One side-effect is we'll have to go back to calling them "sweets".
The company behind the wildly successful Candy Crush Saga mobile games franchise already has its mitts on the European trademark for the word "candy" and is now awaiting approval for its application for the same thing in the US. "We have trademarked the word 'CANDY' in the EU, as our IP is constantly being infringed and we …
"It's a bit cheeky, copying someone else's game mechanism and then trying to claim it as your own IP!"
Well put. The follow-up question being: who actually owns the rights/IP/copyright/software patents/source code to the original "Bejewelled" game(s)? (Or whatever family of games can trace its lineage back to the first version.)
This is a serious question. I'm not trying to start a flame war.
Firstly such a generic term should never have been granted as a trademark in the first place.
Secondly this statement: "We don't enforce against all uses of CANDY - some are legitimate and of course, we would not ask App developers who use the term legitimately to stop doing so." is pure bullshit. If you don't actively pursue all infringers of a trademark you stand to lose it.
They [King] have also been granted a trademark for "Saga", and are currently trying to prevent the developers of The Banner Saga from trademarking "Banner Saga".
Personally I think someone should trademark "Crush" and sue King to smithereens.
"Firstly such a generic term should never have been granted as a trademark in the first place."
Next we'll have patents being granted for obvious ideas for which there are loads of examples of prior art that even the most cursory search would reveal.
Wait, the USPTO already does that. My mistake.
If King's game had been called "Candy", I would be less infuriated, but it's not. It's called "Candy Crush Saga". There are hundreds of pre-existing games in the App Store, many of which were around long before CCS was released, that are now potentially under threat from King due to this overly generic trademark.
Whoa, steady there lad, you'll do yourself a mischief!
They're trademarking a name in reference to a product in a particular genre. They are not copyrighting the word "candy". They are trademarking the name "Candy" in the frame of reference to a video game in the software industry that involves sweet/fruit related activities within the context of a game. If you make a spreadsheet that's called "Candy's Financial Accounting Software" you're pretty much safe. If you make a close derivitive of Candy Crush game product and call it "Candy Fruit Smasher" you'll get a phone call, as you copied the idea and the product and you're trying to cash in on the popularity by even taking a derivitive name.
Sit and have a think about about many products you have around you now that have a simple English word as part of their trademarked name, then how many other products share that name in other industries? Apple make gadgets but the market stalls and supermarkets don't have to sell those green fruit labelled as "Eve's Downfall" or "Cider Sources" do they because of some gadget company have trademarked the name? Apple Corp and Apple Records fell out as they were both simply called "Apple" at one point, especially as soon as Apple ( gadgets ) wanted to get in on the entertainment market they were going to clash as punters could easily be misled.
Magnum is used in the wine business, but also as the name of weapon, a TV character, an ice cream, all different products in different markets and not easily confused with one another. Context and perception of the product and it's market.
That's my understanding of trademarks (their use is usually assigned to the type of product they are intended to protect).
That isn't, however, what the article states - "everything from bathrobes to DVDs".
Completely farcical. They basically produced an updated version of Bejewelled, which itself was essentially an updated version of Tetris.
"The trademark filing has it covering all kinds of non-software things. Notable in its inclusion is "Headphones," which retroactively makes Skullcandy headphones a violation of this trademark. I'm sure other instances could be found."
So where would this leave the Highlander movie? (there can be only one, two and three don't exist ;)
Hooker: "Hi, I'm Candy."
Kurgan: "Of course you are."
You cant trademark a word that has been around for donkeys years.
What will I ask for when I buy by cough candy?
Who was the bertie bassetesque robot in Dr Who, The happiness patrol?
And, won't this confuse people that want to buy a large load washing machine?
Actually the last one is quite a valid point (not that the other two are not), but Candy appliances are already prevalent throughout Europe.
But you don't trademark a word in isolation, you trademark the use of a word in a specific context.
e.g. Everest can still call the things they install "Windows", but if they started to branch out into IT software they'd not been able to call their new OS the same thing. I could start making cakes and call them Everest cakes, it wouldn't be an issue (though arguably if I called them Everest Double Glazing Windows cakes it would as it could be construed that the name indicated an association).
Royal Mail actually own a trademark on the colour red. That doesn't mean no one can use it, it just means any companies involved in the same business as RM can't use it as a predominant part of their branding.
Of course it all gets a bit silly when merchandising comes in and you extend the original game/app context of the trademark to things like bath robes.
So using the term 'Candy' to describe a coloured garment is no longer allowed? WTF?
boasts on its front page
Welcome to the candy dress shop! To pull off this fashion treat, wear spring's saccharine, sweetie pie colours with nude beige or perfect white accessories...
Lawyers all over the place will be ordering large quantities of yellow legal pads and extra sharp pencils.
I can understand the TM applying to a computer game but to clothing when it is already widely used to describe a colour of clothes is quite beyond me.
Perhaps we will have to say in future
'Here comes Saskia modelling the latest dress. It is an colour that I dare not mention for fear of being sued'
It is a game designed around Capcom? or Konami or something similar game Bejeweled and not a very good rip off.
All they did was add the fact you can pay for upgrades or actually pay to progress. And because the world is filled with morons they are actually getting stupid people to pay for it.
Having looked at their sequels, the pet on is the same as an old spectrum game I used to play about coloured bricks in a certain order to clear the screen, in fact I have an old XP game that is the same idea.
The other with witches is identical to a game I have on Linux distro's from way back with penguins.
King.com haven't done an original thing yet. Just a shame too many stupid people pay.
Does this mean that no one can market candy apple red or candy pink bathrobes anymore? A lot of people, including some famous designers, may object (I just googled for fun).
I assume films with "candy" in the title (or as the first name of someone in the cast) can still be released. Someone tell Robert De Niro et al. to change the title of Candy Store (maybe to Candy Crush as it is a thriller?) before it's too late.
Seriously though, I do realize that one can trademark a word in a particular context related to a recognizable product. But what does the stupid game have to do with bathrobes or DVDs, FFS?
Here's the European TM registry entry for 'Candy' in the field of software:
King.com and/or Midasplayer (Skills) Limited own 'Candy Crush Saga', 'Candy Crush' and 'Candy' together with some logo versions.
However, remember that TM registration is just that - registration, NOT examination or 'grant'. There is *no* presumption that these TMs are valid, just that they are registered as indicators of trade by the applicants in each case.
It's worth noting that a lot of Candy-game TMs seem to appear with dates that follow Candy Crushes success. - this indicates King.com might have a point, and also underlines the fact that registration does not mean validity...
Star Saga 1 released on Apple2 in 1988, and used subsequently in many video game titles. That one's from EA, others from Square Enix. Neither are low rent publishers. Also tempted to complain to the ASA about the misleading use of the word 'Saga' in the C-game. It doesn't appear to have much of a story, unless that's an additional DLC.
"Candy Casino Slots – Jewels Craze Connect: Big Blast Mania Land"
tbh the only surprise here is that there wasn't the words "Clash" or "Clans" in the name..
oh , gamasutra mentions this..
No need for any King.com 'candy' tm. that breaks Apples rules..
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021