Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Candy Crush Maker King.com Has Trademarked 'Candy' For Games

timothy posted about 6 months ago | from the seeking-such-sweet-sweet-rent dept.

Businesses 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.

cancel ×

169 comments

No worries (5, Funny)

Torp (199297) | about 6 months ago | (#46024921)

One can always release Confection Made With Sugar And Often Flavoring And Filling Crush!

Re:No worries (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46025783)

So some patent-troll-troll should create Candy Whore to bait King into suing them?

I have my popcorn ready.

Re:No worries (2)

Moryath (553296) | about 6 months ago | (#46026839)

Time for a spate of lawsuits showing how commonly the word is used, and the throwing out of this candy-ass "trademark."

I trade mark the letter E for games (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46026255)

only $0.002 a use

Re:No worries (1)

bob_super (3391281) | about 6 months ago | (#46027197)

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.

Weak (5, Insightful)

Sponge Bath (413667) | about 6 months ago | (#46024927)

That's a candy assed move. Government, please stop giving exclusive use of language to corporations. Some of us still use it for communication.

Re:Weak (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46024993)

You communicate via naming children's clothes and games, therefore not being able to use the word "candy" in the names for children's clothes and games affects your ability to communicate?

I am sceptical of that.

Re:Weak (5, Insightful)

Sponge Bath (413667) | about 6 months ago | (#46025065)

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:Weak (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46025133)

It would embiggen us all to remember that, in the end, all words are made up. Some are just older than others.

Re:Weak (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46025913)

Yeah but the context is monopolies on words. We've no problems with made up words, the problems are people stopping us from using words that they didn't make up in the first place.

Try to keep up.

Re:Weak (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46026645)

What part of my post implied that I thought monopolies on common words were ok? What part of my post implied that Sponge Bath had a problem with made up words? All I am saying is that telling corporations to stick to made up words is useless. All words are made up. Now if Sponge Bath had meant "words that the corporation made up", that would be another story. But they did not, so my point stands.

Try to keep up.

Try to read and understand a post before replying, especially if you're going to interject a bit of douchery into it.

Re:Weak (2)

sjames (1099) | about 6 months ago | (#46026445)

Does anyone else here remember [deleted]land?

?

Re:Weak (1)

jythie (914043) | about 6 months ago | (#46025627)

While I agree this seems like a bad trademark, to be fair, trademarks do not impact your ability to communicate. They are for conflicts between companies, deciding which company gets to use which words in their product names. They have zero impact outside that narrow domain.

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:Weak (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46025855)

That's it - I'm going with interpretive dance for now on. If you wish to contact me, .

Re:Weak (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about 6 months ago | (#46026693)

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:Weak (2)

cellocgw (617879) | about 6 months ago | (#46027231)

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:Weak (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about 6 months ago | (#46027317)

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]

Over-reaching by miles (5, Insightful)

MitchDev (2526834) | about 6 months ago | (#46024939)

" 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:Over-reaching by miles (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46025635)

" 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.

too late? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46026361)

IBM may be ahead of you there.
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/ibm-patents-the-patent,11868.html

Re:Over-reaching by miles (4, Interesting)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 6 months ago | (#46025719)

On clothing too?
Wow, I didn't know King.com had such a history in clothing already; http://www.candystorecollectiv... [candystorecollective.com]

Prior art all over the place? (4, Insightful)

pr0t0 (216378) | about 6 months ago | (#46025983)

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:Over-reaching by miles (1)

Anne_Nonymous (313852) | about 6 months ago | (#46026065)

"Candy" still available for trademark of strippers.

Re:Over-reaching by miles (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about 6 months ago | (#46026611)

Strippers spell it with a 'k'...

(and frequently with an 'i' at the end)

natalie (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46024943)

a sweet girl http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3M9ncAkKSNM never a better time to consider ourselves in relation to true creation aka momkind. free the innocent stem cells...... never ends hopefully best is yet to appear..

Can Dee Crush? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46024949)

If only I had spare time on my hands. I'd put out a game entitled Can Dee Crush? Just to get under their skin. Oh, and let's not forget the t-shirts, too...

Re:Can Dee Crush? (2)

Talderas (1212466) | about 6 months ago | (#46025013)

And now I'm having flashbacks to the episode of Always Sunny where Dee starts popping supplements in preparation for the boxing fight.

This stuff is so stupid (and so is Forbes) (5, Insightful)

Huntr (951770) | about 6 months ago | (#46025007)

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) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46025083)

yep... is't like your favourite burger joint going against the creators of Burger Time...

Re:This stuff is so stupid (and so is Forbes) (1)

xorsyst (1279232) | about 6 months ago | (#46026537)

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.

Re:This stuff is so stupid (and so is Forbes) (-1, Troll)

bickerdyke (670000) | about 6 months ago | (#46025383)

It's as common as apple.

FOR FOOD!

It is not a common word for computer or computer games.

Re:This stuff is so stupid (and so is Forbes) (5, Informative)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 6 months ago | (#46025675)

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) (5, Insightful)

addie (470476) | about 6 months ago | (#46025431)

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:This stuff is so stupid (and so is Forbes) (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46025449)

No, this is the mechanism for doing that. The game itself isn't new or unique; the branding is. While the trademark is overly broad, it will get trashed in court very easily if they try to use it against anyone who's selling a different game with no trademark confusion. Oh wait, nevermind, that's what the law says, not how the courts interpret it. Shit. He with the better lawyers wins.

Re:This stuff is so stupid (and so is Forbes) (5, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 6 months ago | (#46025989)

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:This stuff is so stupid (and so is Forbes) (2)

Golddess (1361003) | about 6 months ago | (#46025571)

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) (4, Insightful)

TheLink (130905) | about 6 months ago | (#46026143)

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:This stuff is so stupid (and so is Forbes) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46027043)

Amazon isn't a word. It's a proper name. Even when used as an adjective (e.g. "amazon women"), it still refers to a proper name of a geographical area.

Re:This stuff is so stupid (and so is Forbes) (1)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | about 6 months ago | (#46025581)

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 guess the trademark owner will avoid challenging well established (read: can afford very good lawyers and long trials and appeals) companies using "Candy" in a name to avoid having their trademark revoked. If they aren't challenged in 5 years doesn't the trademark become incontestable?

Re:This stuff is so stupid (and so is Forbes) (1)

Huntr (951770) | about 6 months ago | (#46025713)

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:This stuff is so stupid (and so is Forbes) (2)

danlip (737336) | about 6 months ago | (#46026359)

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:This stuff is so stupid (and so is Forbes) (1)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | about 6 months ago | (#46027579)

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:This stuff is so stupid (and so is Forbes) (1)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | about 6 months ago | (#46027569)

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:This stuff is so stupid (and so is Forbes) (1)

Coffeesloth (669850) | about 6 months ago | (#46025871)

I agree. This is like Microsoft trying to trademark Windows. I'm betting it will be thrown out once Hasbro gets involved.

Re:This stuff is so stupid (and so is Forbes) (1)

turning in circles (2882659) | about 6 months ago | (#46026005)

Trademark is the simplest and cheapest way to burn copycat apps. If a business that is not a copycat app uses "Candy" in its title, it has an excellent countersuit, so "Candy Crush" will be careful whom it sues (especially as the court could order the loser to pay the winner's attorneys fees). However, if "Candy Crush" only goes after "Candy Slots" and people selling "Candy Crush" pants, the infringers don't have much of a defense and I don't have much of a problem with it.

Re: This stuff is so stupid (and so is Forbes) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46026435)

Except that trademarks have to be 'vigorously defended' so they have to go after everyone or risk it becoming a generic term.

Re:This stuff is so stupid (and so is Forbes) (2)

Digital Vomit (891734) | about 6 months ago | (#46026081)

I don't get it when people dis "copycat apps", claiming they are "ripping off" the original authors. Copied games are probably the purest form of the free-market in action; they provide alternate sources for the same (or similar) product, and they encourage competition.

Re:This stuff is so stupid (and so is Forbes) (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | about 6 months ago | (#46026561)

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:This stuff is so stupid (and so is Forbes) (1)

Kookus (653170) | about 6 months ago | (#46026601)

Micro soft
International Business Systems
Apple
My Clean PC

those are all common words too

Re:This stuff is so stupid (and so is Forbes) (1)

gnasher719 (869701) | about 6 months ago | (#46027049)

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.

This makes no sense ... (4, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | about 6 months ago | (#46025011)

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:This makes no sense ... (1, Flamebait)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 6 months ago | (#46025301)

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 ... (3, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | about 6 months ago | (#46025463)

Is "computer games" more specific than "operating systems"?

Is it reasonable to say nobody can have a computer game with the word 'candy' in its title?

Me, I think not.

Re:This makes no sense ... (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 6 months ago | (#46025653)

Not if the word was already common in other similar products, which it is.

Sadly, "reasonable" doesn't apply to IP laws.

Re:This makes no sense ... (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 6 months ago | (#46025307)

How can you copyright the word 'Candy' for trademark?

Err, register that is.

Re:This makes no sense ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46025543)

How can you copyright the word 'Candy' for trademark?

Copyright =/= Trademark. The two are very different forms of IP law.

I'm not "against trademark" ... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46025017)

... but I'd rather have no trademarks than this kind of abuse.

To prevent fraud? Fine -- like cattle brands. "This is a genuine Panaphonics."

But as a land-grab and blackmail tool? No.

Since I wasn't in the market for any addictive little games, I can't say that I'm exactly boycotting the company, but nonetheless I don't plan to buy their game, and this is just one more reason why.

Of course. (4, Insightful)

Seumas (6865) | about 6 months ago | (#46025019)

They don't want anyone to benefit from anything in their Bejeweled game.

Geez, think that's a long enough name? (4, Funny)

TangoMargarine (1617195) | about 6 months ago | (#46025035)

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:Geez, think that's a long enough name? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46025095)

All Candy Casino Slots – Jewel Craze Connect: Big Blast Mania Land: Glorious Slots For Make Benefit Kazakhstan III: The Search For Curly's Gold Alpha III Turbo

FTFY.

Re:Geez, think that's a long enough name? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46027525)

All Candy Casino Slots – Jewel Craze Connect: Big Blast Mania Land: Glorious Slots For Make Benefit Kazakhstan III: The Search For Curly's Gold Alpha III Turbo HD Remix: Continuity Error: Episode 3

then sprinkle some Hirigana in for some good measure, even if it was developed in Chicago.

Not to mention (1)

Chrisq (894406) | about 6 months ago | (#46025045)

Not to mention Candy Crank [worldofspectrum.org]

What's the limit? (1)

Ateocinico (32734) | about 6 months ago | (#46025143)

May I copyright the F*** word for cursing and yelling?

Re:What's the limit? (2)

gstoddart (321705) | about 6 months ago | (#46025237)

Way too much prior art, and I'm pretty sure George Carlin has already exhaustively enumerated most of the possible uses of it.

Re:What's the limit? (1)

shentino (1139071) | about 6 months ago | (#46025447)

He was talking about copyrights you insensitive clod!

Trademarks (2)

vikingpower (768921) | about 6 months ago | (#46025151)

are not sweet. They are not even biter. They are tasteless.

Re:Trademarks (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46025919)

They are not even biter.

Our group of survivors call it a walker.

so they can steal candy.com? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46025183)

massturds of deception continue to reign DOWn upon US

Candystand.com (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46025217)

I hope Candystand (1997) smacks them down a bit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candystand

Umm CandyLand (3, Interesting)

swamp boy (151038) | about 6 months ago | (#46025221)

The owners of CandyLand should sue them out of existence.

Re:Umm CandyLand (2)

Somebody Is Using My (985418) | about 6 months ago | (#46025847)

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.

Alternatively (1)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | about 6 months ago | (#46025303)

Confectionery Disaggregation.

Candymania (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 6 months ago | (#46025321)

All Candy Casino Slots – Jewel Craze Connect: Big Blast Mania Land.

The full name is Masquerade: The Candification: All Candy Casino Slots – Jewel Craze Connect: Big Blast Mania Land: Candy For All: The Candychokers...

IV

Counter-move (0)

Shoten (260439) | about 6 months ago | (#46025503)

I plan to trademark the word "faggots" in the context of a gaming company, and charge a dime for each use in public forums. I'll make millions off discussions regarding Ubisoft, EA's working environment and King's IP strategies.

Re:Counter-move (2)

toonces33 (841696) | about 6 months ago | (#46025593)

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.

The real problem here (2)

Akratist (1080775) | about 6 months ago | (#46025547)

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.

Re:The real problem here (1)

jythie (914043) | about 6 months ago | (#46025693)

To be fair, trademarks are probably the least damaging 'fencing off' you can have of ideas. In fact they are not even walling off ideas, just branding. Trademarks are part of how consumers associate a product with the company that produces it. They say nothing about the product (outside the industry it is in since trademarks are fairly narrow in what they cover) or the ideas contained within it, only what title you can market it as. It makes it difficult for companies to pretend to be each other, but does not stop companies from using each other's ideas and designs.

Serious legal question (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | about 6 months ago | (#46025549)

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:Serious legal question (1)

jythie (914043) | about 6 months ago | (#46025723)

It means they are claiming they are keeping to the spirt of trademark law and only going after companies that might cause consumer confusion by using the trademark for a product that is similar to their own. So they claim they are defending it but not attempting to be overly broad and apply it outside the narrow usage they intend.

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:Serious legal question (1)

sjames (1099) | about 6 months ago | (#46026765)

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:Serious legal question (2)

gnasher719 (869701) | about 6 months ago | (#46027139)

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 (5, Funny)

organgtool (966989) | about 6 months ago | (#46025901)

You've got money, we've got rubber stamps

Mars attacks! (1)

Applehu Akbar (2968043) | about 6 months ago | (#46026031)

This CEO is going to have fun trying to keep on breathing at the bottom of a pile of every candy company lawyer in the country.

I'm writing a new game (1)

jd2112 (1535857) | about 6 months ago | (#46026047)

I'm going to call it 'Monster Candy'. I don't see any potential legal issues.

It's not a done deal (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46026169)

King doesn't have a US trademark yet. Go to uspto.gov and search for KING.COM LIMITED. The application is currently suspended while they negotiate with Link Tomorrow Co. Ltd, who filed for "CANDY PANG!" in 2012.

copyrighting something they didn't create (0)

PC_THE_GREAT (893738) | about 6 months ago | (#46026273)

United states is a crazy country :s, what is the logic of copyrighting a word that already existed before?

Not seeing "candy" trademark (2)

michaelmalak (91262) | about 6 months ago | (#46026417)

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:Not seeing "candy" trademark (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46026599)

It's registration number 85842584.

Thanks! "Candy" (only) trademark pasted here (5, Informative)

michaelmalak (91262) | about 6 months ago | (#46027191)

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.

Word Mark CANDY

Goods and Services IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: Apparatus for recording, transmission or reproduction of sound or images; Blank magnetic data carriers and recording discs; Blank magnetic disks, pre-recorded magnetic disks featuring computer games; Compact discs, DVDs and video recordings featuring computer games; Calculating machines, Data processing equipment, namely, couplers, Computers; Computer game software for video and computer games; Video disks and video tapes with recorded animated cartoons; Audiovisual teaching apparatus, namely, slide or photograph projection apparatus; Camcorders; Cameras; Cassette players; Compact disc players; Compact discs featuring video and computer games; Computer game programs; Computer keyboards; Computer memory hardware; Computer operating programs, recorded; Computer peripheral devices; Computer programmes, recorded for video games; Computer programs for video games; Computer software, recorded for video games; Downloadable image files containing photographic images and artwork, text, and games; Downloadable music files; Downloadable ring tones for mobile phones; DVD players; Downloadable electronic publications in the nature of e-books, online magazines, online newspapers, electronic journals, blogs, podcasts and mobile game applications in the field of computer and video games; Exposed photographic film; Headphones; Juke boxes, musical; Laptop computers; Microphones; Baby monitors; Battery performance monitors; Computer monitors; Mouse pads; Notebook computers; Blank optical discs; Optical discs featuring computer and video games; Personal stereos; Portable media players; Portable telephones; Record players; Sound recording apparatus; Sound reproduction apparatus; Sound transmitting apparatus; Spectacle cases; Spectacle frames; Sunglasses; Tape-recorders; Teaching apparatus, namely, electronic teaching equipment in the nature of computers, multimedia projectors, computer whiteboards; Telephone apparatus; Television apparatus for projection purposes; Blank USB flash drives. Blank video cassettes; Prerecorded video cassettes featuring computer games; Video game cartridges; Video recorders; Cases for mobile phones, tablets and other electronic mobile devices, excluding video game devices; Computer games software; Computer game entertainment software; Downloadable electronic game software for use on mobile phones, tablets and other electronic mobile devices; Video game software; Interactive multimedia computer game programs; Games software for use on mobile phones, tablets and other electronic mobile devices; Downloadable computer software for mobile phones, tablets and other electronic mobile devices in the field of social media; Downloadable software in the nature of a mobile application for use in the field of social media; Apps featuring computer games, namely, computer game software IC 025. US 022 039. G & S: Clothing, namely, aprons, bandanas, bath robes, bathing caps, bathing suits, bathing trunks, beachwear, beach shoes, belts, bibs not of paper, boots, caps, headwear, coats, dresses, dressing gowns, ear muffs, football boots, gloves, hats, headbands, jackets, jumpers, pullovers, masquerade costumes, money belts, neckties, overalls, overcoats, pajamas, pants, paper hats for use as clothing, sandals, sarongs, shirts, shoes, short-sleeve shirts, shower caps, ski boots, ski gloves, skirts, sleep masks, slippers, slips, socks, soles for footwear, stockings, suits, sun visors, sweaters, sweatshirts, swimsuits, tee-shirts, tights, trousers, under garments, underpants, underwear, uniforms, vests, waistcoats, wristbands; Footwear

IC 041. US 100 101 107. G & S: Educational services, namely, conducting classes, seminars, workshops in the field of computers, computer games; Training in the field of computers, computer games; Entertainment, namely, providing on-line computer games; Entertainment in the nature of computer games, namely, providing temporary use of non-downloadable computer games; Entertainment, namely, providing non-downloadable computer games online; Entertainment services, namely, providing temporary use of non-downloadable interactive games; Entertainment services, namely, providing temporary use of non-downloadable electronic games; Entertainment services, namely, providing a website featuring games and puzzles; Entertainment services, namely, providing online video games; Sporting and cultural activities, namely, in the field of computer games; Amusement parks; Arranging and conducting of workshops for educational purposes in fields of computers, graphic arts and video games; Providing casino and gambling facilities; Providing information relating to educational services; Educational examination; Electronic desktop publishing; Entertainment services, namely, live, televised and movie appearances by a professional entertainer; Film production, other than advertising films; Gambling services; Providing on-line computer games via a computer network; Games equipment rental; Operating lotteries; Organization of sport and electronic games competitions; Party planning; Production of music; Entertainment, namely, production of television shows; Providing amusement arcade services; Hosting social entertainment events, namely, karaoke parties for others; Non-downloadable electronic publications in the nature of websites, e-books, online magazines, online newspapers, electronic journals, blogs, podcasts and mobile applications in the field of computer and video games; Publication of books; Publication of electronic books and journals on-line; Providing recreation facilities; Scriptwriting services; Writing of texts. Electronic games services provided by means of a global computer network; Entertainment services, namely, providing online electronic games for use on mobile phones, tablets and other electronic mobile devices; providing enhancements within online computer and electronic games; Entertainment services, namely, providing temporary use of non-downloadable single and multi-player electronic interactive games via the internet, electronic communication networks or via a global computer network; Multimedia publishing of software, specifically of computer game software, electronic games and video game software

Standard Characters Claimed

Mark Drawing Code (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK

Serial Number 85842584

Filing Date February 6, 2013

Current Basis 44E

Original Filing Basis 1B;44D

Owner (APPLICANT) King.com Limited CORPORATION MALTA Aragon House 4th Floor, Dragonara Road St.Julian's STJ3140 MALTA

Attorney of Record Andrew S. Ehard

Priority Date February 1, 2013

Description of Mark Color is not claimed as a feature of the mark.

Type of Mark TRADEMARK. SERVICE MARK

Register PRINCIPAL

Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

Re:Not seeing "candy" trademark (1)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | about 6 months ago | (#46026925)

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.

Re:Not seeing "candy" trademark (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46027401)

http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=85842584&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch

This is fairly comon, just ask the IOC how? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46026485)

Dated, but in 2008 the IOC trademarked part of Canada's national anthem.

Never mind "made up words" or such, the national anthem is by its very nature public domain.

http://boingboing.net/2008/09/29/olympics-reach-a-new.html

Re:This is fairly comon, just ask the IOC how? (0)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | about 6 months ago | (#46026903)

Dated, but in 2008 the IOC trademarked part of Canada's national anthem.

Never mind "made up words" or such, the national anthem is by its very nature public domain.

http://boingboing.net/2008/09/29/olympics-reach-a-new.html

Actually, that is only partially true. The national anthem melody and words may be in the public domain, but any modern musical arrangement of said anthem, is most likely protected. Hell, you even need to pay royalties if you want to use an english translation of the bible.

Does prior art help? (1)

carou (88501) | about 6 months ago | (#46026625)

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.

Hey King.com (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46026817)

Hey King.com fuck you. I just uninstalled this game and will never buy or use one or your products again.

So... (1)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | about 6 months ago | (#46026871)

So, if I decide to sell candy apples, to I need to pay King and Apple?

Other games already use it (1)

Pier-Luc Gagnon (3508075) | about 6 months ago | (#46027259)

I don't know how these things work, but I thought that the fact that a ton of other games already use this should void this trademark... you know, Pokemon's rare candy and whatnot...

Can we please sue these idiots? (1)

AnotherBlackHat (265897) | about 6 months ago | (#46027629)

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.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...