F*** Candy !
Monkey Archive Forums/Digital Discussion/F*** Candy !
| ||
| You should no more use CANDY in your app name! http://www.gamezebo.com/news/2014/01/20/king-has-trademarked-word-candy-and-youre-probably-infringing I create a game and it contain "Candy" in its name... I registered a domain name And planed to buy another domain next days... for many $... But now i must cancel this and change project name... to something different... F*** Candy! |
| ||
| Well... there's always 'sugar' or 'sweet' I presume. The bad things is the domain name... |
| ||
| i paid nothing so far... only 70$ for the domain buy service |
| ||
| You may want to read this: http://gamasutra.com/view/news/208943/Candy_Crush_maker_King_is_a_step_closer_to_trademarking_the_word_Candy.php The trademark has not gone into full effect yet. That won't be until February 20th unless lots of people appeal the decision. King's lawyer is getting a bit ahead of themselves. Also, this whole thing is becoming more interesting: http://www.gamezebo.com/news/2014/01/21/make-game-fight-trademark-trolling-candy-jam |
| ||
| Why stop? Screw King. Do it anyway. |
| ||
| tower defense has also been TM'ed. http://www.reddit.com/r/gamedev/comments/1f6mdl/ to put it bluntly: we're all doomed. i would do it anyways, and form a coalition with other people to hire a lawyer. you will win, but be prepared for insanity. counter-sue for undue stress for interference with commerce (racketeering). at least patent reform is moving ahead: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/12/05/the-house-votes-on-patent-reform-today-heres-what-you-need-to-know/ |
| ||
| Bullet Candy is prior art |
| ||
| Call your game Candy Candy,double the fun. |
| ||
| What a load of shit that this has been granted, and Apple complicit in the enforcement as well. Big boys look after each other, while the small guys get shafted. Again. |
| ||
| Hahaha, I'll call my next game "King Candy - The crusher"! |
| ||
| The trademark has not gone into full effect yet. That won't be until February 20th unless lots of people appeal the decision. King's lawyer is getting a bit ahead of themselves. I read yesterday that the have a TM already granted in Europe for it. didn't check if that was true. |
| ||
| hasn't this kind of stuff been going on forever? I remember Atari tm'ing "Defender" back in the 1980's.. (still sux though!) |
| ||
| Just did a quick research for germany. They have registered "Candy" as trademark here. To show the absurdity, a list for which kind of genre they have registered it (sorry, german only): |
| ||
| The trademark hasn't been granted yet. The process (in the UK) is that you apply for a trademark, and it gets checked by the IP Office to make sure it doesn't conflict with any existing trademark (you pay a non-refundable fee for this). If it fails here, you lose. If not, then the mark gets published in the trademark journal. Everybody else then has 90 days in which to oppose the mark being granted. If somebody opposes it - even one person - the trademark applicant has to then prove that their trademark has "distinct character" - and this is where King.com will fall flat on their face, because of course they cannot prove this. Again, I don't know how the IP system in other countries works, but that's the gist of the idea with the Intellectual Property Office, and I wouldn't imagine there'd be a vast amount of variation on the process. I see loads of people peddling numerous petitions to get this trademark stopped, but the crux of the matter is that petitions won't do a bit of good. The only way to stop it is to get in touch with appropriate IP office, and formally oppose it on the right paperwork. Which I'm sure a vast number of affected people have already done, or are in the process of doing. Even if King.com manage to get through ALL of that, getting a Trademark is one thing. Enforcing it is another kettle of fish all together. They could quite easily pursue a hundred different people for using "their word", and not win a single one (and have to pay the defendant's costs in the process). Summary - they're hoping mere scare tactics will be sufficient. |
| ||
| same story with "SAGA" http://www.gamezebo.com/news/2014/01/21/king-opposing-stoics-trademark-banner-saga By the way... list of words reserved by KING http://www.trademarkia.com/company-kingcom-limited-3796361-page-1-1 Sweet! Delicious! ... |
| ||
| It is also possible that King have no chance with CANDY... I call this PR... |
| ||
| Even if King.com manage to get through ALL of that, getting a Trademark is one thing. Enforcing it is another kettle of fish all together. They could quite easily pursue a hundred different people for using "their word", and not win a single one (and have to pay the defendant's costs in the process) doesn't matter. they just need to send legal docs to Apple, and apple will do the enforcing. it's already happening. |
| ||
| Yeah, and Apple are the biggest jackasses of all. They're helping King.com to enforce a trademark which has not even been granted. I'm guessing large sacks of money are changing hands. |
| ||
| I had to remove a game because of the word "memory" and I think thats stupid. |
| ||
| Do someone know... Is the name "CANDYSOMETHING" more safe than "CANDY SOMETHING" ? |
| ||
| No. In my case Hasbro has the trademark for BATTLESHIP but naming a game Battleships or Battle Ships won't change anything. |
| ||
| Free candy (graphics) here: http://opengameart.org/content/candy-pack-1 ;) |
| ||
| I'm actually ok with them trademarking the candy prefix when it comes to casual games. If they are to have a series of Candy ???? games then they need to protect that brand from unscrupulous devs who want to confuse customers and make a quick buck by making there own Candy ???? game. Devs who already had games with Candy in the title before Candy Crush are fine and new games can easily find an alternative. Saga to me though is less defendable. It's more of a descriptor title, like trilogy or tales, than a trademark. Either way like GfK says give the various trademark offices a chance to do their job. They're not as bad as everyone makes them out to be. |
| ||
| Are you serious? You approve of one-word trademarks. Not to mention you honestly believe that trademarks help defend against these so-called scrupulous devs. That's extremely naive and pushes for the belief that people are too stupid to know the difference in products. I think you need to take a look at China, surprisingly enough. They have tons of ripoff products, because they don't actively enforce trademark, patent, copyright and other bulls**t innovation halting crap. However, most Chinese consumers do fall for these knockoffs which is why big companies aren't scared to sell to the Chinese market. Cause see, if consumers were that stupid there'd be no point in selling your product if the consumer was going to go and buy the iPaad Air. All I see when I see King is a company that's aiming to bully small devs off the market by saying that they're the only ones who are allowed to use words like "candy" and "saga" in their game name titles. It's absolutely revolting and absurd. On a different note: This is a great article http://www.polygon.com/2014/1/21/5332560/what-kings-candy-trademark-really-means |
| ||
| I just got granted a patent for all the letters in the alphabet! Start paying now, or you won't be able to write anything, anywhere, anymore!!!! ^_^ |
| ||
| I think what most of us can agree upon is that broad marks hurt the most when the people who hold them are over-zealously litigious. Valve owns the trademarks to "steam", "dota", and of course "valve" for the category of computer game programs. However I'm not aware of any issues in recent memory where they've litigated against potential competitors in the gamedev business for using any of these words. Big companies shouldn't be scared of brand dilution, but if they don't defend their trademarks, they do lose it. That's why you see companies firing off C&D's from time to time if they view the use of their trademarks as hostile. The problem with King is that they are inherently hostile by nature, and thus have found many reasons to litigate. And that, I think, makes all the difference. Not so much the trademark system -- though it would be nice to get hostile companies to pay up lawyer's fees, litigation with trademarks/service marks are a bit different than copyright in that the burden of proof is much harder for the plaintiff in terms of infringement. |
| ||
| @goodlookinguy I think in your gusto to be all internet angry you've confused brand with product. The intention with these trademarks is to protect a brand, not a single product. Your knockoffs examples are a different issue entirely. Anyone can already make a bejewelled clone, but if a player enjoys Candy Crush, as many people do, they may do a search for 'Candy' in the appstore. When they do it's not a long stretch to imagine that player assuming all those Candy ???? Games to be by the same maker. Are you telling me that if you came across a a game called Angry Pigs you wouldn't immediately think it was associated with Angry Birds? Now I'm not condoning Kings actions, far from it, I'm just saying I understand why they'd want to protect their brand. If it's right or not is up to the various trademark offices. In hindsight I bet they wish they'd made up a word for the game's name, and then no one would be batting an eyelid now when they trademarked it. |
| ||
| Are you telling me that if you came across a a game called Angry Pigs you wouldn't immediately think it was associated with Angry Birds? I wouldn't. |
| ||
| Are you telling me that if you came across a a game called Angry Pigs you wouldn't immediately think it was associated with Angry Birds? No, as I do not own a 'smartphone' and thus am not overly familiar with titles on them and do not associate singular words with them. I think in your gusto to be all internet angry you've confused brand with product. No. First off, let me make it clear that I have extremely strong socialist and communist beliefs. What I was pissed off about when I wrote that was that in general I hate everything that in one way or another suggests sole ownership to concepts, ideas, branding, and more, such as 'candy.' I was pissed that there are people, such as yourself, who are complacent and accepting of this absolute nonsense. I maybe was a bit hasty in my wording, and I will apologize for that and insulting you. However that still doesn't retract from my point that the VBox II, for instance, which has a knockoff PlayStation controller and knockoff XBox looking design, is sold in Philippines, Thailand, China, and I assume more. The designs themselves can be considered a 'brand' and therefore is using 'branded' designs. However, how many people are going to go and buy that over the XBox or PS? What I'm really trying to get at here is that I can't imagine there are that many people who are so stupid as to fall for a copy product just because it has 'Angry' at the beginning or 'Candy.' On the other hand, something like 'The Elder Scrolls' as a whole, not the damn 'scrolls' part alone, I would think of that particular series of products. I can understand trademarks such as that. Singular words though do not themselves convey a product. When I hear apple, unless in computer context, I think of an editable fruit. When I hear something unique like MicroSoft(ware), it's fine because it's made up. That's really what I was trying to get at, however, I'm assuming that in this case I might be a minority. |
| ||
| No. First off, let me make it clear that I have extremely strong socialist and communist beliefs. What I was pissed off about when I wrote that was that in general I hate everything that in one way or another suggests sole ownership to concepts, ideas, branding, and more, such as 'candy.' I was pissed that there are people, such as yourself, who are complacent and accepting of this absolute nonsense. I maybe was a bit hasty in my wording, and I will apologize for that and insulting you. However that still doesn't retract from my point that the VBox II, for instance, which has a knockoff PlayStation controller and knockoff XBox looking design, is sold in Philippines, Thailand, China, and I assume more. The designs themselves can be considered a 'brand' and therefore is using 'branded' designs. However, how many people are going to go and buy that over the XBox or PS? How about a nice game of chess? :/ What I'm really trying to get at here is that I can't imagine there are that many people who are so stupid as to fall for a copy product just because it has 'Angry' at the beginning or 'Candy.' On the other hand, something like 'The Elder Scrolls' as a whole, not the damn 'scrolls' part alone, I would think of that particular series of products. I can understand trademarks such as that. Singular words though do not themselves convey a product. When I hear apple, unless in computer context, I think of an editable fruit. When I hear something unique like MicroSoft(ware), it's fine because it's made up. That's really what I was trying to get at, however, I'm assuming that in this case I might be a minority. |
| ||
| How about a nice game of chess? :/ No, I'm quite alright. I think I was on a downswing for the last few days. I just woke up and I suddenly feel happy and energized, but probably am just experiencing mania. More to the point, bad news just keeps coming King's way. Also, if you want to see exactly what they were doing: this link is a link to the Trademark office and the Candy trademark. You'll find a nice list of things (it's enormous) that they declared ownership revolving around Candy to. Just a brief example of what they wrote: "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" |
| ||
| Another article based on the "Scamperghost" controversy: http://www.gemfruit.com/articles/king-candy-crushes-developers-saga/# |
| ||
| Yeah, that was a great one. Not only that, but the Candy Jam page has now posted the blatant clone games next to their original counterparts: http://itch.io/jam/candyjam I've been playing the bust-a-move series since the 90s and wow is that such an obvious clone. Edit: Jim Sterling at The Escapist has now done a video: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/8734-The-Saga-Scrolls-Edge-of-Candy |
| ||
| Wow. Just Wow. From the copyright claim: " Audiovisual teaching apparatus, namely, slide or photograph projection apparatus" So nobody can even use the word CANDY into a slide, in lectures without breaching their IP? That's insane. Downloadable music files; No music either?! I think they'll have to go after Madonna! Providing information relating to educational services; So no teachers can even teach about the word candy?!? Seriously??? That blows my mind. If that's above isn't just a prove that King is a patent troll, I don't know what it is. |
| ||
| No, none of that is true. Trademark <> copyright <> patent. |
| ||
| For anyone that doesn't know... (cause I'm a strong advocate of trademark, patent, and copyright reform) Trademark: Product name, design (look), etc. Patent: Mechanics of a system (which can include unused ideas, as stupid as that is) Copyright: Content of art, literature, music, etc. However, concerning this one Downloadable music files Any songs named with the word 'candy' in their title are eligible. |
| ||
| Deal with this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9nE2spOw_o heres a nother one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAFg2TQk9v0 In England they call them Sweets. In America they call them Candy.If you back down company KING win. |
| ||
Hah! I joined (at the last time..!) The Candy Jam! Here's my game: http://www.icongames.com.br/cc/ (Soon on mobiles ^_^) |
| ||
| I'm going to McDonalds to file a law suit against them for using the word "Burger" because I own that word it was my property all along dating back from the very first time I took those two bread slices and squeezed them around that greesy chunk of cow meat. Since we both associate "Burger" with such sandwiches it is clear to me they stole my idea even though I'm technically not the guy who came up with the word or the guy who put it in the dictionary. Did the creator of candy crush create the word "candy"? I don't think so. You can't copyright a single generic word that's existed almost more than 100 years and was commonly used before any of us were born. Well, at least that's how it should be. What if I made a biography movie about myself and named it after me. Can I legally bully innocent people for having a main character or title including my name in it? That's so dumb. Like WTH. What about games that have been on the appstore longer than candy crush? Should they get legally and financially raped because they had the name before candy crush did? SMH. This stuff I'm telling ya is a serious joke. The guy who made candy crush is a serious piece of work. Is he out of his mind? I'm very tempted to think he has a mental disability of at least some sort. Retarded? Autistic? Apsergers? Bipolar? Downs Syndrome? Something? |
| ||
| Hah! I joined (at the last time..!) The Candy Jam! Nice little game! Mine is nearly done... I took a different take on the naming: "Lolly Smash Adventures!" XD |
| ||
| @TKG I don't think it was just one person who made CCS. Since it was made by King LTD who has 400+ employees. However, whoever pushed to have the word trademarked, that's another story. I'm very tempted to think he has a mental disability of at least some sort. Retarded? Autistic? Apsergers? Bipolar? Downs Syndrome? Something? I am autistic, biploar, and a lot of other things. Those have nothing to do with making bad decisions on behalf of a company. Just plain bad decision making have everything to do with it. Whoever pushed to have the word trademarked was the fool. @therevills Mine is nearly done... I took a different take on the naming: "Lolly Smash Adventures!" XD None of those words are trademarked so I think you're kind of missing the point of the Candy Jam, which was to berate King for trademarking common words in relationship to their product titles. |
| ||
| I think you're kind of missing the point of the Candy Jam Nope, I got the point of the Jam - but instead I copied the title of Candy Crush Saga by using similar meaning words to show how stupid the trademarks are: "Lolly(TM) Smash(TM) Adventures(TM)" ;) |
| ||
| @GoodLookingGuy: I actually am too all I meant was something's not right with the head of whoever made that trademark. |
| ||
| Nope, I got the point of the Jam - but instead I copied the title of Candy Crush Saga by using similar meaning words to show how stupid the trademarks are: "Lolly(TM) Smash(TM) Adventures(TM)" I got that part, but hmm...isn't that more like letting them win? Maybe I'm just being too serious about it. Whatever. As long as enough berating goes around I'm satisfied. I actually am too all I meant was something's not right with the head of whoever made that trademark. Ah. Although I think something to more accurately describe them would be greedy, shady, sick, or horrible existence of human filth. |
| ||
| lol yeah that's a better fit. |
| ||
| Lets face it, whats new.... Hasbro, Atari, they've been haunting indie game devs for years... This has been going on... For years... I very much doubt a coding jam with about 200 games is going to prove much, what you need is money, lots of it, if we havent any, then, I suppose doing a jam thing will help us feel a little bit better, but thats about it! I'm not meaning to have a go or be negative, but seriously, you can only fight cash addicted dickwads like King with... Money... Its horrible to say, but unless some super indie hero comes along and their willing to throw their hard earned at challenging this, we, us, will just have to adapt to bullies like this. What I would do, to at least make some sort of impact, is start a Kickstarter up with the sole aspirations of giving these twats a kick, or at least, a pretty solid nightmare of a time as that would fire them right into negative publicity to the average joe that, at the minute, properly couldnt give a crap about all this, but, PR is over in such a way to play on the heart strings a little, everyone likes the underdog to win, a bad seed planted towards companies like that is a job well done! Dabz |
| ||
| I hate how the article linked to in the OP says the appstores are "littered" with indie games. While there are a ton of crappy indie games (I'm not the jerk to point any fingers) NOT all of them are like that. There are a ton of awesome indie games out there. |
| ||
| @Dabz We all know the jam isn't going to do anything. We never believed that it would. People just wanted to relieve their stress and berate King simultaneously, which they have. They also wanted to spread the word of what King is doing. Which has resulted in a number of people removing King games from their mobile devices. I won't say that it's going to hurt King by any stretch of the imagination, but they might think twice before pursuing smaller people again with this much negative PR floating around. |
| ||
| here's another great blurb, this time criticizing Apple! http://daringfireball.net/linked/2014/02/04/paper-paper-paper There are Best Practices in the Developer world against, in Apple’s words, “confusingly similar” names. Why didn’t that matter for these guys? Why is this not only tolerated, but awarded? Which Rules do we follow; the posted rules, the rules others use, the rules which work, or the rules which we believe in? A conundrum in many areas of mobile today. |
| ||
| Finally heres my game: http://therevillsgames.itch.io/lolly-smash-adventures Still not finished but the Jam is soon to end... Edit - Had to wait a bit... :/ |
| ||
| OK, this is 3-match-game #1001 |
| ||
| OK, this is 3-match-game #1001 And your point is? |
| ||
| more bad http://www.candyswipe.com/king.html |
| ||
| I can't believe that a company can buy someone else's product during a law suit to get rid of another infringement. |
| ||
| It's just more proof that the system is broken. |
| ||
| http://kotaku.com/candy-crush-makers-dont-want-to-trademark-candy-anym-1530680632 |
| ||
| Well that was abrupt, considering that the movement against the candy trademark had lost momentum. Edit: The link I provide here is more or less the same thing, except that the comments on the page are mostly written by other game devs and not just gamers: http://gamasutra.com/view/news/211649/King_files_to_abandon_candy_trademark_in_the_US.php |
| ||
| Ha ha ha ha ha -> http://gamasutra.com/view/news/213939/King_IPO_falters_on_the_New_York_Stock_Exchange.php Well, I saw that coming. It reminds me of what happened to Facebook at first. Of course FB did some things to bring itself back up (including the Oculus Rift now, har har) and made itself a worthwhile company. King has none of that going for it. |
   |