Sega ahead of their time once again.
every aspect of that image is painful.
Sega ahead of their time once again.
Sega ahead of their time once again.
But then how do I differentiate them from the Sonic the Fighters character?!?
Having Honey the human and Honey the cat is far too much confusion for me!
Only a matter of time before Rovio trademarks "Angry" or "Birds".
How is this even important? Consider them one and the same.
Can only imagine how you must have dealt with the Blaze situation...
That's not what trademarks do. They trademark the word in a particular context, in this context mobile games, so they can go after clones. In the same way, Microsoft has the trademark for Windows but Bill Gates doesn't walk house to house throwing rocks at them with legal impunity.
Desperately trying to find a link to when Microsoft threatened a window cleaning business for being called "windows 2000"
Then why am I not laughing...The US trademark office is a joke.
Pokemon Z. Banned in Australia :\PGH (Pokemon Growth Hormone).
My goodness.
Man, I tell ya, if I had super powers, I wouldn't fight muggers or weirdos dressed in funny costumes. I'd terrorize CEOs, legal departments, and judges.
This:
The world collapses.
A co-worker of mine suggested to register a patent on the process of registering a patent, so anyone who would want to register a patent from now on will have to pay him.
NeoGAF, I should inform you that the word "game" now belongs to me.
Common use words shouldn't be able to be trademarked in this way.
It's as bad as patents.
I can't believe that got approved. "Candy" is a generic phrase, like "Asprin" you can't copyright it.
And yet, I can write a book and legally call it The Holy Bible.
Um, I'm a good...work…guyI'm copyrighting the letter "E" good luck typing anything now lol
Rare Crush
Going to need to agree with those who argue that candy is a stupid word to be allowed to be trademark.
It's pretty generic and used in every day life.
It's not a brand or one simple little thing, it compasses many things that can be used to describe them all at once.
How the heck did a trademark like that get approved?
Not that King has any say on Candy Candy by trademarking the word "candy" in the unglorious name of Candy Crush; the legal screwovers between the co-creators of that anime over ownership and merch of that IP effectively means she's never getting a video game in the first place.Well now I know who's definetly never getting a videogame...
The Banner Saga kickstarter pre-dates Candy Crush's Facebook release.They also trade marked "Saga"
Banner Saga is under attack according to George Broussard
https://twitter.com/georgeb3dr/status/425470252613238784
Yeah small companies that did nothing wrong need to learn how to fight large companies with deep pockets trying to muscle them out of the market... somehow... with funds that they got from... somewhere...Companies do this all the time. The people who are suffering from this need to learn to protect their own brand if they want to avoid things like this.
Banning "common use words" from being trademarked would destroy the brands of many well-known and well-established companies: Apple Computers, Shell Gasoline, Caterpillar Machines, Time Magazine....
Instead, trademarks are governed by a scale of distinctiveness. Common words are entirely suitable for trademarks, though their applicability is greater the closer they are to the "arbitrary" end of the scale (as with Apple Computer, where real-life apples have nothing to do with computers.)
In reality, the problem here isn't that the word "candy" was trademarked. There are lots of legitimate trademarks of simple, common words that would stand easily in the gaming sphere -- to pick a really obvious example, "Doom" would be a slam-dunk. The problem is rather that the distinctive mark of this game isn't the word "Candy," it's the combination phrase "Candy Crush," and that a trademark applying to only the word "Candy" in isolation claims an unreasonably broad swathe that isn't justified by their actual brand in usage.
It's really not. Trademark protections are much harder to get and dramatically more difficult to protect and maintain, and as a result trademark trolling is significantly less common and successful than comparable schemes with patents or copyrights. The only reason the "Edge" case even went as far as it did was that Langdell did at one time actually legitimately use the mark in commerce, then carefully rolled out a scam around it over the course of years and years.
You can't copyright words, "copyright" is the mechanism by which creative works are protected while "trademark" is the mechanism by which identifying names or marks are.
"Candy" here is not equivalent to "aspirin." Aspirin is a former trademark (owned by Bayer) which actually became generic after WWI. Trademarks can become generic if they go into too broad usage and the company doesn't protect them: escalator, thermos, zipper, and kerosene are some prominent examples. "Candy" doesn't have anything to do with this example.
The problem with "candy" also isn't that it's generic. You can use simple, generic words to describe products -- like if I introduced a new game controller and called it the Kumquat, I could trademark that even though it's just a single English word. What you
In general, it is almost always worthwhie for everyone to spend five minutes on Google before posting in a thread related to any form of IP (patents, trademarks, or copyrights) to avoid confusion.
You can call a book whatever you want as long as it doesn't actively infringe on a protected name held by someone with an active commercial interest in it, so yes.
Going to need to agree with those who argue that candy is a stupid word to be allowed to be trademark.
It's pretty generic and used in every day life.
I'm gonna trademark "of"
calladuty, Medal of Honor, god of war, gears of war
PAY UP
LOL patent laws
They trademarked Saga too?
I would bet most people would call it Candy Crush over Candy Crush Saga. Tell me this is an early April fools joke.