Use of real-world trademark - suspended three days

I don't imagine LL are particularly interested in tracking down trademark violators on their own - why should they be? On the other hand, if they receive reports of it, they could get into legal trouble if they don't act on them. I would expect that if they get ARs relating to trademark breach they respond quite quickly.

Personally I think that the current copyright and trademark laws are fundamentally broken, and I'd never report someone for breaching them on principle, but on the other hand I have no respect for people who breach them just because they can't be bothered to think of something on their own, so I'm not going to cry at all if they get suspended for it. I'm a neutral. If somebody gets suspended for parody or artistic use of a trademark, I'll raise hell about it, but if they're selling clothes with the Playboy logo for no reason apart from the fact that it's the Playboy logo I don't give a toss what happens to them.

"any trademark VW might have."

Key word is "might".

If one really wished to be a royal pain in the butt, they could report abuse on all the objects that resemble trademarked stuff. In my inventory, I have an Absolut bottle for example.

I guess the solution is to make parody logos that sort of resemble your favourite company's items. Then instead of giving free advertising for said company, you're making fun of them with good old fair-and-square satire. That's protected by law.

What innaccuracies? They said the shape of the car specific in the example they gave was not trademarked. You're saying that a Coca-Cola bottle's shape is. They didn't say "there are no trademarked shapes".




I would imagine a lot of Lindens are working when they're logged in and don't often have the time to just explore like a regular resident does - they rely on ARs to notify them of such activities. It might be "out there for the world to see", but the grid is a massive place. AFAIK, there's no one Linden who's specific task is combing the grid for trademark violations.

Trademarks and patents can be curious things, as they're much more complex than copyright. Trademarks, for example, can be diluted and ruled un-enforceable is the trademark holder knowingly allows the trademark to be used freely by others, and does nothing.

The example I always like to bring up is Star Trek Conventions. Most of these die-hard fans create a lot of their outfits on their own; are they going to be sued or receive cease and decist orders? Of course not. Its up to the trademark, copyright or patent holder to make that decision. In Star Trek's case, the free promotion and manical fan-base is more valuable than enforcing their trademark; the bad P.R. of suing the little guy who loves them would be horrible, and you can be pretty sure that Star Trek fans, on average, pay enough to offset any labors of love.

That isn't to say it is a clear cut legal case on the part of the Star Trek fan, but it is reality. I think people who go around reporting anything to LL that could be a potential trademark breach, for example, really need to get a life and stop playing mommy. If you're that concerned, report it to the copyright, trademark or patent holder (in the Star Trek case, Paramount) and see if THEY want to enforce it. Its their decision, not yours, and frankly...you come off looking like the in-world content police.

On the other hand, there are companies that are known for protecting their rights at a very high level, for example, Apple; think of the recent case where they went after the person who could arguably be their #1 fan (see: http://www.alphecca.com/mt_alphecca_archives/000863.html ) and supporter for releasing information about the Mac Mini on his Apple fan site that had been leaked to him. Apple didn't seem to care about the P.R. hit.

In this case, it sounds like a trademark holder contacted LL about getting the person's violating content out of the way. Its going to be interesting to see where things like this end up down the road.

Regards,

-Flip

You're correct. They allow for shapes to be trademarked if they're in the same shape as a logo!

Let's pull the entire comment to maintain context:Here is their overall point of differentiation which frames the context: "Understand that certain objects to look like a RL item is not the same and utilizing trademarked names or logos."

In fact, it CAN be exactly this as I've demonstrated.

But here's their generic example: "So one can create a car in SL, make it look like a Mercedes Benz SL"

They take their generic example and then qualify a distinction as to what cannot be done based on their first (inaccurate) comment: "but cannot use the name "Mercedes Benz SL" in it's description or textures, nor can one use their trademarked emblems or logos"

Then they embellish on the inaccuracy by saying: "The mere shape of the car that was created is NOT trademarked"

The "mere shape"??? Again, this is a generic example they're providing and is read in the context of the first comment. Maybe the Mercedes isn't trademarked, but what about the VW? Better yet, what about the Hummer. In another thread there was a link to the ruling on a lawsuit where a toy company lost a case wherein they justified using the Hummer shape because they didn't use the logo/trademark. Their expensive mistake.

But then Linden Lab concedes that shapes are trademarked IF they replicate an "actual trademarked logo"!: "(but making shapes to replicate actual trademarked logos is NOT acceptable)"

This notecard is, imo, a joke. It only confuses people further afaic.

To bad if you do AR them, you just get a email back stating that there wasn't enough information.