Minsky vs Linden Lab: Minsky's mark
Filed under: News items, Second Life, Legal, Virtual worlds
You may remember Richard Minsky, founder of The Center for Book Arts in New York City and owner of SLART Magazine. We previously wrote about his assertion of his rights and obligations with respect to his SLART trademark, which covers (among other things) Minsky's SLART magazine. The SL portion obviously represents Second Life, and the ART well... that's art.
Minsky originally filed his SLART trademark on 22 March, 2007. It was published for opposition on 18 September, 2007, and finally granted formal registration by the US Patent and Trademarks office on 18 March, 2008 (registration number 3399258). SLART, therefore, is owned by Minsky insofar as the US Government is concerned at the present time, whether that grant was conferred rightly or wrongly, unless it is somehow overturned or abandoned.
Now he has filed a civil suit in a federal court, naming Linden Lab, Philip Rosedale, Mitch Kapor and one or more other Second Life users (as John Does) for (variously) trademark infringement, trademark dilution, tortious interference (that is interference that causes injury), and fraud.
![]() |
Are you a part of the most widely-known collaborative virtual environment or keeping a close eye on it? Massively's Second Life coverage keeps you in the loop. |
The goods and services that it covers, well -- that's quite a list: Multimedia publishing of books, magazines, journals, software, games, music, and electronic publications; On-line publication of art; Publication of electronic magazines; Publication of electronic newspapers accessible via a global computer network; Publication of the editorial content of sites accessible via a global computer network; Publishing of electronic publications; Art exhibitions; Conducting workshops and seminars in art; Instruction in the field of art; Workshops and seminars in the field of art; Publication and editing of printed matter; Publication of books; Publication of books, magazines, almanacs and journals; Publication of books, of magazines, of journals, of newspapers, of periodicals, of catalogs, of brochures; Publication of books, reviews; Publication of brochures; Publication of documents in the field of training, science, public law and social affairs; Publication of journals; Publication of leaflets; Publication of magazines; Publication of manuals; Publication of musical texts; Publication of printed matter; Publication of text books; Publication of texts, books, journals; Publication of texts, books, magazines and other printed matter; Education in the field of art rendered through correspondence courses; Education in the field of art rendered through video conference; Educational services in the nature of art schools; Organizing community festivals featuring a variety of activities, namely, sporting events, art exhibitions, flea markets, ethnic dances and the like. [Whew]
Anything of the above bearing the SLART mark is technically the provenance of Richard Minsky. While SL is an unregistered (in the USA) trademark of Linden Research (more commonly known as Linden Lab), Linden did not file its mark with the USPTO for almost three months after SLART was submitted by Minsky (on 5 June, 2007).
Minsky is claiming in his complaint that Linden Lab did not honor his trademark, refusing to take action against infringing, non-nominative uses, made unreasonable demands, and attempted to convince him to abandon the mark and to license Linden's own mark instead.
Minsky is asking for a formal declaration that his trademark has been infringed, an order to compel Linden Lab to identify and remove infringing material (and to provide identifying information about the users involved), and US$1,000 per day per alleged act of infringement, starting April 24 and continuing until the matter is closed.
Now there's an incentive not to drag the case out. The only specific Second Life user named is Victor Vezina, physical identity presently unknown.
The complaint itself is an interesting and colorful read. Virtually Blind's Benjamin Duranske has the document in PDF form, and has some of the more exciting excerpts available in his coverage.
Whether all of Minsky's claims and remedies will hold up, remains to be seen. It's always fascinating to see the various parties of a civil action wash up against the rocks of a federal court judge, and to see who ultimately makes it ashore and who doesn't. Sometimes the strangest things wash up on the beach during proceedings.

















Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Pavig Lok said on 3:37AM 9-03-2008
HAHAhahaha
That's a great idea... let's choose some other product names (or commonly used acronyms) and combine them with another oft used noun and then sue people. I bags MSOFFICE hehehehe.
Actually if I were he i'd register SLARTIBARDFAST and sue the late Douglas Adams.... oh and the BBC and Touchstone pictures of course... and their local distributor... for conspiracy to make me cry.
This is IP law gone mad.
Reply
Osprey Therian said on 4:10AM 9-03-2008
Interesting way to run a publicity campaign.
Reply
Jay said on 5:20AM 9-03-2008
More interesting is how he, with a registered trademark, is asked by LauraP Linden for LL with an unregistered trademark to abandon it.
The veiled threat was there "We will stop you logging in until you do"
Reply
dandellion Kimban said on 5:34AM 9-03-2008
Maybe he can also get SLasshole trademark and stick it proudly over his face. There is a huge difference between protecting one's IP and using an opportunity to steal commonly used word and attempting to grab money out of it.
Reply
Tateru Nino said on 5:39AM 9-03-2008
Did you perchance see the Lab's filing for trademarks on the words "Second" and "Grid"?
Or Linden's legal people suggesting that he could not control nominative use of the mark (he wasn't attempting to insofar as I was able to see), though the Lab themselves have sought to control nominative use of their own. That's a bit of a double-standards ouchie.
Cincia Singh said on 7:30AM 9-03-2008
Keep in mind that defending a mark is just as important, maybe more important than actually getting one in the first place. There's the whole issue of "prior use" and just because you manage to "get" a mark doesn't immediately translate to "I can prosecute and profit" from my mark. If LL had the granted mark in use, in the areas covered by the approved mark's application, prior to the application for the mark, the mark may actually be invalid and reversed. It happens all the time. We'll have to watch and see how this plays out. LL may indeed be infringing. On the other hand, Minsky may have over-played his hand and end up losing in the long run.
Reply
Pavig Lok said on 12:32PM 9-03-2008
When we get nonsense like this it's no surprise that folk file for nonsense trademarks. Most large(ish) companies will hit a suit like this sooner or later, and having a mark filed and rejected is a reasonable defense. If a company with a perceived "moral right" to a name can't get it it's absurd that a company with lesser rights can.
Most companies simply hang onto their trademark and don't do anything with it. When opportunistic suits come into play like this it shows the absurdity of current IP laws.
Then again IP law allows us to patent business processes, or as Microsoft has a habit of doing, software processes which are already integrated into competing products (proving that prior art assertions are broken on application.)
Rhubarb rhubarb rhubarb; that's the most sensible thing I can say about this kind of absurd litigation.
Reply
Tateru Nino said on 12:58PM 9-03-2008
It was said to me today that "This is like an intellectual property cock-fight. It doesn't really matter who wins, both sides end up looking like cocks."
TigroSpottystripes Katsu said on 3:18AM 9-06-2008
talking about Microsoft and patents, does any of you know if Microsoft managed to get their patent for the double-click approved?
Reply
dandellion Kimban said on 3:27AM 9-07-2008
Doubleclick? I thought they are aiming for PgUp and PgDown keys.
Reply