The people who made Candy Crush think they now own the word “Candy”, at least when it comes to games and a bunch of merchandise. How adorable.
Seems that in February 2013, the game’s makers – King.com – submitted a trademark application for the word. One that on January 15 2014 was approved for publication in the United States, meaning it’s only a few weeks away from becoming official.
This gives King a claim on the word “Candy” in relation to all kinds of applications, from games to sunglasses to headphones to…spectacle frames, though other parties can dispute the filing.
According to a report on Gamezebo, letters are already being sent to developers on Apple’s App Store whose game has the word “Candy” in its name. Even if that word is literally the only thing it has in common with King’s money-making juggernaut.
While it’s a clearly farcical state of affairs, there’s a bright spot: while King.com’s lawyers can send as many letters as they like, IP lawyer Martin Schwimmer tells Gamezebo that the fact “candy” is such a ubiquitous term will make it hard for much to legally stick.
“Someone can’t plausibly claim that they came up with the term TEENAGE MUTANT NINJA TURTLES on their own”, he says. “An incredibly unique trademark like that is somewhat easy to protect.”
“Suggestive marks are protectable, but the problem is that third parties can claim that they thought up their mark on their own.”
CANDY [USPTO]
King has trademarked the word CANDY (and you’re probably infringing) [Gamezebo]
Comments
26 responses to “Candy Crush Wants To Own The Word ‘Candy’”
So gouging their customers just isn’t bringing enough money in?
Oh…….I know a few three year olds, who will be disappointed they can’t play candy land anymore. Also what are we going to call candy canes next Christmas?? …….my god what about the stripping industry?? About one in four strippers are named candy….You Maniacs! Ah, damn you! God damn you all to hell!
I want candy…..
Won’t somebody think of the Strippers?
Candi with an “i”. Simple fix for the stripper problem.
iCandy?
Sounds awfully familiar to what Mojang did when it tried to copyright Scrolls. Bethesda had the right to protect its name under very very limited terms (i think it was cd printing and some other physical form) but the copyright Mojang submitted was a generic and blanket every kind of use under the sun including virtually all forms of media.
If I remember right, Bethesda were the ‘bad’ guys for fighting Mojang about that.
I desperately, desperately hope this inspires the first time we ever see a judge put in a legal document, “The plaintiff can go fuck themselves.”
But all I wanted was c****!
In the spirit of this kind of legal claim and purely out of black hearted spite:
EDGE!
EDGE!
EDGE!
EDGE!
EDGE!
EDGITY EDGE!
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDGE!
PS: fuck you Tim Langdell
Do we have to lock them in a room with Tim Langdell until they learn their lesson?
The creators of CANDY LAND are going to have a field day with this one…
Also, why the fuck can they retroactively trademark a pre-existing word? What the fuck? They didn’t make the word. They’re also not the first to use CANDY in the title of a game. Sure they can own CANDYCRUSH SAGA but that’s it?
Because as we all know by now Trademark law is fucking stupid.
This times a googleplex…
Google is a trademark, you need to use googolplex.
It may seem stupid but its really its just because you have no idea about how it works.
I have a decent enough understanding of how it works. It is still ridiculous.
I really doubt that you do. People commenting here don’t understand any of it for the most part. But that isn’t anyones fault, it’s a pretty niche area of law.
It isn’t just patents for words.
“I know enough about this topic”
“No you don’t!”
“I do…”
“No really, you don’t!”
“How would you know?”
“You just don’t, okay?”
To put it real basically, it works more like as long as its not descriptive or commonly used term in the goods or services they are claiming and no one else has it or a similar mark registered, you can get it. Its not the same as patents, you have to actually be using it on what you have claimed to have any enforceable right and to stop others from removing your trade mark for non use.
Like you say, its unlikely they are using candy by itself on anything, its likely justt for empty threats and scare tactics.
What next, Monsanto trying to patent vegetables?
Firstly, you can’t trade mark troll, you have to actually use the tm you apply for on the goods you apply for, otherwise someone can hit you for non use. I doubt candy is solus without crush on anything they make so it would be a relatively easy argument. Secondly, people using it before the filing date of their trade mark should easily be able to prove prior use.
This is nothing but fearmongering by silly journalists who don’t understand tm law at all and commenters who don’t know the difference between a tm and a patent. If a lawyer threatened someone with this, any half decent tm attorney would tell you its an empty threat.
To be clear this likely isn’t a mistake by the ustmo, candy isn’t a commonly used or descriptive term in gaming and if other people are using it as a trade mark they should have registered it before hand (once again they still have options like prior use even if they haven’t).
I don’t think anyone is confusing a TM with a patent. Copyright maybe?
I don’t think so. You don’t have to apply for copyright in creative works.
Yeah they’re making squat diddly off of me, thanks to Evasi0n 🙂
Sounds like something Games Workshop would try.
What a bunch of cheap game makers… what the hell? Candy? “Own”???
Candy Crush now uninstalled from my…. err my wifes tablet.