Slashdot Mirror
Candy Crush Maker King.com Has Trademarked 'Candy' For Games
An anonymous reader writes ""King.com, owners of Candy Crush, have received a U.S. trademark on the use of the word 'candy' in games and clothing. Forbes thinks it is overly broad. 'One would think Hasbro, the maker of that venerable children's board game (which does have video game versions) Candy Land, would already have this trademark sewed up.'" According to an update on the story, the company also has a EU trademark on the same term, but (however much comfort this is) is enforcing its claims only selectively, as against a game called All Candy Casino Slots – Jewel Craze Connect: Big Blast Mania Land.
One can always release Confection Made With Sugar And Often Flavoring And Filling Crush!
I apologize for the lack of a signature.
That's a candy assed move. Government, please stop giving exclusive use of language to corporations. Some of us still use it for communication.
" U.S. trademark on the use of the word 'candy' in games and clothing."
Yet another example of how broken the whole trademark/copyright/patent system is...
The issue isn't that Hasbro should have already trademarked "candy", it's that "candy" shouldn't be able to be trademarked at all. It's a common freakin' word and should be able to be used in game titles and clothing w/o licensing.
Burning copycat apps who are ripping off your game is a different issue, but this shouldn't be the solution.
How can you copyright the word 'Candy' for trademark?
Microsoft can only trademark "Windows" in their specific context, and clothing targeted towards 'Candy ravers' has been around a long time. Are you really claiming nobody can make a candy themed game??
This is completely ridiculous, and whoever granted this must have been drunk, stupid, or paid off.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
And now I'm having flashbacks to the episode of Always Sunny where Dee starts popping supplements in preparation for the boxing fight.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
They don't want anyone to benefit from anything in their Bejeweled game.
All Candy Casino Slots – Jewel Craze Connect: Big Blast Mania Land: Glorious Slots For Make Benefit Kazakhstan III: The Search For Curly's Gold!
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
are not sweet. They are not even biter. They are tasteless.
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
I hope Candystand (1997) smacks them down a bit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candystand
The owners of CandyLand should sue them out of existence.
Way too much prior art, and I'm pretty sure George Carlin has already exhaustively enumerated most of the possible uses of it.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
My concern with this kind of case has always been the "fencing off" of the "open range" of ideas, art, and concepts. In other words, okay, so "candy" in games is now trademarked. Maybe next is "marble" or "bucks" or "battle" or something. People want to look to one place or another to develop something new and interesting, but hey, you have to pay rent to use the land...err...the idea. Given that ideas are generally derived from a long process of exposure to different cultural experiences and concepts (the "candy man" concept has been around for a long time -- look at the original Willie Wonka and the candyman song), it's not a whole lot different from saying that they're going to stake their claim to one part or another of our shared cultural experiences. I think this is what is more offensive than anything else about this kind of move and why it angers people so much, myself included.
Well, I am applying for a new patent entitled "Use of the urethra for the purpose of urination". Licensing fees will be quite reasonable, and I will sell lifetime subscriptions in order to reduce the paperwork for everyone. You will be able to send the checks to my villa in the Caymans. Or maybe bitcoins - haven't worked out the details yet.
You've got money, we've got rubber stamps
Google: candy games -crush
Set date filter: 01/01/2011 - 12/31/2011 (Candy Crush was released on Facebook 04/12/2012)
I mean really? Could thousands of online and mobile games with the word "candy" in them, existing years, even decades before King Games released Candy Crush, suddenly be in violation of a newly registered trademark?
I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
IANAL but a quick search at uspto.gov turns up a handful of "candy crush" trademarks, all of which trademark "candy crush" and none of which claim just "candy". I'm guessing king.com is enforcing against "candy" videogames based on arguments of market confusion with "candy crush," and wouldn't dare try to claim market confusion against Candyland.
TIL Forbes.com is just another hysteria-mongering blogger.
Doesn't that mean that it's not a valid trademark? I thought that trademarks had to be defended, always, or they lost their status.
It doesn't say anywhere how hard you have to try. They can send a company with an established use of the name a letter "please stop using the name candy". A year later a letter "please stop using the name candy, because we have a trademark". A year later a letter "please stop using the name candy, or we tell our lawyer". A year later a letter "please stop using the name candy, we have a lawyer now".
Thank you for the registration number. It's unbelievable USPTO would allow a trademark 1) on a dictionary word, 2) on such a broad base of categories, 3) when other products already use the word. But it's true.
The mark "CANDY" was published as application for registration serial number 85/842,584 on January 15, 2014. Interested parties have until February 15, 2014 to file a Notice of Opposition to registration of the mark. king.com's pushing its weight around regarding this mark during the opposition period, when they are particularly vulnerable, is just stupid, IMHO. Any party receiving a "cease and desist" from king.com can file institute an opposition proceeding before the U.S. Trademark Office during this time and get the trademark examiners to consider all the many arguments as to why king.com should not obtain registration for this mark for these goods and services.
*sigh* Here we go again...
Trademarks are not necessarily exclusive, and while registering a trademark will go a long way in a court case, it will not guarantee a win. A trademark is simply what you are known as to consumers. Once upon a time, "Escalator" was a trademark. "Escalator"s became so popular that people began to associate "Escalator" with moving stairways. Since "Escalator" didn't protect it's brand, it slipped into generic usage and they lost their trademark. Now anyone is allowed to sell an "escalator".
This is why we have recently seen such a huge push from Xerox, Kleenex, and Google asking people to stop "xeroxing", "using a kleenex", and "googling". As soon as the usage of the word becomes a verb to the common person, instead of a noun, the trademark is lost. This is why companies will pour millions into branding efforts telling us to "Copy using a Xerox photocopier", "Use Kleenex brand facial tissue", or "Use the Google web search engine".
Additionally, Trademarks can be regional. There was at least one case of Kentucky Fried Chicken not being allowed to call themselves "Kentucky Fried Chicken" in Kentucky. Why? Because there was already a "Kentucky Fried Chicken" in town that people knew about. It didn't matter that some large company had the name also - the small guy was around first and was therefore allowed to keep the trademark in the region people knew them. (They would not have been allowed to open up a new store somewhere else though, as people in that area likely wouldn't have known about them but would know about the chain.)
The government will grant a trademark application to just about anything, as long as it doesn't already exist. It's up to the courts to determine if infringement has happened later on. In the case of something such as the game "Candy Land", which has been around for a long time, they would certainly prevail. (Unless they fail to protect their mark.)
...Had this been an actual emergency, we would have fled in terror, and you would not have been informed.
I thought "candy" would be considered merely descriptive for a video game that depicts pieces of candy as the objects with which the player interacts. For example, in both Yoshi's Cookie and Cookie Clicker, the player interacts with cookies. Unless a merely descriptive term gains a secondary meaning, I don't see how it should be eligible for a trademark.