Stolen business name?

Look back to posts #309 and #318 and you'll note that you yourself brought apparant copyright infringement into this thread so why would you feel it's not on-topic now?

Floyd - you cannot smokescreen and pretend to concern yourself about what Phil is doing when you are knowingly taking advantage of years of work Phil put into this company name.

You have absolutely no shame what so ever. You show up to the Second Life Merchant community and take a business name already in use and make an effort to sell similar products also. When asked to adjust this problem you gloat about how much business you will be pulling in because of it.

Your parasite tactics are not acceptable at all - no matter how much character asassination you lob in Phil's direction.

HUH???

What on earth are you smoking?

Where did I ever gloat about something like that?

Are you making stuff up to make people believe you? Read up all I ever said... and talk based on facts.

You have 'primsavers' all over your forum signature. The business name that has belonged to Phil for years. You shamelessly became a parasite to Phil at the end of 2009 and happily parade around using his business name while purposely selling low prim furniture - just as Phil does.

First off, as I’ve mentioned a few times above, what draws me into this thread is the hypocrisy of the thrust of it - the double standard.
Whether or not Floyd is the lowest of the low is irrelevant in this. Also Phil’s particular activities in keeping his ranking high are irrelevant in themselves. An opinion on Phil’s business standards should in no way affect an opinion on Floyd’s standards and v.v. They don’t cancel each other out.

The key is this:
Phil wants Floyd to stop using Primsavers as a business name. He acknowledges above that it would not be a trivial task for Floyd to change all his materials to implement that.
He has asked Floyd to do “the right thing”.

The question is:
Does this request to Floyd fly totally in the face of Phil’s own statement on the behaviour that can be asked of anyone?

For years, Phil has fought a rearguard action in defence of Search gaming. Throughout it all, the brick wall that he erects is “If it’s not banned in the TOS, it’s not wrong. End of!”. Even if it is clear that LL are moving against the gaming techniques and have specifically blogged to warn against “any attempt to artificially inflate your rank in search results”, Phil holds that unless it is specifically banned in the TOS, then it’s not wrong.

When queried about the sprit of LL’s policy statements, Phil came back with:


Although it was clear from the context in which he posted this, that the “rules” he was chiefly referring to were the terms of the TOS, it can be accepted that the standard encompassed compliance with RL laws.

It has not been suggested that Floyd breached the TOS. The TOS does not mention the situation.
It has been suggested that Floyd breached RL law, and *clearly* breached RL law.

If Floyd has indeed breached some law that is actually applicable to the particular situation, then Phil asking him to “do the right thing” could be interpreted as asking him to comply with that law.

If Floyd has not breached some law that is actually applicable to the particular situation, then Phil asking him to “do the right thing” has to be interpreted as asking him to do more than “comply with the rules”. However, according to Phil’s statement above, . “Nobody can ask any more from anyone.”
In this case, “do the right thing” means - Do the honourable thing / Do the ethical thing / Play fair / Act in the sprit of the thing.


So has Floyd breached some law?
If he has, nobody has identified it.

There are some Trademark procedures that *might* be applicable.





Let’s look at what the UK government website says about unregistered marks:


In short, if you can’t register your mark, you basically got zip / nada / zero.
This is for a situation entirely within the UK legal system, without the huge complications of trying to take it international.






Oh dear! Read on…..




Even a *Registered* UK trademark is not an automatic trademark in the USA.
You have to apply. There are a number of ways of doing this. You can apply direct or apply through an international framework. The Madrid Protocol is a framework that streamlines the application process and minimises costs. It also has the advantage that you can apply for an international trademark based on a registration *application* in the UK, rather than have to wait for the registration to be accepted in the UK.
The procedures are not applicable to an unregistered mark, but can proceed provided that an application for a UK mark registration is submitted.

Acceptance in the foreign country is *not* automatic.
The application can be refused.
It can be challenged by a third party.
It might not be registrable in that country.
In the case of the USA, the requirements for an international applicant are more demanding than those for a US-based entity. The mark must be registrable on the Principal Register. That is to say, the mark must be one "by which the goods of the applicant may be distinguished from the goods of others." Something that saves prims might have problems. (as an example).




Given that international protocols had to be agreed to ease the application processes and that the UK Government website is quite clear on the weakness of an unregistered mark even entirely within the UK, I’d say that your chances of success in an international action would be zero to nothing.

You *could* take a case in the US courts.
You could also take a case against the US Government on the basis that they were wrecking your head.
Your chances of success would be similarly zero, but at least the latter case could get you some publicity, which might be helpful to your business endeavours.




Your questions demonstrate that you don’t have a grasp on the formal processes necessary to secure rights in the USA. Without securing such rights your chances of successfully getting a court order are probably approaching nil.


On the basis of you patently faulty research, you assert that Floyd has clearly broken the law.
He has not broken a law.
He has, in your terms “complied with the rules” in that there is no explicit rule/law that prevents him from doing what he is doing.

You are asking him to do more than “comply with the rules”

And now, a bit of light relief.










Sooooo....... Phil can talk about Floyd and his lawyer, but ......

You're not very good in the understanding dept. are you, Sling. How many times do I have to tell you that I don't ask anything different of anyone else. There is only one standard.

Now I know that, since you invented the double standard idea, you're keen on pushing it home, in spite of the facts and truth denying it. How long will you go on banging your head against that particular brick wall?

If all you are bothered about is your double standard idea, then I'll leave you to it. It isn't true, no matter how much you write it, and I'm tired of trying to reach something in you that clearly isn't there - an understanding of reality. So I'll leave this thread to you - enjoy

Correct. I have failed miserably to get you to understand anything of the truth.

Also correct.

LMAO, and that means I boast that I will be making anything because of him? Grow up... Stop making ridiculous statements

without demonstration, it'd be silly to take either of you at your word given the circumstances. people can and do change their minds... so if you are going to make a claim against an opponent, it helps to present evidence supporting the claim. otherwise it's just hearsay.

ok

Goodwin attempt?