Slashdot Mirror
Apple Orders Memory Game Developers To Stop Using 'Memory' In Names
An anonymous reader writes with this bit of trademark absurdity from geek.com: "Ravensburger is a German gaming company that specializes in jigsaw puzzles, but has also expanded into other areas such as children's books and games. The company owns the trademark to a board game called 'Memory' and has demanded Apple stop offering apps that have the word 'memory' in their title or as a keyword associated with an app. It may seem ludicrous such a common word can be trademarked, but apparently this is a valid claim as Apple is now serving notices to app developers. The choice an infringing app developer has is to either rename their app or remove it from the App Store."
Yes, your garden looks very nice at first glance. But I'll stay out here, thanks.
Sometimes a central authority is a good thing. But no-fucking-body is telling me what software I can or can't download, or banning me from downloading certain titles over some stupid shit like this. And this is just a mild example of what they *could* do if they wanted.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
The Memory Game
That classic game of remembering is back in this awesome new iPhone app!
Apple: Please remove 'memory' from the title of your game or we will remove your game for you!
The Memorie Game
The Anglo-Normans are challenging your ability to remember in this awesome new iPhone app!
Apple: Don't be a smartass, you know what we mean. Please remove 'memorie' from the title of your game or we will remove your game for you!
The Memoria Game
Which cards had Marcus Aurelius beneath them and which cards had Marcus Annius Verus under them?! This classic challenging Latin game of remembering cards is in this awesome new iPhone app!
Apple: Goddamnit. Okay, no Latin root words of Memoria, okay? You'll be sued, we'll be sued, they own everything related to mem- and as preemptive warning, no 'mnemonic' shit either, okay? It's all owned by someone else!
The Apple Can Go Fuck Itself Game
Which company is making Apple its Intellectual Property bitch today? Try to find out in this classic game of "wait, what card was that again?"
Apple: Approved.
My work here is dung.
You couldn't even be bothered to RTFS, could you? This is about a legal claim against Apple, it has nothing to do with them operating a walled garden (though I agree this is a bad thing).
Yes, I understand that Apple didn't CHOOSE to do this (in this case anyway). It's the fact that they CAN that bothers me.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
Actually, this is about them operating a walled garden! The developer doesn't even get to decide whether to challenge the claim in court. He complies or gets kicked out (with that app).
Or instead of calling it "Memory", call it "Concentration Camp". Defeat the detainment camp guards at a game of Concentration to earn your freedom.
1. Apple isn't banning the apps, they're telling the developers they have to rename them.
2. This isn't some arbitrary decision by Apple (unlike some other cases), this is because another company owns the trademark to "memory" in the context of games and is threatening to sue Apple if they don't comply with the order to have the apps' names changed.
If you can't convince them, convict them.
Does this apply to all apps or just games? If it's just games then the claim may be indeed be legitimate (or not), but if it's all apps then it's certainly a case of overreaching by the trademark holder (or else an overreaction by Apple).
The most ridiculous element is the ban on the use of "memory" as a keyword. Trademark law was never intended to forbid others from naming competitors' products or from using trademarked words in their descriptive sense ("this game will enhance your memory and give you super-strength!").
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
Do you know how many small developers this might impact? Each app may have hundreds or thousands of dollars in advertising, name brand awareness, web site names, artwork... etc. Apple should use its billions of dollars to squash this ridiculous claim. Its a word in a dictionary, not a proprietary trademark. This is Apple being a pussy.
Apple now has to comply with all IP notices as they are the champions of the game. Soon they will discover that is not possible.
Well, the developer (ANY developer, mind you) can get sued for trademark infringement, so even your "open access" rules can get curtailed. Yes, if you make a "memory" game, expect to receive some cease-and-desist soon, regardless if it's walled, garden, open-source, whatever.
And Apple has so far let users keep their "removed" apps. I think even iCloud keeps a copy if you happen to not have a backed up copy.
Nope, it's nothing to do with a walled garden (which actually doesn't affect users so much as developers since removed apps still can be used by existing uesrs). This affects *ALL* developers.
This exact same copyright claim ...
No copyright claim is being made. This is about a trademark.
Copyrights, trademarks, and patents are three different things . How can we ever expect politicians to fix our IP system, when even many geeks seem incapable of understanding even the absolute basics?
Come on, Apple. This claim is bullshit. Stand up for the developers who make your App Store and ecosystem a success.
Fucking cowardice.
Karma: Excellent Birds (mostly as a result of listening to Laurie Anderson)
Because Google hasn't done something similar? They've removed apps for trademark and copyright claims. But, hey, let's ignore that because we are Google fans.
Ok. And that stops me from installing those apps on Android... how, exactly?
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
And it's the fact they can that's what's the problem with the walled garden. If i'm a private company selling an app to you directly I can tell Ravensburger to go fuck themselves and if they want their trademark torn up they're welcome to take me to court. If i'm a developer selling through Apple or another walled garden, then who the hell am I supposed to appeal to? I could sue Ravensburger for damages, but in the mean time what do I do?
A board game named 'Memory' is a specific piece of IP.
Which means, no one but the group that owns the rights to the IP of aforementioned board game is allowed, legally, to create a memory based board game and name it 'Memory.'
It does not mean that group owns all instances of the word memory.
It does not mean that group owns all instances of memory based board games.
This is simple, basic stuff.
WTF, Apple Legal? You're good enough at what you do to get a judgement against one of your competitors/suppliers for using goddamn rounded corners, but not good enough to point out something that's obvious to most 4th graders?
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
It does have to do with a walled garden. A company can make a possibly frivilous complaint againt the garden owner who can then kick you out, and you have no recourse. If it was not a walled garden and you could sell your app independently, the claimant would have to go after you directly, and you would have the opportunity to legally defend yourself.
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
Couldn't a Dictionary making company claim Prior Art?
Probably not:
1. This isn't a patent, it's a trademark.
2. Trademarks are allowed to be common names so long as the name doesn't directly relate to the product being sold. For instance, "apple" can be trademarked for computing equipment, but not for fruit.
However, if the name "Memory" appears in any book of common card games as an alternate name of the game "Concentration" prior to the introduction of Hasbro's "Memory", then they're likely to be in trouble.
I am officially gone from
You do realize that plenty of "dictionary" words are trademarked, right? Apple, Windows, Subway, Amazon, Android, Fire. I could go on and on.
You appeal to the courts if you think their claim is spurious and if you win you resubmit your app. The procedure for fighting the claim is no different than if you weren't selling through someone's store and you were threatened with a lawsuit over a trademark claim against your product.
Isn't there something about trademarks and common words not being eligible? Microsoft *almost* lost their Lindows case in a big way because of that. Anyone remember this case? Lindows was being sued by Microsoft, and Lindows was putting forth the argument that Microsoft is not entitled to the name "Windows" as a trademark. Microsoft paid Lindows to change their name and to dropped the case entirely.
That said, Apple is not a court. They are a company which is exposed to legal action by the holder of the trademark "Memory." Rather than take on that challenge for the greater good (something which I am sure Google would do) Apple has decided in favor of avoiding additional legal problems. It is their right to do so.
So, what should these small apps people do? Well, turns out, there is very little they can do. They can (a) license the use of the name Memory for their game (not something I imagine would be profitabe or even allowed) or (b) file a pre-emptive suit for the right to use the name or possibly (c) file a re-examination request with the trademark offices to see if it can get revoked. Of these, I would push in favor of (c) but even then, if successful, unless it were a big news story, Apple would likely ignore your assertion that "they no longer have the rights to that name, so please allow my app into your store."
Its not a copyright. Its a trademark.
Seriously, is anyone on Slashdot capable of getting even the basics right?
As an affected developer (actually from 3 years ago), I can tell you that it is a worldwide removal.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Ravensburger's US licensee would win. And that happens to be Hasbro.
If I win I resubmit my app? Is that a serious response. What do I do in the mean time while i'm losing profit. The difference between your solution and a sane one is that in a sane world you're not automatically guilty and get to defend yourself in court before action is taken against you. The procedure may be the same (sort of), but the timing here is what matters.
Due process does not apply here. Due process is a requirement on the State to respect the accuser's rights. Apple is not bound by due process.
Well, the developer (ANY developer, mind you) can get sued for trademark infringement, so even your "open access" rules can get curtailed.
This much is true...
Yes, if you make a "memory" game, expect to receive some cease-and-desist soon, regardless if it's walled, garden, open-source, whatever.
And Apple has so far let users keep their "removed" apps. I think even iCloud keeps a copy if you happen to not have a backed up copy.
Nope, it's nothing to do with a walled garden (which actually doesn't affect users so much as developers since removed apps still can be used by existing uesrs). This affects *ALL* developers.
... but you're missing an important point. The significance of the "walled garden" reference is this: if I am a developer of an application that uses the word "memory" in its title or as a keyword, but in a non-infringing way (and it's hard to imagine that every single possible use of the word "memory" infringes the trademark), then outside a walled garden, I have options: I may choose to capitulate to avoid a lawsuit, or I can choose to take my chances with the legal system and continue using the term (and, if I can get a good lawyer, I may well win). But Apple is not giving developers that choice - they can either remove the term "memory", or remove the app entirely.
I suspect that Ravensburger have taken action to protect their trademark, and are only likely concerned about apps that are similar to / might be confused with their product - and Apple are indeed probably liable if they are selling infringing products. But, rather than vet individual apps based on whether they infringe or not (which is time-consuming and error-prone), Apple have taken a decision to impose a blanket ban on the term - which, while I see the practical benefits from their point of view, is clearly detrimental to, say, people searching for an application to check what DIMMs might be compatible with some hardware they need to upgrade...
Need to type accents and special characters in Windows? Use FrKeys
Yes, but I very much doubt they have a history of defending the word "memory" in a product that does not compete with them, say... a "free memory" tool. If I had a game called memory, they might have a case. There are lots of other factors to consider depending on what your case might be. I am not a lawyer but I do have enough experience with trademark law to win a case, and i'm 99.9% sure that in this particular case, Ravensburger wouldn't stand a chance.
We are among the developers who have had to change a memory game on the app store due to this widespread trademark infringement claim.
Generics only apply to trademark law in the USA. We were bitter about the change - the use of the phrase "memory game" -isn't- trademarked AFAIK, and it seems trite to look at a single word embedded within a much longer title.
Anyhow, our feeling was that this entire fiasco will probably backfire with bad press. We really wanted to change the game only in those territories which are trademarked, but that's not so easy with the current App store model.
For your information, here are the territories at issue:
Armenia, Austria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Belarus, Belgium, Brazil,Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Equador, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, India, Italy, Latvia,Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Montenegro, Netherlands, Norway, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Russian Federation, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine and Venezuela.
We are based in the UK and it made no difference to the takedown notice.
This comment was written with the intention to opt out of advertising.
And it's only a violation if you compete in the same field or there would be a potential for confusion. Nobody is going to confuse a "Memory" game with a "free memory" app, for example. I would think there are hundreds, if not thousands of apps in the app store that nobody would reasonably confuse with the (famous?) "Memory(tm)" game. I just checked in the app store. Take for example "battery memory system status monitor" would be affected. Would anybody ever confuse that with the "Memory(tm)" game, whatever that is?
Which doesn't change the fact that this could happen so easily only because the other company only had to squeeze one throat to get a shutdown for *all* apps.
"It's harder for me to commit a crime so I don't like it" is the argument here. What's happening is there's a trademark claim, and people are being made to comply. It's no different than if you marketed an app called "Photoshop Pro" and Adobe shit all over your party, except people are so used to the concept of Tetris and, in this case, Memory that they find it bizarre and offensive that somebody actually owns these things. Somebody invented it, but all people see is that they can't remember when it was novel, so it must be free.
Trademark law is really strange. If you don't protect your trademark, you lose it. If Ravensberger makes an iOS app for the game of Memory, everyone searching for it will get all these clones, superior or inferior, by the same name. They'll play those and ignore Ravensberger's Memory. The market is then unmarketable. Thus Ravensberger has a strong desire to protect their trademark to Memory, since if they lose it and another market opens up and they want to capitalize on it then they can't because they can't defend their trademark because it has become generic. Thus they must petition to stop these things from using their trademark.
This is the same reason that Adobe doesn't like when someone claims they "used GIMP to photoshop" something: you did NOT photoshop that, Photoshop was not involved, stop saying these untrue things, you are creating brand confusion. It's fair game to say something is "like Photoshop," but not that it IS Photoshop or has been adjusted via Photoshop if Photoshop was not involved.
But all people want to see is, "Hey, how can you do that?" and they use weird arguments like "You' can't just trademark a generic word!" UPS has a trademark on the color Brown; both American Express and IBM have trademarks on the color Blue. Thing is UPS only has a trademark on using the color brown as a major marketing identifier for a shipping company: you cannot make a brown DHL, it has to be yellow or something. If FedEx reimaged to primarily earth tones, UPS would have a valid suit against them. If Chicago Suits took up the color brown as their major marketing factor--brown slacks, brown shoes, brown jackets, business and business casual wear--UPS has absolutely no standing to sue them because they're not a god damn shipping company and the trademark on Brown doesn't apply. Ravenberger has a trademark on a board game called Memory, and if you make a Memory toothbrush that doesn't reference the board game in any way then you're not infringing on their trade.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Ravensburger is a German company, so any English word is considered to be sufficiently exotic to be trademarked.
Remember that when the USA pushes next time for harmonization and enforcement of trademark laws in other countries.
Hey don't blame me, IANAB
Nope.
You don't need to root an Android in order to side load apps.
You can also install alternate app stores.
It's that whole "open systems" thing.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Came here to say this too. Check "Allow Unknown Sources" in Settings, open .apk, install app. Perfectly allowable within the default Android setup, and yes, this is the setup that 95% of carriers use. (I've heard of some carriers taking away the Unknown Sources checkbox, but to my knowledge it's very uncommon.)
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Why are you assuming that they are card matching games? Or even games at all. 'Memory' is part of a iPhone, after all.
Memory, as a foreign word, is a perfectly reasonable trademark for a German board game.
The problem is, as an _English_ word that actually describes part of a computer, it's really insane to run around claiming that computer programs cannot use it in their name.
It's sorta like 'Ford' is a entirely reasonable trademark for cars...but then Ford enters a new market that makes devices to help cars float across rivers...no, they can't bring that trademark along and sue people who sell a 'fording device'.
The trademark makes sense in the context of German board games, it does not make sense in the context of international computer programs.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
The problem is that Apple is also blocking sales while the two parties "work it out". Which they may never will - for example, the "offending" party may well be in a different jurisdiction where the trademark simply doesn't apply, but it applies to Apple in the states.
And the reason why it is a problem is because the app author can't just work it out directly with his users. If you're out of the App Store, you don't have any official, supported channel for people to install your app, period. So, yes, this is entirely about the walled garden.
Came here to say this too. Check "Allow Unknown Sources" in Settings, open .apk, install app. Perfectly allowable within the default Android setup, and yes, this is the setup that 95% of carriers use. (I've heard of some carriers taking away the Unknown Sources checkbox, but to my knowledge it's very uncommon.)
AT&T used to not allow that, but once people started trying to download Amazon's app store and got a ton of flak over it. AT&T quickly gave people the ability to do so.
Depends on how you read the article. The article says "In total, there are thought to be more than 50 games this trademark will force to change names", but it also says "demanded Apple stop offering apps that have the word ‘memory’ in their title or as a keyword associated with an app". There is no indication this is limited to games alone, just geek.com's note that there are 50 games in the app store with "memory" in the title.
Sure. But that has no relevance whatsoever, so I fail to see why you bothered to bring it up. Trademarks only apply within specific domains. Apple Inc. (formerly Apple Computer) and Apple Records were able to coexist for years since they were in different industries, yet they both had valid trademarks for the term Apple within their industries. It wasn't until Apple Inc. decided to get into music that things got really messy, since Apple Records had rights to the name in that space.
I could probably make a soda brand named Subway if I wanted to, but I couldn't make a restaurant with that name, since the name is already trademarked in that domain. Similarly, here, Memory is a trademarked name within the domain of games. While I could likely make a clothing brand named Memory, I can't make a game with that name, just as I can't make a tablet named Fire or an OS named Windows or Android. Just because I can make a product named Memory in a different domain does not mean that I have a right to make a product named Memory in the domain in which a trademark for that term applies.
They would have to go in front of a judge first.
That is due process. This is not.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
A C&D is not a court order. I'm not obliged to comply. If I made, for example, a memory checker system tool for iOS and Ravensburger sent me a C&D I could tell them to go screw as they would have no case. Apple, on the other hand, doesn't give a fuck as to the threat's credibility and is only thinking about risk management... so there goes my app, or it gets renamed to something useless nobody will ever find.
I've had that happen before. It's annoying, but not a huge deal. You simply find a new host, transfer your files and databases, and point your domain to the new nameservers. I've also had somebody try a trademark claim on a domain of mine. You get to defend against that (and I did, and I won). I'd wager doing that is a lot easier than trying to get Apple to change a decision they've made becuase of their risk management policies. It's simply not in their interests to judge whether legal claims have merit. They can't just get any old intern to do that. They have to pay legal staff, which doesn't come cheap.