So let's trademark the word "crush" and go after Candy Crush for infringing.
This is so ridiculous. Why can a common, context-less word like this be trademarked on its own? It's the combination of words used in a distinct and identifiable way which should form the backbone of the trademark, not any of the three generic words used in isolation. This is almost as bad as that prick who successfully trademarked the word 'Edge' and then coasted off of that for years.
I'm copyrighting the letter "E" good luck typing anything now lol
On the surface it looks stupid, but I kind of see where they are coming from. You get success on the mobile marketplace and 1000 different people try to glom off of it in an effort to dupe consumers looking for your product.
In an ideal world, Apple would be better at weeding these people/games out of their marketplace, but they aren't. So, King.com felt like they needed to force the issue.
The trademark doesn't protect the word itself. It protects the association between the word and a product or service. The word "Delta" for example, is the subject of separate trademarks (filed by separate companies) for air travel and for faucets.
Here, King has apparently filed for a trademark covering "candy" for videogames and "candy" for apparel.
So let's trademark the word "crush" and go after Candy Crush for infringing.
Lots of devs are frustrated cause it seems so ridiculous says Benny Hsu, the maker of All Candy Casino Slots Jewel Craze Connect: Big Blast Mania Land.
This is so ridiculous. Why can a common, context-less word like this be trademarked on its own? It's the combination of words used in a distinct and identifiable way which should form the backbone of the trademark, not any of the three generic words used in isolation. This is almost as bad as that prick who successfully trademarked the word 'Edge' and then coasted off of that for years.
Losing the word "Candy" is actually the first step in fixing your title, Benny.
Well now I know who's definetly never getting a videogame...
I'm gonna call my new game "Candy Scrolls".
I'm confused. I read most of the article and don't see where Apple legal comes into play other than a vague analogy to Apple defending their fruit from other electronics entries. Did I miss something? Does apple enforce copyright claims made by other app makers against other app makers, rather than the legal teams of those apps?
Got it. Thanks!Apple "legal" doesn't really get involved.
Essentially, developers/publishers have the ability to raise a copyright or other legal claim against other developers/apps on the App Store within the development dashboard. Apple then contacts the defending party to notify them of the claim and that action must be taken.
For the most part they don't actually do anything, and rely on external legal action to resolve the situation.
We've done exactly what King is doing here before ourselves with respect to defending our trademarks, though I could count the number of claims we've made on one hand given we don't want to make spurious claims.
Trademarking words is such a stupid concept. I really have no idea why the system bent over backwards to allow people to do this sort of thing. All it does is hurt people who don't have huge amounts of money to throw at issues while yet again benefitting big organisations.
Developers should replace the word "candy" in their app titles with "crush" just to spite them.
How the heck did a trademark like that get approved?
I'm more shocked they didn't try to trademark the word "Saga" since that's the commonality between all of their "games".
I'm not an EA fan, but I wish they (well Popcap really) would sue King.com back to the Stone Age for their Bejeweled clone. It's a disservice to games in general.
EDIT: Could I trademark the word "Saga"? Because then I could get royalties from them. Hmmm...
King are actually advertising on TV in the UK and their games are just rip offs of all the popular puzzle games. Peggle and Angry Birds both have shitty King-alike versions with just enough small tweaks to not get into trouble.
Someone should counter-trademark "Saga" in the context of shitty mobile puzzle games and claim back as for some reason all King games are some sort of Saga; Candy Crush Saga, Papa Pear Saga, Bubble Witch Saga... It drives me crazy "Saga" implies some sort of Wagnerian epic rather than a shitty falling block puzzle game in a slightly different skin.
Shit makes no sense. No sense at all.
So now they can sue Candy Land?
But what does this mean for the inevitable Fighting Vipers 3?!?
Quick legal-gaf what does this mean for my line of reasonably priced Candy lingerie?
Hahah, yeah. Now that Candy is gone it should be name Temple Casino Run Slots- Clash of Jewel Craze Clan Blade: Big Blast Farm Landville.
So now they can sue Candy Land?