• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • Hey Guest. Check out the NeoGAF 2.2 Update Thread for details on our new Giphy integration and other new features.

Candy Crush dev trademarks the word "Candy," Apple legal goes after infringing games

Vlade

Member
Sep 7, 2013
2,372
0
0
USA


Sega ahead of their time once again.

every aspect of that image is painful.
 

Myshkin

Member
Oct 4, 2012
901
0
0
Why hasn't Dr Pepper sued these idiots out of business for infringing on their Orange Crush patent?
 

Version 3.0

Member
Jun 18, 2005
12,707
0
0
48
Las Vegas
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.
 

Costia

Member
Mar 8, 2013
1,915
0
0
steamcommunity.com
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.
 

Synth

Member
Dec 4, 2005
14,082
3
1,450
37
London, UK
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!

How is this even important? Consider them one and the same.

Can only imagine how you must have dealt with the Blaze situation...
 

JPeeples83

Member
Jun 26, 2013
1,353
0
0
VA
www.hardcoregamer.com
I just finished up a writeup on this for Hardcore Gamer - http://www.hardcoregamer.com/2014/0...ndy-trademark-in-face-of-clear-mimicry/70608/

As long as they don't start picking on companies that put out stuff with the "candy" name before CCS, so there's no way it could be infringing on them or trying to leech off of it, they're just being smart to enforce their trademark in a world of me-too products out to get as many downloads as possible with an all-too-similar name.
 

Hours Left

Member
Jun 28, 2006
33,689
1
0
The fact that it was approved is beyond ridiculous.

It's a shameful cash grab. I hope it comes back to burn them.
 

EvB

Member
Jan 20, 2012
9,859
5
725
United Kingdom
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"
 

DiscoJer

Member
Sep 26, 2009
12,300
775
1,030
St. Louis
Looking through Gamefaqs to see how many Candy games there are, I can actually understand why they did this. There are literally 100s,.maybe 1000s of iOS games trying to cash in on their name..

But at the same time, it still seems like too far. They should be able to go after games that are close to Candy Crush Saga - games with Candy and Saga in them. There are quite a few legitimate candy games that aren't trying to rip off the popularity of CCS.
 

KojiKnight

Member
May 24, 2012
20,246
8
630
Desperately trying to find a link to when Microsoft threatened a window cleaning business for being called "windows 2000"

You'll probably have better luck looking up the time they tried to sue a kid named Mike Rowe who had his own software website called... You guessed it... Mike Rowe Soft.
 

Chezzymann

Member
Feb 18, 2013
15,470
6
490
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.
 

Hrothgar

Member
Jan 17, 2013
1,815
0
0
When is EA suing these guys over their candy flavoured Bejeweled ripoff, looks like copyright infringement too me.
 

adamsappel

Member
Aug 22, 2005
14,199
0
1,315
54
www.tehbias.com
And yet, I can write a book and legally call it The Holy Bible.

Do any of these applications get turned down at the start? Are they rubber-stamped and then must lose in a courtroom?
 

superbank

The definition of front-butt.
Apr 5, 2007
3,995
0
0
Regardless of who they take legal action against they should not have been awarded the trademark for games or clothes. Simple as that. Hopefully someone with money can challenge them in court.
 

charlequin

Banned
Oct 19, 2005
26,635
1
1,405
Common use words shouldn't be able to be trademarked in this way.

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.
 

charlequin

Banned
Oct 19, 2005
26,635
1
1,405
It's as bad as patents.

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.

I can't believe that got approved. "Candy" is a generic phrase, like "Asprin" you can't copyright it.

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.

And yet, I can write a book and legally call it The Holy Bible.

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.

It's not a brand or one simple little thing, it compasses many things that can be used to describe them all at once.
 

Balphon

Member
Feb 24, 2010
8,234
0
0
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.

A word may be "generic" for trademark purposes in some areas and not others. "Candy," for instance, would most certainly be generic when one is talking about confections, but the same isn't true with regard to clothes or software. Trademark law recognizes this in determining whether a word or phrase can be a valid mark.

More to the point, and as several have said before, you seem to be confusing the nature and breadth of protection offered by copyrights with those of trademarks. It's an incredibly easy thing to do, and in fact any course on copyright, trademark, or patent will inevitably begin with a lecture designed to differentiate them.

EDIT: Sorry if that last bit came off as pedantic. Not my intent.
 

Pikawil

Unconfirmed Member
Oct 3, 2012
1,630
0
0
30
Well now I know who's definetly never getting a videogame...

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.
 

Dryk

Member
Aug 22, 2013
10,973
1
0
Adelaide, South Australia
Candy™ Crush™ Saga™™

They also trade marked "Saga"

Banner Saga is under attack according to George Broussard

https://twitter.com/georgeb3dr/status/425470252613238784
The Banner Saga kickstarter pre-dates Candy Crush's Facebook release.

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.
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...
 

FyreWulff

Member
Jan 21, 2010
39,740
1
0
The Internet
fyrewulff.com
Alright, who's the idiot that gave them such broad trademarks?

Candy Crush makes sense.

Candy Crush Saga makes sense.

But 'Candy' and 'Saga' separately? Candy is bad, but Saga is going to be MUCH more common in game names.
 

superbank

The definition of front-butt.
Apr 5, 2007
3,995
0
0
Wow people were joking about trademarking saga for themselves. As a joke. King actually already did it. This is fucking ridiculous. What are the odds they got "Crush" too?

Pleeeeease EA save us!! I'll buy one of your games full price.
 

Cat Party

Member
Aug 18, 2010
8,895
0
0
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.

I agree 100% with your analysis and your suggestion to understand the difference between trademark, copyright, and patent before coming into these threads.
 

Hyunashi

Member
Jun 7, 2013
2,294
1
0
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.
 

charlequin

Banned
Oct 19, 2005
26,635
1
1,405
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

might i suggest to each of you individually that next time, you read even the last twenty or so posts on the most recent page of the thread instead of just replying to the title with low-content comments that other people already made 100 posts ago?
 

Shahadan

Member
Dec 20, 2006
10,871
0
0
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.

Well they need it to name their others ugly ripoffs of popular games. Brand recognition. While trying desperately to achieve another success.