Candy Crush Maker King.com Has Trademarked 'Candy' For Games 169
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.
No worries (Score:5, Funny)
One can always release Confection Made With Sugar And Often Flavoring And Filling Crush!
Re: (Score:2)
I've already patented "Apparatus for Sweet Confection Destruction Via Pressure or Mechanical Action"
You've never been really afraid, if you haven't met a room full of angry dentures manufacturers.
Internet history repeating (1996 Hasbro vs IEG) (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Recall that trademaks on Candy were among the first intellectual property debates involving the entire internet: Hasbro vs. Internet Entertainment Group "CANDYLAND Case" [louisville.edu]
That appears to be over "Candy Land", not "Candy". I doubt anyone would care if "Candy Crush" was trademarked. Here, the sole word "Candy" has been trademarked in conjunction with video games as a whole, and could conceivably be used against Hasbro if Hasbro came out with a Candy Land video game. King doesn't seem to care what kind of game it is, just that the word "Candy" appears in the title.
Re: (Score:2)
http://kotaku.com/candy-box-th... [kotaku.com]
http://www.igt.com/us-en/games... [igt.com]
http://www.geocaching.com/geoc... [geocaching.com]
I am sure there are more. Probably many more.
The point is that if I could find them in under 5 minutes, so could Candy Crush or the trademark office.
Invalid on its face.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget:
Microsoft's Monsters Love Candy & World of Keflings had a candy based DLC...
candystand.com
Candy Canes vs Doughnuts tic tac toe
and so on and so on
Re: (Score:2)
But that's actually a reasonable trademark case, unlike an overly broad "candy" trademark with any game.
Re: (Score:2)
Bachelor Chow: Now with flavor!!
Re: (Score:3)
Time for a spate of lawsuits showing how commonly the word is used, and the throwing out of this candy-ass "trademark."
Weak (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
And the vast majority of the time this is a good thing, even if occasionally we get bad actors like this that somehow manage to get a trademark they probably should not have been able to get issued.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a candy assed move. Government, please stop giving exclusive use of language to corporations. Some of us still use it for communication.
I guess the little badge on the front of Ford vehicles shouldn't be allowed then....
Do any of you actually know what a trademark is? A trademark isn't just the word, it includes the color, the font, the background, etc. It's a recognizable use of a word.
eg. I can make a soda called "ColaCola", no problem. OTOH if I put it in a red can with the name "ColaCola" in white cursive writing I should expect a lawsuit from CocaCola for trademark violation - even though the name is different (gasp!)
Re: (Score:3)
A trademark isn't just the word, it includes the color, the font, the background, etc. It's a recognizable use of a word.
eg. I can make a soda called "ColaCola", no problem.
Go ahead: try that. We'll wait. Then we'll send you flowers for your jail cell.
There is this thing in trademark law about "insufficiently different" and "confusing the customer" .
Re: (Score:2)
A trademark isn't just the word, it includes the color, the font, the background, etc. It's a recognizable use of a word.
eg. I can make a soda called "ColaCola", no problem.
Go ahead: try that. We'll wait.
Already been done: http://fruna.cl/wp-content/upl... [fruna.cl]
Re: (Score:2)
I plead guilty to not knowing Chile's trademark laws. Somehow I still doubt it'll fly in TWGC (the world's greatest country)
Re: (Score:2)
How about France? http://www.spotysmoke.fr/e-liq... [spotysmoke.fr]
Germany? http://www.aloisius-quelle.de/... [aloisius-quelle.de]
There's probably more...
It wouldn't be worth trying in the USA because even if you win the court case nobody's going to buy your product but if you have enough lawyer money and make the bottles really really different then it ought to stick. In theory.
OTOH CocaCola makes just about every color of can imaginable these days. I'm not sure how you could design it and not have them go after you. At what point do you dilu
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Do any of you actually know what a trademark is? A trademark isn't just the word, it includes the color, the font, the background, etc.
Not necessarily. In this instance, as per the USPTO here: http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNum... [uspto.gov], the trademark itself is indeed just the word CANDY. Relevant information is copied below:
Mark Information
Mark Literal Elements: CANDY
Standard Character Claim: Yes. The mark consists of standard characters without claim to any particular font style, size, or color.
Re:Weak (Score:5, Insightful)
not being able to use the word "candy" in the names for children's clothes and games affects your ability to communicate?
Yes. How else am I supposed to describe my "Stealing Candy from Babies" game and line of clothing if I can't use the generic word candy? If they want exclusivity, they should stick to made up words like bonerific and tasticle.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Try to keep up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Does anyone else here remember [deleted]land?
?
Re: (Score:2)
Over-reaching by miles (Score:5, Insightful)
" 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...
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
" 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...
Don't worry. I plan on requesting a trademark on the word "patent" and let that infinite logic loop implode USPTO from within.
Re:Over-reaching by miles (Score:5, Interesting)
On clothing too?
Wow, I didn't know King.com had such a history in clothing already; http://www.candystorecollectiv... [candystorecollective.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I guess Skull Candy is gonna get sued... ?
Prior art all over the place? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
Prior art has nothing to do with trademarks. This is a not a patent.
You can trademark a term even if it has been used before - for example, "Windows" or "Apple" or "Radio Shack" or "Best Buy" or "Ubuntu".
All that matters for a trademark is that you register it as your protected mark in the area that you are trading in. It is not uncommon for some things to be trademarked by different companies in different areas that have the same name (for example, Apple Records and Apple Computer in the music industry and
Re: (Score:2)
Strippers spell it with a 'k'...
(and frequently with an 'i' at the end)
Re: (Score:2)
This stuff is so stupid (and so is Forbes) (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:This stuff is so stupid (and so is Forbes) (Score:5, Insightful)
Never mind that Candy Crush is itself a rip-off of Bejeweled and countless other identical games that came before it. The whole thing just reeks.
Re: (Score:3)
The issue isn't that Hasbro should have already trademarked "candy", it's that "candy" shouldn't be able to be trademarked at all.
Expressing surprise that Hasbro did not already have the trademark, is not the same thing as saying "I think the word 'candy' should be allowed to be trademarked". I agree that "candy" should not be trademarked, but I can also still express surprise that Hasbro had not already done it.
Re:This stuff is so stupid (and so is Forbes) (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably Hasbro is surprised as well and didn't think the system had become so ridiculous that they could have done that. After all there was some fuss over Windows in the past, the initial trademark application was rejected in 1993, but somehow they succeeded in 1995: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12... [nytimes.com]
I personally believe that trademarks should not be allowed on common single words[1]. If they want to trademark single words they should make up their own words. Trademarking rare/unique word combinations or phrases should be allowed.
[1] I'm not sure if Amazon qualifies as common, I think it's not such a common word in daily usage (other than specifically referring to Amazon corp's stuff). Whereas Candy is certainly not uncommon for games and clothes.
Re: (Score:2)
I was waiting for someone to mention Windows, which is both the COMPLETE product name and trademark name.
"Candy" isn't the COMPLETE product/trademarkable name of anything that I know of. "Candy Crush" is, and that is certainly worthy of a trademark in my opinion (not a bad game if you like color matching games).
This will fall, but should never have been stood up in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Actually, a common word can be trademarked for specific uses - Apple, for example. It's arbitrary and fanciful; i.e. has no logical connection to computers. A similar argument could be, and no doubt was, made with respect to Candy. Here is the question for trademark lawyers - if someone used Candy in a game prior to it being trademarked would they have a right to continue using it based on common use? Also, is candy a common enough term in games air clothing that it isn't arbitrary and fanciful? I would gue
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, very specific uses. Windows, Apple, etc. But, this isn't specific - games and clothing. I have a hard time trusting King (or any other business) when they say, "Oh, we trademarked the word in a really generic fashion, but don't worry, we only enforce in specific instances."
Re: (Score:3)
It's worth noting that Apple Records has sued Apple Computers several times [wikipedia.org] over their trademark (or alleged breach of contract related to settlements of previous trademark suits).
Re: (Score:2)
It's worth noting that Apple Records has sued Apple Computers several times [wikipedia.org] over their trademark (or alleged breach of contract related to settlements of previous trademark suits).
Correct, once it became clear Apple Computer was moving into music and thus infringing on Apple Records since people could confuse the two and their offerings.
Re: (Score:2)
The first suit was in 1978, long before Apple did anything related to music. It was completely about the name. The second suit was in 1986 when added MIDI and audio-recording capabilities, and the third was in 1991 for adding the chime sound to the OS - not exactly getting into the music business.
Re: (Score:2)
The first suit was in 1978, long before Apple did anything related to music. It was completely about the name. The second suit was in 1986 when added MIDI and audio-recording capabilities, and the third was in 1991 for adding the chime sound to the OS - not exactly getting into the music business.
True. The first was a simple "Hey, your name is real close to ours and we're not sure if you in an area we may be in" suit and resolved by both parties agreeing not to encroach on the other's turf. If you don't protect your trademark you can lose rights to it. If Apple Corp doesn't want hundreds of Apple XYZ in various businesses to the point Apple no longer becomes a recognizable name that means music. When Apple started moving towards delivering content Appel Corp took offense and sued because Appel viola
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, very specific uses. Windows, Apple, etc. But, this isn't specific - games and clothing. I have a hard time trusting King (or any other business) when they say, "Oh, we trademarked the word in a really generic fashion, but don't worry, we only enforce in specific instances."
Yes, but Apple and Windows are used in specific product categories and thus trademarkable. You probably couldn't trademark the use of Windows for cleaning products since there is a logical connection and thus you can't trademark it for that product category. That said, I would be very perry of "we won't do this..." claims because times and owners change.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the intent of the statement wasn't "Hasbro should have already trademarked Candy" as much as "The fact that Hasbro hasn't already trademarked Candy shows it's not trademarkable"
Re: (Score:2)
Micro soft
International Business Systems
Apple
My Clean PC
those are all common words too
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Which shows you don't understand what trademarking is about. In the food industry, or sweets industry, "Candy" would be a commonly used word that couldn't be trademarked. In the computer games industry, it is very strongly associated with one specific game, and there will be many who try to capitalise and that name.
Frozen Bubble (Score:2)
Burning copycat apps who are ripping off your game is a different issue
That depends. Several years ago, Taito published a video game called Bust-A-Move (Puzzle Bobble in some markets). Should Taito (a Square Enix company) take action against the developers of free software such as Frozen Bubble [frozen-bubble.org], which has the same rules?
Re:This stuff is so stupid (and so is Forbes) (Score:5, Informative)
Except that it is a common word for computer games: http://www.mobygames.com/searc... [mobygames.com]
Re:This stuff is so stupid (and so is Forbes) (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure it will get crushed, but it will cost someone a good deal of money. That's the issue. Even many bad patent and copyright claims can be defeated in court, but you have to have the money to get there. In part, this is the fault of morons working for trademark and patent offices, and in part it is due to lawyers, of which there are far too many, and far too few severe repercussions for abuse of process.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure it will get crushed, but it will cost someone a good deal of money. That's the issue. Even many bad patent and copyright claims can be defeated in court, but you have to have the money to get there. In part, this is the fault of morons working for trademark and patent offices, and in part it is due to lawyers, of which there are far too many, and far too few severe repercussions for abuse of process.
You failed to blame the real culprit - the soulless corporation (and their zombie leadership) that requests this broad of a trademark. The CEO is probably having a great laugh at all of this, but we should really not let them off the hook.
It's not a question of "hate the game/playa" but more that bad playas can and do change the game for the worse and so should be punished to set an example.. What if Apple had trademarked the word Air for computing products and handheld devices [1]? Note they didn't - the
Re: (Score:2)
I wanted to trademark the work "drivethru" in the UK, to stop McDonald's using it and make them spell it the proper, British, way. But I couldn't be arsed.
This makes no sense ... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
How can you copyright the word 'Candy' for trademark?
Microsoft can only trademark "Windows" in their specific context
Is "computer games" more specific than "operating systems"?
Re:This makes no sense ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Is it reasonable to say nobody can have a computer game with the word 'candy' in its title?
Me, I think not.
Re: (Score:2)
Not if the word was already common in other similar products, which it is.
Sadly, "reasonable" doesn't apply to IP laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Err, register that is.
Of course. (Score:4, Insightful)
They don't want anyone to benefit from anything in their Bejeweled game.
Geez, think that's a long enough name? (Score:5, Funny)
All Candy Casino Slots – Jewel Craze Connect: Big Blast Mania Land: Glorious Slots For Make Benefit Kazakhstan III: The Search For Curly's Gold!
Re: (Score:2)
Nice City Slickers reference at the end. If only this trademark application and grant was ultimately revealed to be like Curly's gold bars.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice.
Platinum Collector's Edition!
Not to mention (Score:2)
Trademarks (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
They are not even biter.
Our group of survivors call it a walker.
Candystand.com (Score:2, Interesting)
I hope Candystand (1997) smacks them down a bit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candystand
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking of this website as well. This is a CLEAR case of prior art and usage. (BTW thanks for the website name, I could not remember the second word!)
Umm CandyLand (Score:4, Interesting)
The owners of CandyLand should sue them out of existence.
Re: (Score:3)
The owners of CandyLand should sue them out of existence.
CandyLand was created by the Milton Bradley Company, which is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of... you guessed it! Hasbro, Inc.
My Little Pwning (Score:2)
Alternatively (Score:2)
Confectionery Disaggregation.
The real problem here (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Merely descriptive (Score:3)
Serious legal question (Score:2)
but (however much comfort this is) is enforcing its claims only selectively
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.
Also, by their logic, I'm hereby trademarking the word "Hello", and that means that the makers of Hello Kitty must pay me approximately eleventy-billion dollars.
Re: (Score:2)
This of course is pretty similar to simply using limited resources to only go after companies that are direct competitors, then again that is kinda the point of trademarks....
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Actually, that is a lie trademark holders tell when the get caught in a dick move but don't want to be perceived as dicks.
Re: (Score:3)
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".
USPTO's New Slogan (Score:5, Funny)
Wow! (Score:2)
U.S. trademark on the use of the word 'candy' in games and clothing.
There's already people using this trademark without approval! [google.com]
Mars attacks! (Score:2)
I'm writing a new game (Score:2)
Not seeing "candy" trademark (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's registration number 85842584.
Thanks! "Candy" (only) trademark pasted here (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Betamax and edible G strings (Score:2)
"under garments, underpants, underwear"
Well, damn - there goes the whole edible underwear market
"Blank video cassettes"
I guess this includes beta and VHS. Bastards - that was my next start-up incubator idea I was going to pitch to a few VCs next week. *sigh* I wonder if wax cylinders are going to come back any time soon...
But they forgot (Score:2)
the Kitchen Sink!!
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Hmmm, maybe Coca-Cola should go after King, because they own the trademark for the Crush brand of soda. And while I am not aware of a computer game related to it, they do sell a lot of Crush merchandise, including clothing.
Does prior art help? (Score:2)
I'm unfamiliar with the U.S. legal system, but surely the fact that King were not the first people to use the word "Candy" in a computer game title must weaken their claim to it? For example "Candy Crisis" from about 1997.
So... (Score:2)
So, if I decide to sell candy apples, to I need to pay King and Apple?
Can we please sue these idiots? (Score:2)
No, not the idiots who trademarked "candy", the idiots who let them trademark candy.
As in, sue the people in the trademark office that approved an obviously flawed trademark, and force them to make restitution to the public.
Actually, this is going to get interesting (Score:2)
Trademark != Copyright (Score:3)
*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.)
Quick, somebody trademark "crush" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And now I'm having flashbacks to the episode of Always Sunny where Dee starts popping supplements in preparation for the boxing fight.
Sure hope my new game doesnt get sued now (Score:2)
I think Drokodile Candy is a good name, no?
Re: (Score:3)
Way too much prior art, and I'm pretty sure George Carlin has already exhaustively enumerated most of the possible uses of it.
Re: (Score:2)
He was talking about copyrights you insensitive clod!
Carla Ulbrich thought of it first... (Score:2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Arbitrary vs. descriptive marks (Score:2)