Minsky v. Linden Research Letters
10/05/2008 17:11 Filed in: Trademark | Intellectual Property
This past week, both Richard Minsky and defense counsel sent letters to one of the Albany federal court judges presiding over his SLART trademark suit against Linden Research, an avatar named Victor Vezina (named as a John Doe defendant), Linden Chairman Philip Rosedale, and former Chairman Mitch Kapor. Mr. Minsky sent a letter to Magistrate Judge David R. Homer, while defense counsel’s letter went to District Judge Lawrence E. Kahn.
Mr. Minsky’s letter states that Linden failed to adhere to the terms of the temporary restraining order in place in his case. In specific, he states that he brought an alleged infringement to the attention of the Lindens by an avatar named “Tate Watanabe,” consisting of a “SLart Show Viewer.” The letter continues by saying the Lindens failed to act on the complaint, because the Lindens said they could not find the allegedly infringing “SLart Show Viewer.” Mr. Minsky emphasized that “there is nothing in the TRO about Linden locating the use as a condition of their forwarding my Notice to the infringer.” (Minsky Letter at 2.)
Mr. Minsky concludes that “Defendant Linden failed to comply with the terms of the TRO.” (Minsky Letter at 5.) It is not clear whether the court will treat this letter as a motion for contempt, but the court did call the letter a “Letter Motion.” Presumably, Linden Research will submit its own filing in opposition to Mr. Minsky’s Letter Motion. Any opposition is due October 10, 2008.
The letter from defense counsel simply seeks withdrawal of its earlier letter seeking an extension of time to serve (send) written discovery (information requests) on Mr. Minsky. Perhaps the defendants have already sent the discovery requests they would like to send Mr. Minsky, and so do not need the extra time. The court granted the defendants’ withdrawal request.
A copy of the letters appears on the Minsky v. Linden Research documents page.
Mr. Minsky concludes that “Defendant Linden failed to comply with the terms of the TRO.” (Minsky Letter at 5.) It is not clear whether the court will treat this letter as a motion for contempt, but the court did call the letter a “Letter Motion.” Presumably, Linden Research will submit its own filing in opposition to Mr. Minsky’s Letter Motion. Any opposition is due October 10, 2008.
The letter from defense counsel simply seeks withdrawal of its earlier letter seeking an extension of time to serve (send) written discovery (information requests) on Mr. Minsky. Perhaps the defendants have already sent the discovery requests they would like to send Mr. Minsky, and so do not need the extra time. The court granted the defendants’ withdrawal request.
A copy of the letters appears on the Minsky v. Linden Research documents page.
|