King.com Opposes 'Candy Crunch' Trademark Application... From Actual Fruit Varietal Maker

from the sour-grapes dept

King.com and its flagship product, mobile game Candy Crush, have made it onto our pages several times in the past. The most common reason for that is that King appears to enjoy playing trademark bully. Fighting with the folks behind hit game Banner Saga, not to mention picking fights with any other game maker that uses the word "candy" in their titles, have become the norm. Notably, some of the time, when there is a severe public backlash over its antics, King has also shown that it is capable of running away from such disputes.

But if you thought that all of this would mean that King would somehow soften its bullying ways, think again. King recently opposed a trademark application brought by International Fruit Genetics over its application for "Candy Crunch". What does IFG do, exactly? Well, essentially what it sounds like it does: breeding of fruit variants.

IFG’s focus on breeding table grape varieties to please consumers delivers increased growth and profitability for retailers and growers around the world. With its breadth of exciting flavors and shapes with a full spectrum of colors of grape varieties, IFG is creating a grape sensation for consumers who are discovering that good tasting grapes can be an important part of their nutritional plan.

Okay, so the company makes real life, actual fruit variants. But what is its "Candy Crunch" product? Some mobile game the company is using to promote itself? A smartphone app to help farmers and growers?

No, it's a grape. A fucking grape.

Trademark Name: Candy Crunch™

Variety Name: IFG Twenty

Harvest: mid to late season black

Cluster size: medium

Berry shape: oval elongated

In case it isn't obvious to you, IRL fruit and mobile match 3 games are not remotely the same thing or in the same marketplace. There is also absolutely nothing to suggest in any of the website or marketing material for IFG that mentions any connection to the mobile game. And, yet, King apparently believes that its mark is simply so famous that market designations of this sort, or any actual customer confusion, are trumped by such notoriety.

The opposers have contested this because they have been cultivating their “Candy Crush” brand since 2004 with a host of games, computer software and programs, including their flagship, “CANDY CRUSH SAGA.” Furthermore, they have “continuously and extensively,” advertised their games and products, and their trademarks “have developed and represent valuable goodwill inuring to the benefit of Opposers.” The opposers claimed that the proposed Candy Crunch trademark is “confusingly and deceptively similar to Opposers’ previously used and duly registered CANDY CRUSH Marks.”

Because of this, the opposers alleged that the registering of Candy Crunch with the Trademark Office will cause them damages and are “likely to cause confusion, mistake, or deception that Applicant’s good are those of Opposers, or are otherwise endorsed, sponsored, or approved by Opposers for use with Opposers’ goods and services causing further damage to Opposers.” This is because Candy Crush is a well established and famous franchise, according to the notice, and would confuse their consumers if a similarly named product appeared on the market.

And that is absurd. Customers of IFG are fruit farmers looking to license variants for all matter of reasons, such as viability, yield, etc. Now, we could spend some time talking about whether that model should be allowed at all, but that isn't the purpose of this post. The point is that no fruit farmer is going to go to IFG, see one grape variant called "Candy Crunch", and somehow think it has anything to do with Candy Crush, the mobile game. That... just isn't going to happen.

In which case there is no confusion among the public. And there is no competition between the two products. Which means, my friends, there is no valid reason to oppose IFG's application.

Filed Under: candy crunch, candy crush, grapes, trademark
Companies: ifg, international fruit genetics, king.com

King Has 'Crush' Trademark Opposed By Dr. Pepper

from the by-their-own-petard dept

App-maker King, of Candy Crush fame, has built up a reputation for itself as a trademark bully. The company has previously attempted to threaten pretty much any game or mobile app that utilizes the words "candy" or "saga." And if that sounds insane to you, you're not alone, as there have been several instances of severe backlash against how King goes about "protecting" its trademarks.

As this site's version of the saying goes: live by the intellectual property, die by the intellectual property. Well, not die, perhaps, but it's slightly amusing to watch King have its "Crush" trademark opposed by Dr. Pepper.

In a bid to create a further layer of protection for their games, King.com have filed an application to protect ‘Crush’ as a trade mark in the US for confectionery. Unhappy about this application, Dr Pepper have filed an opposition claiming the ‘Crush’ trade mark will damage the goodwill of their own ‘Crush’ marks.

Dr Pepper owns several trade marks for the word for a number of items including certain confectionary items and cosmetics. Dr Pepper has based their claims on the fact they believe by allowing the application by King.com, it will cause dilution of the distinctive quality of Dr Peppers marks.

Ok, let's get the obvious out of the way: this is a fairly silly opposition if its basis is to do with customer confusion. Frankly, I can't imagine how many people are even aware that the Crush mark is being used in the confections space by Dr. Pepper. I certainly can't think of a single Crush-branded candy. My quick google search didn't turn up much either. Crush is known for its soft drinks. Meanwhile, King is known for its apps, and even if it makes the move into retail in the way that Angry Birds has, and that retail business includes candies, who is going to confuse any of that with Dr. Pepper's Crush brand?

That being said, this opposition is certainly more valid than King's bullying of the makers of The Banner Saga over that last word. I won't say this has reached the level of schadenfreude for me, but it is somewhat hard to get any tears to build up over King having to endure a silly opposition to its trademark.

Filed Under: candy crush, crush, trademark
Companies: dr. pepper, king

Backlash Aftermath: King Suddenly Turns Amicable In Trademark Disputes

from the thanks-internet dept

When King, of Candy Crush fame, decided to lose its legal mind over supposed trademark violations by roughly everyone, the backlash on the internet was swift and decisive. Entire platforms developed out of the ether with the seemingly sole purpose of trolling the hell out of King. The most notable dispute, it seemed, was over a game called The Banner Saga, which King insisted represented a grave threat to their business model of allowing people to match up three or more digital representations of candied items. There too, the backlash was relatively severe.

Severe enough, it appears, to get King to suddenly transmogrify itself into an amicable tech beast.

According to both Stoic and Ransom, King has quietly and amicably settled the trademark disputes with both companies.

"Stoic is pleased to have come to an agreement with King regarding Stoic's The Banner Saga trademark, which enables both parties to protect their respective trademarks now and in the future," reads a brief statement on the Stoic website.

This result provides evidence once again that these David versus Goliath IP disputes can often be resolved with a little sunshine and public shaming. King acted like a bully and once their actions were spotlighted the public sprung into action to make their voices heard.

Perhaps the more important lesson is one served to King and other companies that might be tempted to behave similarly. It's one thing to protect your brand, but it's quite another to open up a legal salvo, with all of its necessary expenses, only to end up in exactly the same place you began. No names have been changed in response to the disputes. The only real result in all of this is now everyone thinks a little less of King and a bunch of lawyers made a little bit of money. Sort of makes the whole process seem silly, no?

Filed Under: banner saga, candy crush, games, king, saga, trademark
Companies: king, ransom, stoic

King Cries Trademark Over The Banner Saga

from the crush-this dept

We already discussed how King.com, makers of the massively popular Candy Crush Saga mobile game, have applied for a trademark on the word "candy" and have begun sending out the threat letters. Well, because one generic turn deserves another, the game developer did likewise with the word "saga", another term that a simple search of the Android market reveals is generic and widespread. But that hasn't stopped King.com from going after all those "saga" pilferers out there, heroically attempting to keep customers from being confused.

Like those that might confuse Candy Crush Saga, a game in which you slap fruit around for no apparent reason, and The Banner Saga, which is a turn-based strategy game with heavy role-playing elements that might as well have been designed with the goal of being as unlike Candy Crush as possible. King.com is filing an opposition to a trademark request by Stoic, LLC, makers of The Banner Saga, who have applied for the actually sensible trademark on the entire name of their game. That opposition alleges, amongst other things, that the word "saga" and the name The Banner Saga are "deceptively similar" and will cause consumers to "believe that Applicant's goods originate from the Opposer, resulting in a likelihood of confusion."

That, my friends, is a special level of bullshit. To take the application of one generic term and claim deception by producers who actually make a game with a unique title would be akin to Major League Baseball seeking to keep little league baseball from using the name of the sport because someone might confuse the two enterprises. It ain't gonna happen.

And guess who knows it isn't going to happen? Why, the folks from King.com, of course.

"We do not have any concerns that Banner Saga is trying build on our brand or our content," a spokesperson for King, the makers of Candy Crush Saga, told Kotaku. "However, like any prudent company, we need to take all appropriate steps to protect our IP, both now and in the future."

Ah, the grand old trademark Nuremberg Defense: it's not our fault we're acting this way, trademark law made us do it. Except, of course, that isn't true. There are a myriad of ways in which to wade these waters and come to an agreement that don't involve sending out threat letters to innocent content producers. Those ways probably don't even need to come into play, however, in a case where the trademark on a single generic word never should have been granted and the overlap in the market between the two marks is so thin all the other trademark disputes are worried it might have anorexia.

The folks from Stoic, fortunately, are refusing to back down.

Two years ago, the three of us at Stoic set out to make an epic viking game: The Banner Saga. We did, and people loved it, so we're making another one. We won't make a viking saga without the word Saga, and we don't appreciate anyone telling us we can't. King.com claims they're not attempting to prevent us from using The Banner Saga, and yet their legal opposition to our trademark filing remains. We're humbled by the outpouring of support and honored to have others stand with us for the right to their own Saga. We just want to make great games.

That kind of sentiment is going to gain them a great deal of goodwill. King.com, on the other hand, having tried to associate their generic trademarks with a quality and enjoyable product, are instead associating their company name with legal yahoo-ism and attempts to shut down other people's fun. Way to think this through, guys!

Filed Under: banner saga, candy, candy crush, candy crush saga, saga, trademark
Companies: king.com, stoic

Candy Crush Goes Trademark Legal; Candy Crush Gets Trolled

from the gonna-be-a-busy-day dept

Candy Crush is the mobile game that finally got everyone to stop playing scrabble and pictionary with their friends during their morning commutes. It was developed by King.com. King.com then turned around and applied for a trademark on the word "candy" (for games and a variety of merchandise) and is now going completely bonkers in the mobile app space, sending out letters to any app on the market that includes that oh-so-unique identifier of a word.

Stories about legal threats over generic terms are a dime a dozen, but at least those fights tend to be over generic phrases or groups of words. Having a trademark in the mobile app space on "candy" is insane. But that doesn't mean some folks can't have some fun with it. Take the indie game makers who have started The Candy Jam, for instance, which is simply a game that requires players to create any sort of game that has to do with candy.

WHY? BECAUSE TRADEMARKING COMMON WORDS IS RIDICULOUS AND BECAUSE IT GIVES US AN OCCASION TO MAKE ANOTHER GAMEJAM :D

RULES: MAKE A GAME INVOLVING CANDIES CONSIDER USING THE WORD "CANDY" SEVERAL TIMES, ALSO "SCROLL", "MEMORY", "SAGA", "APPLE" AND "EDGE" MIGHT GIVE BONUS POINTS

Well, okay then. If an insidious game developer wants to go legal on a generic word, apparently some folks out there will give them all the generic word targets they can handle. The apparent leading game idea thus far, judging by the Candy Jam hashtag on Twitter, is an inventive romp called Candy Candy Candy. We've reached troll level three, apparently.

The good news, however, is that even the lawyers think this is silly.

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."

And yet many people may simply change the names of their games to avoid trouble, or else find themselves in a court of law having to defend the name of their game including a word that's about as common as it gets. Yay, trademark!

Filed Under: candy, candy candy candy, candy crush, candy jam, trademark
Companies: king.com

University Professor: Candy Crush Is Turning Children Into Obsessive Gamblers

from the think-of-the-royal-flushes! dept

Here is a brief list of all the definitive information we have about the effects of video games on children. Violent video games make children more violent. Violent video games do not make children more violent. Video games make children less sympathetic to their fellow humans. Video games make children more sympathetic to their fellow humans. Video games cause severe health problems in children. Video games have health benefits for children. And, above all else, we know that parents in the United States are so certain that video games are a problem for their children that they brilliantly ignore the tools at their disposal to help them act like, you know, parents.

Whoo. Sort of takes your breath away, doesn't it? Well, we aren't done yet, apparently, now that another study supposedly shows that (sigh) video games are turning our precious youth into wannabe Doyle Brunsons and the only remedy is attentive parents the ever-effective school systems to educate kids about gambling games.

Prof Mark Griffiths, director of the International Gaming Research Unit, based at Nottingham Trent University, said large numbers of under-16s were becoming hooked on games often accessed through social media websites. Many sites provide opportunities to play online poker with virtual money or give users a free introductory session to cash-gambling games with no age restrictions.

Free versions of poker and gambling sites are turning children into gambling addicts. Got it. How are they doing this, professor?

Speaking to the Times Educational Supplement, he said these games introduced young people to the excitement and rewards of gambling even when they are not playing for real money, adding: “It’s a bit like the old drug-dealing analogy of giving a bit for free and hooking them in.”

Ah, it's so simple! If you offer something for free and reward the user, they'll become hopelessly hooked and think they can earn real rewards in real life! Like drug dealers do! And play-money gambling sites! And the way Farmville has spawned a bunch of kids now hopelessly trying to grow plants out of their concrete sidewalks! Or how that free NFL game where you run back kickoffs has somehow magically convinced zillions of kids that they're Devin Hester.

Sorry, not buying it. Kids, by and large, are far more intelligent than we give them credit for. But, hey, it's not like the professor is only picking on poker sites.

Prof Griffiths identified games such as Candy Crush Saga which has been downloaded more than 500m times and gives players the option of paying money to access higher levels. He said that these games had a “moreishness quality, a bit like chocolate”.

“You say you’ll just have one chunk and you end up having the whole lot,” he said. “So you say, ‘I’ll just play for 15 minutes’, and you end up still there four or five hours later.”

So...the game being fun and costing something is the problem? Look, I dislike micropayments as much as the next person, but deciding that Candy Crush has caused a need for gambling education in every school in the UK is a bit like saying that because kids read comic books they should have to take a lesson on some of the unfortunate squeeze-effects of wearing superhero tights. It's just a little overboard.

And, I ask, knowing that this will be laughed off by my children-having peers, why is there no mention of parenting anywhere in these recommendations? I played cards with my friends as a child. I played free online poker when I was in high school. All the education I needed to know that I wasn't Phil Helmuth was my father pulling up a picture of the Las Vegas strip and saying, "They didn't build those enormous buildings by letting people win." That, along with some attentive parenting, ought to be enough.

Filed Under: candy crush, children, gambling, games, think of the children