Game Developers Are Trolling the Makers of Candy Crush With Other "Candy" Games
slate.com
slate.com
The law should not allow companies to own common English words in perpetuity. If you want to make your brand a common English word, you should accept the fact that other people get to use it.
I doubt King will win any lawsuits against others who use the words.
Actually Apple ran into some trouble with, say, there already being software called IOS before any of the iThings existed. They've been to court over it a few times.
http://www.mobygames.com/search/quick?q=saga&x=0&y=0
If Nintendo were to release a Mario and Luigi Superstar Saga sequel, would King be so "gracious" as to allow them use of the Saga term?
This whole situation highlights how ludicrous IP law has gotten in the past decade.
It's a bit like being able to trademark the term 'movie' - should the makers of 'Scary Movie' be able to stop other films from having 'movie' in the title?
Also, what ever happened to trademarks? I thought they were defined as adjectives and 'Saga' is clearly a noun in every use I've seen....
Sorry? Apple is an adjective?
For purposes of a trademark, actually, yes. From Apple's own site [1], "Trademarks are adjectives, and should not be made into verbs or made plural or possessive." In addition, Apple specifies a list of suggested generic terms for each trademark. Under Guidelines for Using Apple Trademarks and Copyrights, some concrete examples are given [2]: "Correct: I bought two Macintosh computers." but "Not Correct: I bought two Macintoshes."
[1] https://www.apple.com/legal/intellectual-property/trademark/...
[2] https://www.apple.com/legal/intellectual-property/guidelines...
- Apple says this because it doesn't want its trademarks to become common words ineligible for trademark protection (like what happened to xerox and kleenex). But it can't stop people from referring to things however they please; this is nothing more than a statement of how Apple wishes the world would work.
- If I say "I bought two Apple computers", Apple is still a noun, not an adjective.
Even if they send C&D notes over improper usage?
They can be anything at all, such as entire phrases ("made from the best stuff on earth"), symbols (like the Apple apple), or particular colors, like the distinctive blue that Mauna Loa uses in their macadamia nut packaging (or the distinctive blue that Tiffany's uses in theirs!).
While I could see Candy X Saga being marginally distinctive, I associate 'Candy' and 'Saga' very strongly with completely different makers and I believe that I am by no means alone. For me, 'Candy Land' comes first for 'Candy' and 'Saga' goes to the whole 'SaGa' RPG series.
Also, I don't like word thieves trying to steal language out from under us. Here, the usage of 'thief' being justified by the fact that they are attempting to deprive us of the use of the word through dodgy legal practices.
then that would be unfair to King
I think that people can see that's their grand plan, but it's a bad plan that deserves neither respect nor trademark protection.
Might even be where King got the idea for the name of their game.
The last line in the above link reads "if you want to contact me directly on this, or indeed any other aspect of what we do – please feel free to drop me a line at rz@king.com I look forward to hearing from you."
So if any of you want to drop King a line, go for it. Call them out on their BS.
But when/if it does succeed, they are able to prevent anyone else from riding on the tail of their heavy marketing spend.
I don't like what they are doing, but they are just trying to maximize their profit, and also prevent their competition from free-riding off their marketing.
I would have had no issue with trademarking "Candy Crush Saga", but that's it. Ffs, King's games are already clones of other games.
The Tetris Company LLC has for years claimed copyright and trademark rights over all falling-tetromino games and sending out C&D letters to independent developers. The developers laughed it off, until TTC vs. Xio, in which a district court judge ruled in favor of the plaintiff.
By doing something like this the developers are risking serious lawsuits, and the invalidity of the "candy" trademark really can't be established except in a courtroom. And I think most of the smaller devs will settle way before then.
Xio's clone went beyond just rules and gameplay--it copied the dimensions, colors, and various art assets. Comparing screenshots of Tetris and Xio's clone, it would have been very difficult for most people, even those familiar with Tetris, to identify which was the original.
The colors were not copied from anywhere, they were picked, by me, with no reference to any existing art, using a careful process designed to maximize distinguishability. To be specific, I decided that the colors should all be clearly separated in CIELAB lightness and hue, and then chose which lightness to match to which hue based on the gamut of then-current iPhones.
The result is a bunch of “bright” colors. But lots of games want bright colors, because they are the most easily distinguishable, and having easily distinguishable colors makes a game easier to play.
As for the appearance of the bricks, I cooked up a dozen or so possibilities in Photoshop, and let the rest of the team decide which to use. Again, created in a few various styles, but not with any reference to any previous game.
Copying assets doesn't just mean verbatim copy-and-paste. It includes recreating other assets such that they are virtually identical to the source material, as the art assets you apparently created were.
Even aside from all that, I think #candyjam is protected under fair use. The intent is very obviously parody. In fact, it'll probably end up with someone participating in the jam that has a sizable legal team, and they could probably string up a class-action lawsuit for everyone in the jam, which would probably amount to huge settlement costs if King tried to pay their way out of court. Lose-lose situation for them; they shell out massive amounts or lose their trademark for not protecting it.
How does a state handle companies richer than some countries?
Hate to cast a negative on this, as it DOES nicely illustrate the ridiculousness of the situation!
Granted, trademarks can sometimes be silly, copyright terms far too long and software patents ridiculous but at heart they do provide some very strong value.