I would imagine Square Enix might have a problem with this since they have a franchise literally called Saga.
I was gonna post:How about telling them to end this madness at https://twitter.com/King_Games ?
on their latest tweet but was worried that they might actually take that seriously.Wait, I thought Candy Crush Saga was the one with all the Vikings
I was gonna post:
on their latest tweet but was worried that they might actually take that seriously.
Thanks to a continuity reboot (if I'm remembering right) Mirror's Edge 2 to be renamed Mirror's Saga!Has King went after a game company with a wallet yet? Someone needs to smash them into place, I'll buy EA games this year if EA wants to do it, I'm desperate.
What the fuck..... someone get Anonymous on these fuckers.
9. Applicant's THE BANNER SAGA mark is confusingly and deceptively similar to Opposer's previously used SAGA Marks.
What the fuck..... someone get Anonymous on these fuckers.
I've enlisted EA to take care of it.
https://twitter.com/EA/status/425783355674599424
How about telling them to end this madness at https://twitter.com/King_Games ?
I had Candy Crush Saga installed on my iPhone -- now, no more.
I'm surprised that Popcap hasn't taken King.com to court, what with the game looking similar to Bejeweled and all.
What a huge bunch of dicks. If only Nintendo had a "saga" game, they could get Howard Lincoln to go in on their asses.
Former lawyer here...
So, this is a bit different than it's been described. This is a notice of opposition, which is basically them saying they have a problem with the trademark being filed. These notices are generally used as a first line of defense and as substantially less problematic than a cease and desist threatening legal action. Essentially, King is saying "we're concerned about this mark and we think it shouldn't be granted." The trademark examiner can look at it and be all: "Cool story bro, tl;dr." And then grant the mark anyways.
I agree it's a bit aggressive, but I'd be pretty surprised if it actually prevented the mark from being granted.
What would you say about the game going up on Kickstarter before Candy Crush even existed? Since BS wasn't an official game yet does it make that meaningless?Former lawyer here...
So, this is a bit different than it's been described. This is a notice of opposition, which is basically them saying they have a problem with the trademark being filed. These notices are generally used as a first line of defense and as substantially less problematic than a cease and desist threatening legal action. Essentially, King is saying "we're concerned about this mark and we think it shouldn't be granted." The trademark examiner can look at it and be all: "Cool story bro, tl;dr." And then grant the mark anyways.
I agree it's a bit aggressive, but I'd be pretty surprised if it actually prevented the mark from being granted.
Square can counter sue King into oblivion if they have too
Go for this stupid assholes, Square:
Well then. Uninstalled Candy Crush.
What would you say about the game going up on Kickstarter before Candy Crush even existed? Since BS wasn't an official game yet does it make that meaningless?