31–40 of 94 posts
This is on HN today: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7089879
/joking: And the article mentions CSP. Maybe we should trademark CSP so we don't get Content-Security-Policy confused with Communicating Sequential Processes (or the other way around).
It's just ridiculous.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't Candy Crush just a rip off of Bejeweled though?
It's very similar, though there are some significant gameplay differences. But from a visual perspective, compare Bejeweled[0] and Candy Crush[1], then look at Action Candy Swap HD Pro[2]. [0]: http://appshopper.com/games/bejeweled [1]: http://appshopper.com/games/candy-crush-saga-%C2%AE [2]: http://appshopper.com/games/action-candy-swap-hd-pro
Think of Apple, for example. Nobody is going to expect the electronics giant to lay claim over the fruit, but if someone were to try to market an electronic device under that name, you’d better believe their lawyers would swoop in. Ironically the reverse happened. Apple always had an uneasy trademark situation with Apple Corps (A holding company owned by the Beatles which owns Apple Records). Apple kept "entering the…
hence, sosumi.aiff
From the creator: http://boingboing.net/2005/03/24/early-apple-sound-de.html
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't Candy Crush just a rip off of Bejeweled though?
It's very similar, though there are some significant gameplay differences. But from a visual perspective, compare Bejeweled[0] and Candy Crush[1], then look at Action Candy Swap HD Pro[2]. [0]: http://appshopper.com/games/bejeweled [1]: http://appshopper.com/games/candy-crush-saga-%C2%AE [2]: http://appshopper.com/games/action-candy-swap-hd-pro
Candy is too generic in both the software field and the game field to be a distinctive mark and so shouldn't be granted as a word mark; trademark examiner fail. I mean come on.
http://www.girlgames.com/kittys-candies.html from 2011.
http://www.primarygames.com/puzzles/strategy/candybags/ from 2008.
http://www.cookinggames.com/minas-popping-candies.html from 2011; almost an exact match for Candy Crush from King.com Limited.
"Candy" thus would confuse people as to the origin because of this lack of distinctiveness and widespread prior use in games and in apps.
The dates for these prior uses are from Google and hence can't be relied on but better dates could be acquired. This search took 5 minutes at most.
Can someone with experience in trademarks comment on whether the PTO is supposed to validate the subjective notion of whether the proposed trademark uniquely refers to that company's products, or is registration just to add it to the database so that people can do a trademark search?
Now, the situation gets a bit trickier for words and industries that don't really relate, like "candy" and video games (or, as the example in other comments, "apple" and electronics). In this case, the reality is that trademark agents will file a claim for something relatively broad, and the PTO will initially reject the claim for overbreadth (this is the default in practice), whereupon the trademark agent will narrow the claimed goods and services until the PTO accepts it.
In some cases, they do not ever accept such claims - but given enough time, one supposes that you can find a narrow enough set of goods that you can market exclusively with the word "candy".
Of course, the PTO is subject to review by courts. The problem for the PTO is that if they reject something, that decision can be appealed. Parties with deep pockets will always try to appeal if they think the mark is worth enough (see Apple). So it's a waste of the PTO's time and effort to be very aggressive in denying claims.
In effect, the process is just one of narrowing and back-and-forth negotiating, rather than a "yes"/"no" decision.
In short, the PTO gets blamed a lot for accepting shitty claims (both patents and trademarks), but they really don't have that much incentive to reject claims aggressively, because they get money from applications, and rejections are subject to review anyway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
hence, sosumi.aiff
If it isn't obvious: sounds like "So Sue Me". This is not a coincidence. From the creator: http://boingboing.net/2005/03/24/early-apple-sound-de.html
The joke appears to have been removed on the current site.
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20110122015154/http://www.apple....
Edit: He just said he successfully filed for the Candy Cruncher trademark in 2002. http://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn78164603&docId...
Also worth noting: The developer cited mentions at the end of the article that he was informed at some point that he also couldn't use the word "memory." Which, obvious ridiculousness of this whole matter aside, makes me wonder if there's any concise and complete resource one can use to check for potential 'violations' while naming apps (or, really, anything else) to head this off before it becomes a problem...
I think that if we've reached a point that a developer cannot use the generic word candy in the title of their app, whether it relates to Candy Crush or not, then we already have problems. It's bad enough we have to use apps with misspelled words to avoid litigation or create new IP, but now people have to spell candy as "kandi" to avoid lawsuits? It just seems to make everyone involved appear to be completely stupid…