One side-effect is we'll have to go back to calling them "sweets".
The company behind the wildly successful Candy Crush Saga mobile games franchise already has its mitts on the European trademark for the word "candy" and is now awaiting approval for its application for the same thing in the US. "We have trademarked the word 'CANDY' in the EU, as our IP is constantly being infringed and we …
One side-effect is we'll have to go back to calling them "sweets".
What do you mean, "go back"? They have always been called sweets.
never been called candy in any part of the UK I've been to either, always sweets
...or spogs where i'm from.
Spogs are the little hundreds and thousands covered liquorice thingys- at least in Ireland. They are a particular kind of candy.
Spogs are hard boiled sweets but then they were the only type of sweet we could afford. Maybe the rich kids on the private estate called their dark chocolate orange a spog but I doubt it.
Ahh, we used to dream of a dark chocolate orange.
what the hell is a dark chocolate orange?
"hat the hell is a dark chocolate orange?"
It's a chocolate orange that is currently operating without being in any form of communication with its superiors.
>what the hell is a dark chocolate orange?
Google images is your friend. Use it.
My relatives from Sheffield always used to refer to sweets as 'spice.' Confused the hell out of me when I was a kid. I hadn't even read Dune then.
" My relatives from Sheffield always used to refer to sweets as 'spice.' "
Presumably that's a different branch of slang from where the "Spice Girls" took their name.
It's a bit cheeky, copying someone else's game mechanism and then trying to claim it as your own IP!
"It's a bit cheeky, copying someone else's game mechanism and then trying to claim it as your own IP!"
Well put. The follow-up question being: who actually owns the rights/IP/copyright/software patents/source code to the original "Bejewelled" game(s)? (Or whatever family of games can trace its lineage back to the first version.)
This is a serious question. I'm not trying to start a flame war.
Phew, they've only trademarked Candy.
I can finally release my game Kandy Krush without fear of prosecution!
Perhaps 'Sweety Squish'?
What about "Haribo Hammer"?
Oh, but in other news they are attacking companies that use the word "Saga". Soon it will be anyone using the word "crush" and so on.
The coffin dodgers holiday company that also bizzarely owns the AA may have the trademark equivalent of prior art on the work Saga.
Although Im currently imagining a crash between a sweet lorry and a tourist bus reported with the headline Candy Crushes Saga.
Unless it got confused with Kandy Magazine's Krush.
I'm looking forward to the slew of sequels, followed by the inevitable relaunch of the game that started it all: Kandy Krush Klassic.
What about the film "I want Candy", I think that came out before the game.
I also imagine the owners of the saga games console trademark may have something to say!
Prior art has nothing to do with trademarks. Trademarks just give protection against competitors producing similar products with similar names.
Firstly such a generic term should never have been granted as a trademark in the first place.
Secondly this statement: "We don't enforce against all uses of CANDY - some are legitimate and of course, we would not ask App developers who use the term legitimately to stop doing so." is pure bullshit. If you don't actively pursue all infringers of a trademark you stand to lose it.
They [King] have also been granted a trademark for "Saga", and are currently trying to prevent the developers of The Banner Saga from trademarking "Banner Saga".
Personally I think someone should trademark "Crush" and sue King to smithereens.
"Firstly such a generic term should never have been granted as a trademark in the first place."
Next we'll have patents being granted for obvious ideas for which there are loads of examples of prior art that even the most cursory search would reveal.
Wait, the USPTO already does that. My mistake.
Oh do shut up and learn about trademarks.
And probably about a million other ones.
If King's game had been called "Candy", I would be less infuriated, but it's not. It's called "Candy Crush Saga". There are hundreds of pre-existing games in the App Store, many of which were around long before CCS was released, that are now potentially under threat from King due to this overly generic trademark.
Whoa, steady there lad, you'll do yourself a mischief!
They're trademarking a name in reference to a product in a particular genre. They are not copyrighting the word "candy". They are trademarking the name "Candy" in the frame of reference to a video game in the software industry that involves sweet/fruit related activities within the context of a game. If you make a spreadsheet that's called "Candy's Financial Accounting Software" you're pretty much safe. If you make a close derivitive of Candy Crush game product and call it "Candy Fruit Smasher" you'll get a phone call, as you copied the idea and the product and you're trying to cash in on the popularity by even taking a derivitive name.
Sit and have a think about about many products you have around you now that have a simple English word as part of their trademarked name, then how many other products share that name in other industries? Apple make gadgets but the market stalls and supermarkets don't have to sell those green fruit labelled as "Eve's Downfall" or "Cider Sources" do they because of some gadget company have trademarked the name? Apple Corp and Apple Records fell out as they were both simply called "Apple" at one point, especially as soon as Apple ( gadgets ) wanted to get in on the entertainment market they were going to clash as punters could easily be misled.
Magnum is used in the wine business, but also as the name of weapon, a TV character, an ice cream, all different products in different markets and not easily confused with one another. Context and perception of the product and it's market.
> They're trademarking a name in reference to a product in a particular genre.
So that would be like Apple getting a trademark for the computer genre and leaving Apple Corp to have its Apple trademark in the music sector?
That's my understanding of trademarks (their use is usually assigned to the type of product they are intended to protect).
That isn't, however, what the article states - "everything from bathrobes to DVDs".
Completely farcical. They basically produced an updated version of Bejewelled, which itself was essentially an updated version of Tetris.
How can they trademark saga? isn't it a trademark on a games console?
The trademark filing has it covering all kinds of non-software things. Notable in its inclusion is "Headphones," which retroactively makes Skullcandy headphones a violation of this trademark. I'm sure other instances could be found.
"The trademark filing has it covering all kinds of non-software things. Notable in its inclusion is "Headphones," which retroactively makes Skullcandy headphones a violation of this trademark. I'm sure other instances could be found."
So where would this leave the Highlander movie? (there can be only one, two and three don't exist ;)
Hooker: "Hi, I'm Candy."
Kurgan: "Of course you are."
Yes but ALL of those are limited to specific areas, the problem is Candy is too generic, and they don't actually have a company or game called Candy, so yes trademark Candy Crush but NOT just CANDY...
Please someone sensible overturn this idiotic decision...
I don't know I wanted a big bottle of fizzy wine for 'er indoors and lo and behold Tom Selleck turned up with Ice Cream and a shooter
I'm pretty sure the Italian washing machine people will be annoyed.
"Please wait 30 minutes for the rinse cycle to start, or buy exclusive Candy Dollars and load unlimited washes for the next 24 hours!"
Or use a hack, that gives you unlimited washes and bonus stain remover.
You cant trademark a word that has been around for donkeys years.
What will I ask for when I buy by cough candy?
Who was the bertie bassetesque robot in Dr Who, The happiness patrol?
And, won't this confuse people that want to buy a large load washing machine?
Actually the last one is quite a valid point (not that the other two are not), but Candy appliances are already prevalent throughout Europe.
But you don't trademark a word in isolation, you trademark the use of a word in a specific context.
e.g. Everest can still call the things they install "Windows", but if they started to branch out into IT software they'd not been able to call their new OS the same thing. I could start making cakes and call them Everest cakes, it wouldn't be an issue (though arguably if I called them Everest Double Glazing Windows cakes it would as it could be construed that the name indicated an association).
Royal Mail actually own a trademark on the colour red. That doesn't mean no one can use it, it just means any companies involved in the same business as RM can't use it as a predominant part of their branding.
Of course it all gets a bit silly when merchandising comes in and you extend the original game/app context of the trademark to things like bath robes.
> According to the filing, the trademark covers the use of the word "Candy" in relation everything from bathrobes to DVDs
I imagine the lawyers engaged by John Candy's estate are already leafing through the 2014 Ferrari catalogue...
"King claims that it is only seeking the patent in order to prevent rival firms from ripping off Candy Crush."
So why not trademark "Candy Crush" instead of just "Candy"?
sweet are "ket" or "kets" for me
I think the Italian domestic electrical manufacture Candy might have something to say about it http://www.candy-group.com/
People in the north east are funny with sweet names.
Mind you I was eating my bag of ket whilst in the netty so it's all good.
If you asked me if you could do that I could possible answer "candee" making my whole post relevant
So using the term 'Candy' to describe a coloured garment is no longer allowed? WTF?
boasts on its front page
Welcome to the candy dress shop! To pull off this fashion treat, wear spring's saccharine, sweetie pie colours with nude beige or perfect white accessories...
Lawyers all over the place will be ordering large quantities of yellow legal pads and extra sharp pencils.
I can understand the TM applying to a computer game but to clothing when it is already widely used to describe a colour of clothes is quite beyond me.
Perhaps we will have to say in future
'Here comes Saskia modelling the latest dress. It is an colour that I dare not mention for fear of being sued'
There is already a brand called "Candy". Perhaps the only reason Candy Crush hasn't already had it's ass handed to it on a sueball plate is because the company concerned is European? But, you know, poking this with a stick might wake the monster.
Very wise. The Candyman might not be pleased.
Getting a little big for their boots with only one (admittedly very) successful game behind them aren't they?