Reposted comments I left elsewhere (with edits):

Several months ago, I had been asked to participate in a weekly SL art web show (which I later turned down, since I was unable to make the commitment). When it came time to brainstorm a name for it, "SLart" was one of the suggested names. I immediately shot that down because I knew of ArtWorld's blog, magazine, and group, and I didn't think it would be right to take the name that someone had already claimed. At the time, I had no idea he had trademarked the term "SLart"; I refrained from using the term out of professional courtesy. I didn't automatically assume I was entitled to use it.

In fact, I had no idea he had "SLart" trademarked until a couple of days ago.

Perhaps it does seem silly to trademark the term, but the fact is that he did pay money to legally own the rights to it, regardless of anyone's personal opinion of whether or not he "should" have done it. Would I have trademarked it if I had been him? Probably not, but I don't think he is an asshole for doing so.

When he started his SLart blog/magazine/group, "slart" was NOT a widely used term because the art scene in SL wasn't nearly as widespread as it is now, contrary to popular belief -- it has really exploded only in the past year. Of course, it does make sense that "slart" would become an obvious term in association with art created within SL, but he trademarked the name before it was widely used. That fact might be annoying to some people, but so what? Why make such a big deal over nothing and carry on like a spoiled child because you can't get your way? I personally prefer "SL Art"; I think the word "slart" sounds rather corny (no offense, Mr. Minsky).

You might think he is a "SLasshole," but he has taken many strides to help get SL art recognized as a legitimate art form, which is something I am keen to see happen.

I will repeat this for emphasis: When he filed for the trademark, "SLart" was NOT widely used. Do a little research.