" too.

Will be get an update to the ToS saying we can't use the word "Second" in any business without two nouns? e.g.

Second Hand - is not OK
Second Hand Shop - is OK

????

Matthew

In short, LL's application for the word "grid" is "live":
_____

Serial Number: 77213692 Assignment Information
Trademark Document Retrieval
Registration Number: (NOT AVAILABLE)
Mark
GRID
(words only): GRID
Standard Character claim: Yes
Current Status: Applicant's response to a non-FINAL office action has been entered in application.
Date of Status: 2008-03-21
Filing Date: 2007-06-22
Transformed into a National Application: No
Registration Date: (DATE NOT AVAILABLE)
Register: Principal
Law Office Assigned: LAW OFFICE 106
Attorney Assigned:
ELTON DAVID JONATHAN
Current Location: L6X -TMEG Law Office 106 - Examining Attorney Assigned
Date In Location: 2007-09-20

LAST APPLICANT(S)/OWNER(S) OF RECORD

1. Linden Research, Inc.

GOODS AND/OR SERVICES
International Class:
Class Status: Active
Computer hardware and computer software digital platforms for use in building three dimensional virtual environments
Basis: 1(b)
First Use Date: (DATE NOT AVAILABLE)
First Use in Commerce Date: (DATE NOT AVAILABLE)

International Class: 038
Class Status: Active
Communication services in the nature of text and voice messaging and electronic mail services used in an online virtual environment
Basis: 1(b)
First Use Date: (DATE NOT AVAILABLE)
First Use in Commerce Date: (DATE NOT AVAILABLE)

International Class: 041
Class Status: Active
Multimedia and three dimensional virtual environment software production services
Basis: 1(b)
First Use Date: (DATE NOT AVAILABLE)
First Use in Commerce Date: (DATE NOT AVAILABLE)

PROSECUTION HISTORY

NOTE: To view any document referenced below, click on the link to "Trademark Document Retrieval" shown near the top of this page.

2008-03-21 - Teas/Email Correspondence Entered
2008-03-20 - Communication received from applicant
2008-03-20 - TEAS Response to Office Action Received
2007-11-26 - Attorney Revoked And/Or Appointed
2007-11-26 - TEAS Revoke/Appoint Attorney Received
2007-09-20 - Notification Of Non-Final Action E-Mailed
2007-09-20 - Non-final action e-mailed
2007-09-20 - Non-Final Action Written
2007-09-12 - Assigned To Examiner
2007-06-27 - New Application Entered In Tram[/font]
_____

If you click on the place for supporting documents at the top of that page (and you get to the page by entering the registration number), you can find all the supporting documents.

I quote here what seems to be LL's latest salvo, arguing why they should be allowed to trademark the word "grid" (parts quoted only):
_____

The Examining Attorney refused registration of Applicant’s mark GRID under Section 2(1) of the Trademark Act as being merely
descriptive on the basis of ... [goes on in detail about what the Examining Attorney had said].

The Applicant respectfully disagrees with the Examining Attorney for the following reasons and requests the Examining Attorney to
retract this refusal and approve the application for publication.

A. The Term “GRID” Is Not Merely Descriptive of the Goods and Services in the Application
The definitions relied upon by the Examiner are unrelated to Applicant’s use of the term GRID. Applicant’s goods and services do not feature, rely upon or utilize any interconnected set of nodes such as the electric power network or a communications network, and Applicant’s use of the word GRID is not meant to make reference to a nickname for the Internet. Furthermore, Applicant’s goods and services do not feature,require, or otherwise rely upon the use of a series of computers tied together in a network in order to perform large scale computations that are so large as to require the processing power of multiple computers connected. In other words, Applicant’s goods and services are not related to “grid
computing.” GRID in the context of “grid computing” is akin to the notion of a utility company’s power grid in which there are several nodes in a power network; in grid computing, there are several computers that are each connected as a node in a network whose overall task is to perform highly demanding computations that require high performance processing power.

B. Use of “GRID” With a Lower Case G Is Not Dispositive of the Term’s Descriptiveness
Input Field Entered
In addition to the two inapplicable definitions cited by the Examiner, the Examining Attorney also cited to a use of GRID with a lower
case “G” by Applicant on its website.
Applicant notes this incorrect use of this term in its mark and thanks the Examining Attorney for drawing this to the Applicant’s
attention. Applicant is taking steps to ensure that misuses of its mark are identified and corrected. Despite this anecdotal improper capitalization of the term GRID, this term remains Applicant’s own proprietary mark selected for its suggestiveness to serve as a source identifier for its goods.

C. “GRID” Is Suggestive
There are many definitions of GRID, but none of them directly describe a feature, function, purpose, use or characteristics of Applicant’s goods and services. Applicant’s use of the term GRID is suggestive of being able to take virtual space and plan, design and “build” (i.e., create) a virtual world or virtual environment. However, there is no tangible or physical “grid” in any sense.
Thus, when Applicant uses GRID as its trademark, consumers will have to pause to consider the message that Applicant is conveying,
because, as with all suggestive terms, the term GRID requires consumers to conclude for themselves what is suggested by the mark. Since at least a single step of thought is required to ponder the meaning of GRID in relation to the goods and services on which it is used – and in view of the multiple, plausible meanings of the term GRID – the term GRID in Applicant’s mark is immediately removed from the realm of descriptiveness to that of suggestiveness. See In re Nobile Co., 225 U.S.P.Q. 749, 750 (TTAB 1985) (stating that if a term requires that one exercise imagination, thought or perception to reach a conclusion as to the product, the term is suggestive).

D. Any Doubt Regarding Descriptiveness Should Be Resolved in Favor of Applicant
Applicant has already stated for the record in its companion applications, U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 77/213688 for the mark SECOND LIFE GRID and U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 77/213727 for the mark SECOND LIFE GRID & Design that the term GRID has no other significance with respect to Applicant’s goods and services other than trademark significance.
It is a well-established law that any doubt regarding the suggestiveness of a term must be resolved in an
applicant’s favor. See, e.g., In re Morton-Norwich Products, Inc., 209 U.S.P.Q. 791 (TTAB 1981) (stating “there is a
thin line between a suggestive and a merely descriptive designation, and where reasonable men may differ, it is the
Board's practice to resolve the doubt in applicant's favor and publish the mark for opposition”); In re Aid Labs., Inc., 221
U.S.P.Q. 1215, 1216 (TTAB 1983) (in deciding whether PEST PRUF for animal shampoo with insecticide is suggestive
or merely descriptive, doubt is resolved in favor of applicant in holding the term merely suggestive of a possible end
result of the use of applicant’s goods).

These are additional reasons why Applicant respectfully requests the Examining Attorney withdraw the requirement to disclaim the term GRID apart from the mark as shown, and approve the mark SL
GRID for publication.

_____

So it appears to be ongoing. We are paying for this, folks.

coco

How do we let the PTO know that the above assertions are patently false (pun intended)?


This is less laughable. Still, limiting the term "grid computing" to apply to a small number of highly demanding computations, instead of a large number of somewhat demanding computations, seems like an overly narrow view of the utility of grid computing.


This is interesting. Obviously, there is a physical grid - the network of various simulators and servers connected together. But regardless, it's not clear whether the law requires that the word be descriptive of something physical for its use to be disallowed. The term is quite descriptive of the virtual environment, and in particular, the map of regions is a grid.

Hear Hear!! I Second that!!! Oh crap :X

All these grids springing up will effect bandwidth for everything else. It will all be hit and miss and laggy and that will spill into normal browsing and email and downloading. Competing with all of this for the same bandwidth are the websites streaming TV shows and movies that have or are planning to spring up. The limitations of existing ISP technology is a brick wall and requires a whole new redo again, at a time when the economy is terrible.

LL never should have gone to the free accounts, they should have just kept working on SL quietly, realizing they need to grow slowly, since it will always be up against bandwidth restrictions, till the massive cash is spent to redo all the cables on the planet.

Just wait till ISPs start charging home customers by bandwidth used. Unless the entire economic system is changed, if there is a major scarcity of bandwidth, due to Grids springing up, the average user, wanting to use online games or Second Life, will be paying by the minute. The money the big Internet providers and phone companies need to spend to redo the system again is going to be astronomical.