Stolen business name?

You are mistaken. I reply to what's written. It's not my fault that you keep mixing things up (e.g. rules and law). I'm not a mind-reader, and I can only reply to what you actually write, Sling. Perhaps if you take more care when you write things?

By "double-standards", you mean that people should abide by the law and also by the rules of this environment? They are different - hence "double", but I can only see one standard.

You mean, I ought not to have asked people's opinions here when, at the time of asking, I didn't have a clue about these things (posted earlier, btw). You're entitled to that view, but this seemed like a good place to ask for opinions since we do seem to have a few people with legal experience here. Yeah, I think it was a reasonable thing to ask the people here.

Drama? My asking people's opinions of something like is this is drama? You are mistaken. The only drama here was intentionally injected by you and one or two others. You've admitted that.

I thought I'd explained that abiding by rules and abiding by law is one standard. I don't see how anyone with a functioning brain can conjure a double-standard out of it.

What case would that be that I've prejudiced, Sling? Do you imagine that I have an interest in persuading you of anything? Informations was the only thing that I was after, and I got all that I needed way back. Since then, it's just been making a drama out of it, for the sake of it. But, since you can't see it for yourself, were there to be an actual case, my accepting that Floyd innocently chose to use my business name would prejudice nothing. That acceptance doesn't mean that I accept his continued use of it. Are you awake yet?

Yes I did. I'll remind you of more. At the start, I said I didn't have a clue. But time has gone by since then and I've learned things. The only area that's debateable is whether or not Prim Savers is registerable as a trademark, and I'm 95% certain that it is. As far as I am concerned, it is a clear case - a clear breach of the law.

He isn't inclined to do the right thing - you are right about that - but my dealings with lawyers isn't your concern.

If that suggestion is to take this discussion out of here, it's you who is keeping it going. I suggested that we can agree to differ some pages back, but you preferred to keep it going. It did sink after a while but Floyd brought it back. Some people posted responses and now you're keeping it going. Would you like to agree to differ and let it sink again, or do you prefer your drama?

That's your opinion - one that you arrived at gradually. It is not established fact.
Comments here were divided on the question of actual legality and the extra measures that you might need to take to strengthen a case for illegality.
This has not been tested by any legal process. It is not certain that the particular circumstances constitute a breach of applicable law.

I had thought about you assertion that you had won every single argument. My initial thought was that this was simply wishful thinking on your part.
However, you comment about just having to look to see (that you considered that you had won) - gave me this though.

Your rule for "winning" is to post last.

Who would ever have thought I would be happy to see Lias posting in a thread

You know I fight you on other subjects Lias, but this support is something I am glad with. Not because I am Phils best buddy (some people seem to think that) but because I know when someone is trying to scam his way into SL on expense of someone else.

Doing the right thing.
In this case it is very clear. Floyd clearly tries to get into business on the back of Phils established name, and that is just simply wrong. And it is good to see that about everyone seems to regognize that. It is good to see people that fought in the past, unite in their disapproval of this piggyback rider.

My advice to all people seeing this Floyd for what he is, to AR him, his business, and his logo. The more AR's are filed, the bigger the chance is that this blatant copycatting stops. And let's face it, a copycatted name, a copycatted logo, shelves put out in search with the original name of Phils store, there is enough to go by. Let's see if this forum can actually do something good (like it did in the past I might add).

@Phil: Sling likes the drama too much to stop. I would advice you to simply not respond to her anymore.

hehe. Apart from the times when I've said that you were right and I was mistaken, I did win every point But that 'posting last' rule isn't one of mine. I do like to have the last word - it's common knowledge here, and I'm not the only one - but it's nothing to do with winning. Winning is showing the other to be wrong.

That pretty much sums up that point. As I said, and you quoted, "As far as I am concerned, it is a clear case - a clear breach of the law." To be absolutely certain, it would need to be decided in court, as you pointed out. That's nothing new to this thread either.

So it's not certainly a breach of law.
By your stated position on behavioural standards, Floyd can not be asked to do any more than to obey the explicit rules.
It has not been demonstrated that he has broken the explicit rules.

Your asking him to "do the right thing" is therefore an exercise in double standards.


ETA:
And just to head off yet another semantic dance... by "rules" I include both LL's TOS and any RL laws that might be *directly applicable* to the situation.

Nonsense. We've been through this before in this thread but I'll try to make it clearer - just for you.

A law is not broken at the point in time when a court finds the accused guilty. It is broken at the time when the accused does the deed. Civil cases, such as this, would require a court judgement, simply because it is not a criminal offense, so the authorities don't act to enforce the law. But the absense of a court judgement doesn't mean that the law has not been broken and, in this case, it is "certainly a breach of the law".

As for "explicit rules", there can only be one source of rules that apply to this - the SL ToS - and the only person who has majored on the ToS rules here, is you. I certainly haven't suggested that Floyd is in breach of the ToS. He is in breach of the law.

Incidentally, there is no "stated position on behavioural standards" by me. Why do you invent things like that, Sling? Do you think that people are too stupid to see through it?

Such things are comparative, of course, but "much less costly" causes me to raise an eyebrow.

Did the lawyer from whom you took advice give you any indication of what his fees would be for handling such a case and in which jurisdiction did he think it would be heard -- the UK, where Phil issued the alleged libel, or the USA, where -- I think -- it was published or where? And what did he have to say about the knotty problem of whether you can, in fact, libel an avatar? Since no one knows who the RL person behind "Floyd Mistwalker" actually is, it's difficult for the RL person to claim his reputation has been damaged in any way; there's an arguable case -- well, I think there is, but this is way out of my area -- that you can, but it's by no means clear that it's possible or, if it is, that this could possibly have happened in the instant matter.

I find it very difficult to believe that a competent lawyer encouraged you -- whatever the rights and wrongs of the matter -- to pursue libel here, simply because of the costs involved. If he did, I would strongly advise obtaining further advice before throwing spending a lot of money on it. What's this chap's hourly billing rate, out of interest? In the UK, the sort of specialist firm I'd want to consult in something as arcane as libeling an avatar over the internet (someone like Finers Stephens Innocent, perhaps) would not be cheap.

Too late.

I told you before that I am not a mind-reader and I can only respond to what you actually write. Law is law. There are some rules that you've invoked - the ToS. Stick to the right words, Sling, and then we'll all know what you mean. If you don't, you're likely to invent stuff again, such as treating the law and ToS rules as the same. It's so much better to write the correct words for what you mean. I avoids confusion, and it's very easy to do

It's a shame that your concept of doing the right thing doesn't include stopping you trading on somebody else's well-established business name. Your concept of doing the right thing is to defend your trading on somebody else's business name. Thank you for telling us that.

The connection to low prim furniture is relevant:
The name of the store isn't "arbitrary or fanciful" for what you are selling, in my opinion it isn't "suggestive" either (there's no imaginative leap that needs to be made) and it's not generic which leaves "descriptive".

Since "low prim furniture" is your target market and it "saves prims" compared to non-low prim furniture it neatly fits the "descriptive" type in my view:
"I'm staying at a Holiday Inn" fits the secondary meaning brought up in the quote in that people won't be thinking of a generic holiday inn but rather *the* "Holiday Inn" brand.

Whereas "I redecorated my house with some lovely low prim furniture, they're real prim savers" to me would not imply that those items came from your store but rather they saved on primcount compared to what they had before. Unless (or until) the rest of SL feels different you wouldn't have a secondary meaning and hence not a distinctive name that can qualify as a trademark.

Hate to tell you Phil and Floyd. I went to both your places inworld to look at them and they both pretty much suckerooed. Phils is simple simon stuff and floyds is a only a tad more interesting but the store is very badly laid out.
How Phil ever got 17k or more in traffic is beyond me. You would be lucky to get 1,700 in traffic really. I suspect a bit of fast feet behinds the scenes. And Floyd, Floyd is not helping matters much with his attitude.

Its stupid cheap prims. No one really cares. Thats your first big clue for the day. The stuff you both sell looks like a horses behinds. The fact that anyone buys it supports PT Barnums famous saying to the letter.

Neither one of you has a recognizable logo. one of the first requirments. And if one or the other was to slow on the ball to register a domain name, all the bitching in a very hot place does not matter at all. You snooze you lose. Its that simple. I have a small hint. MAKE A CORPORATE LOGO _ BLOG _ MISSION STATEMENT_WEBSITE and so on! Maybe you have, but if you did, it is buried somewhere deep because I have not seen it anywhere.

32 pages of whine here and the whammmmbulance still hasnt arrived. Simply wow.

There are almost 6 -8 other business with my name or likeness in SL and I still, inspite of that, have done very well in spite of competition. Suck it up and just make better stuff. Works everytime for the rest of us.

Well at least Phil and Floyd and most everyone else has the balls to come here and post on their main and not an alt.
Just sayin.

yeah ok whatever chief. Makes you happy snappy to know everything? My points are still valid. Matters not who said it.

And for the record, I logged on to ask a legit question in RA and then got sucked into this pityful excuse of a black hole thread. I stated my reason for using this account on my other post. Your not worthy of me repeating it here.

It does matter. Come on back on your main and enlighten us all some more.

ETA: The reason it matters is... there are a lot of SL business owners that post here and every time they do they put their reputation on the line. I have a lot of respect for people that do that, even if I don't agree with their opinions. I have zero respect for someone that snipes from behind alt camouflage.

So you are the furniture fashion police? Engaging in a discussion about what is an acceptable business practice in SL involves having to be certified by your seal of approval?

If someone is making only 2 dozen items, and you do not like their store layout, and you do not like their product.....they deserve to have their business name ripped off? Would you like to clarify for that everyone in business here?

oh gee you hurt my feelings skippy. Phils stuff is a bunch of junk. you know it , I knowit , he knows it. The fact they needed 33 freaking pages to discuss it is nuts. And I have another clue just for you. Its a game. Some of us are just better at it than others. My statment stands. Makes no difference if Rush or Obama said it either. Facts are facts jack. Don't like it? Find a new hobby.

Oh really. It's a game? You do business, and tell your customers it's just a game? All is fair?

Why don't you clarify that with your business name?

LOL This thread keeps getting better and better! ~not~

WTF is with Floyd. I am still freaking stunned by this all.

And Sling, wtf are you doing here with Phil, yet AGAIN? Arch-enemies 4-life??

jeezus.

I'm calling BS on you and your other thread where you claim to have half a million $L to cash out. I don't believe your story for a second. I doubt you've ever done anything in SL other than act childish and try to annoy people.

yup
exactly. You take it to serious.

Oh there is where your sadly mistaken. And you should watch your tone of voice when your talking to your elders.

Oh just go away. For all we know this is you, Mr. serious sounding: