Stolen business name?

just as an aside..

when I see prim savers (either version) I think two things..

1. that the name was "inspired" by specsavers - which to me is the lowest of low of the optometry chains here
2. that specsavers are cheap and "cheerful" with sloppy business processes and poor service.
(I made the mistake once of buying some specs from them and can honestly say that I'll never do that again. )

so prim savers to me = cheap and probably anything else is better.

It might sound harsh but this isn't being nasty, this is truly how I see the name. So it does amuse me to see the two of you doing the one upmanship thing against each other over a name I think is slightly sullied from the start.

Call me cynic of course.

........ I may be wrong of course and apologies to Phil if I have misconstrued this but on the back of the other thread where he was trumpeting nice words someone else had said about him ....

That's right Sling.

I didn't know which thread she meant but, if that was it, it was tongue-in-cheek. With my rep among some folks in this forum, it *had* to be tongue-in-cheek It was humour - not hilarious humour, but in-humour for this forum.

steady on, you two are almost agreeing here..



In the end all competition is good. It will keep both of you on your toes and of course Phil you can now put up a sign saying "beware imitations" (which, unfortunately was all I could do against the shop that got "inspired" enough to rip just enough of my item to avoid a DMCA

steady on, you two are almost agreeing here..

Apologies for my cynicism allowing me to jump to the wrong conclusion. Although I do still (in that deeply cynical soul of mine) wonder why you don't work on the "all publicity is good publicity". Certainly the branding reinforcement from the repetitive use of the word in this thread will do you no harm at all. People will look to see which store they're in if they've come across this thread and remember it and I'm sure both of you got a traffic boost with people coming to check out what the fuss is about.

In the end all competition is good. It will keep both of you on your toes and of course Phil you can now put up a sign saying "beware imitations" (which, unfortunately was all I could do against the shop that got "inspired" enough to rip just enough of my item to avoid a DMCA

"Beware Name imitations"

Well, to be honest...I didn't pay attention to much else going on in the thread....just watched:
1) someone explain how they ended up with the same name.
2) how they covered their ass with some smooth schmoozing
3) how they covered their ass again, by explaining that Prim Savers on their items was a mistake.....however still preaching that PrimSavers is an entirely different name.
4) how they put so much effort into building a business, yet forgot to do a basic search for their own business category.
5) how they had an opportunity to clean it all up....and didn't....probably thinking that SL shoppers are completely clueless and complete idiots.
6) how they said it was not intentional....yet took all the necessary steps to seal the deal, during the hours this thread was running.
7) how they came back in, after saying that they were no longer going to respond, in order to promote their new web site
how they continue to taunt, by running the store name under their posting name
9) how they covered their ass again on product problems
10) how they are now issuing ARs against the person they ripped off, and implying that they are buddying up with the people who can effect an outcome.

Give me a break. There are days when Phil hits about 90% on my Infuriation Scale.....but never makes it to 100%.....and have never seen anything as calculated as this....from anyone....not even close.

this^^^
Its got to the point now, where Im suspecting this person is an alt of someone with a grudge..its just gone too far to be *a misunderstanding*, its all got very calculating from this guy...its also got very personal with private messages asking if Id like a tour of his *wares*....how much lower is this going to go? spamming people in phils store? sandwich board wearers parading on the boundary lines?

LegalZoom.com really makes all that cheaper these days and will hold your hand through it to some degree, depending on which package you choose for the legal work. You can get a trademark done for as expensive as $800.00. and as low as $500.

What policy? It's in the TOS that you're supposed to respect trademarks, but what authority is required to get them to act on violations? That is, what form does this "claim" take, who sends it, and is there evidence that LL has ever received and acted on one of these?

....how much lower is this going to go? spamming people in phils store? sandwich board wearers parading on the boundary lines?

btw phil, if you're in the uk I can send you the name of my lawyer. His law firm is one of the few in the uk who specialise in virtual platforms.

if anyone asks where to go for well made low prim furniture, I send them to Phil. I'll just give them a LM instead of directing them to search and will let them know of the store with the similar name and how they definately arent the same. Might lead them to the forums as well. I think any consumer would see that one business is clearly piggy backing on the success of another, and most then wouldnt use the piggy back company. This thread has brought alot of attention to it, and I see the piggy back company folding eventually. Phil is in it for the long haul, he knows his business, built it, stands behind it, and that in the end will make all the difference. Besides, plainly speaking....what the other company is doing is just not right.

lol. That'd be novel since my store is in the sky and with solid walls

a federal trademark registration covering virtual objects of X nature with Y name or logo on them used in commerce in Second Life would be sufficient evidence for Linden Lab place to place the burden of proof on the alleged infringing resident and take an item covered by the trademark registration off the grid.

.... I think any consumer would see that one business is clearly piggy backing on the success of another, and most then wouldnt use the piggy back company. This thread has brought alot of attention to it, and I see the piggy back company folding eventually. Phil is in it for the long haul, he knows his business, built it, stands behind it, and that in the end will make all the difference. Besides, plainly speaking....what the other company is doing is just not right.

Without getting into particular behaviour exhibited by a business.....

Phil and others have long held throughout these threads on gaming and on ethics, that consumers don't care about the methods that bring them to the stores. All the consumers care about is the product that they see in the store, they say.

This apparently is a justification for gaming. They say that it doesn't matter how you get eyeballs to the store just as long as what you advertise is to be found at the store.

I still say that this thread is an exercise in blatant, cosmic, popcorn-for-the-audience hypocrisy.

Most of that is correct. The bit where you are wrong is the "hypocrisy" comment. There is a huge difference between attracting people in ways that are within the rules and legal, and stealing someone else's tradename to compete in the same business which, of course, isn't legal. In other words, what you found fault with before was neither against the rules nor illegal. What Floyd has done is illegal. Doing the first (legal), while being against the second (illegal), isn't hypocrisy by any stretch of the imagination.

The hypocrisy is that having for years maintained this "letter of the TOS" as the be all and end all, you end up in this thread asking someone to "do the right thing!.

That still doesn't answer the question. What do they need to receive, and from whom, before they'll act? And what does, say, a Canadian do to prove a Canadian trademark?

Coca Cola is obviously trademarked. I know LL isn't going to burden itself figuring out if Prim Savers is trademarked. And since a DMCA doesn't cover trademarks, what form of documentation would LL require?