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."
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.
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.
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?
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
You do realize that plenty of "dictionary" words are trademarked, right? Apple, Windows, Subway, Amazon, Android, Fire. I could go on and on.
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."
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.
Come on, Apple. This claim is bullshit. Stand up for the developers who make your App Store and ecosystem a success.
Apple just doesn't have the cash to fight a small boardgame company from Germany.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
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.
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
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.
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.