Can bogus DMCAs be used as weapon?

Sure it is. See my previous message.

I'm just not sure. Saying that "it is a trademark issue rather than a copyright issue" involves making a judgment; and the filer might want to challenge that in court - thus LL can't be allowed to do it if they are going to be immune to lawsuits.

Also, you're assuming that because the resident dispute started over two words, that therefore the DMCA will be filed against them to. If they're planning to file a bogus DMCA they can just pick a random piece of the target's content and file against that.

Again...THERE IS NO CONTENT. It was the use of two words in an announcement. Those two words are also the two words which make up the "well-known" company's name.

But there is no content upon which to file a DMCA. So LL would have to immediately make the determination that there is no "copyright" infringement, because the issue is trademark, not copyright.

You missed the point. Whether Linden Labs takes it down or not (and they DO NOT HAVE TO RESPOND TO INCORRECTLY FRAMED DMCA COMPLAINTS - a DMCA complaint MUST refer to a copyright violation, if it doesn't then it's not properly framed), under the DMCA they are supposed to put it back up or allow it to be put back up if the target of the DMCA complaint responds properly.

They can indeed, but that's an unrelated issue to the question of whether they can file a DMCA against a trademark. This has already been done to death in another thread... I forget the title, it was about the people whose island was threatened by an incorrect DMCA complaint over the name.

It's hard to advise without knowing what the two words are, but I think I'd just rewrite the notecard so that the two words are not next to each other. Common words are not copyrightable or trademarkable, but if they are spaced apart in the description there can be no misunderstanding of the intent.

If it is to be a _bogus_ DMCA, they can pick any random piece of content they like that their target is selling.

OK...because I can't go into more detail, I'll let this comment stand for posterity. However...not applicable in this case.

Yes, but that's got nothing to do with whether the original issue, which is over a *trademark* if it's over anything at all, is something that Linden Labs is legally required to pay attention to.