King (Candy Crush) vs Banner saga

[EvilJames]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/01/23/candy-crush-saga-tries-to-crush-the-banner-saga-in-bizarre-trademark-saga/

I thought about putting this in the Beekeepers forum and if a mod thinks it should go there then they can move it i guess, but I don't think it needs to be their as ther really isn't anything to discuss.

No one should be allowed to trademark common words. King is simply bullying the makers of Banner Saga and I can't understand why. It certainly doesn't make the maker of Candy Crush look good. I for one would reccomend not purchasing anything from that company until they come to their senses.

 

Edit: trademark not copyright.

Edited January 26, 2014 by EvilJames

[Nocturne]

Their claim for priority on the word Saga shouldn't be hard to dispute* as their claim is they were using the word before The Banner Saga. Saga has been used in game titles for as long as I can remember. Square were pretty fond of it for a while (Unlimited Saga, Saga Frontier etc).

 

*assuming legal fees can be covered if it got to that.

 

The hypocrisy of King claiming IP over anything is frankly laughable.

http://junkyardsam.com/kingcopied

 

EDIT:

Worth noting that this is almost identical to the debacle with EDGE games claiming trademark on the word 'edge' over just about everything, they upset EA by going after Mirror's Edge (EDGE created a game called MIrror's by EDGE specifically to try and make a claim against EA). EA pushed back and the result was EDGE's trademarks being cancelled.

Edited January 25, 2014 by Nocturne

[EvilJames]

The problem is that Stoic doesn't have the funds to fight a battle with King even though they would win. EA had enough money that it's odd that EDGE would even try to take them on ecspecially when their claim was stupid.

[buglips*the*goblin]

Whatever their game is, they cannot possibly win this claim. Saga is the most overused word ever. Everything is a freakin saga these days. Buying a coffee is a saga. I just packed away a ton of paperbacks and every second one is a Saga.

[Leader of the Rats]

I don't think words or combination of words should be allowed to be trademarked unless they are newly created, as in not in any recognised published dictionary. For example, the word "Horcrux" could have been trademarked before Rowling used it in her Harry Potter books.

 

In my opinion, it's just as absurd to patent or trademark naturally growing species of plants, which people are trying to do right now sadly

[Hellcow]

Common words are trademarked (not copywrited - very different thing actually) all the time.  There were, when I was reading about this last week, 12 different trademarks for the word Candy and many (many, mnay) others for Crush.  Trademarks don't mean the company can go about suing anyone using the word (as King is, inexpliciably, attempting to do) but they are important for building a brand identity. 

 

King is using its trademakr incorrectly and will likely lose it if they continue to do so. 

[MonkeySloth]

What King say's their doing is not trying to prevent a sequel to banner saga but trying to protect their claim. quote:

 

"King has not and is not trying to stop Banner Saga from using its name. We do not have any concerns that Banner Saga is trying [to] build on our brand of our content. However, like any prudent company, we need to take all appropriate steps to protect our IP, both now and in the future," the statement reads

So here's what's going on. They've applied for a trademark for both Candy and Saga but have not gotten them yet as there are still going through the process for approval. One thing that helps is by winning trademark disputes while this is happening as then it shows the government that your industry recognizes your trademark even though you don't have one yet. They probably approached the Banner Saga people wanting them to sign some contract licensing the right to use the name (for money of course) for helping them win the trademark.

 

Apple use to do this all the time by going after anyone that used a lowercase "i" in a word as well as other things (like the word Sock that they tried for years to lay a claim to) even though they didn't have a trademark with it as they were trying to prove to the government that the tech industry recognized that apple was the only one that would use a lower case "i" as the first letter of a word even though the government had told them multiple times that they couldn't trademark that.

[EvilJames]

What they say they are trying to do and what they are actually doing are to seperate things unfortunately.  Their initial claim was tht banner saga was inentionanally named such in order to confuse people into thinking it was a part of candy crush saga. This dispite Banner saga finishing funding it's KS before Candy Crush saga was even released. In a later statement they say they know that it's not what happened but they are still trying to prevent Stoic from trademarking their own games name.

If King wanted to trademark the whole name of their game that would be fine, but trying to trademark each individual part of the name is just ridiculous and should not be allowed.

 

PS from what you said monkeysloth, it now makes sense that apple is helping them sense they approve of this kind of abusive tactics. *sigh* another reason for me to not like Apple.

Edited January 26, 2014 by EvilJames

[JackMann]

I don't think words or combination of words should be allowed to be trademarked unless they are newly created, as in not in any recognised published dictionary. For example, the word "Horcrux" could have been trademarked before Rowling used it in her Harry Potter books.

 

In my opinion, it's just as absurd to patent or trademark naturally growing species of plants, which people are trying to do right now sadly

 

That isn't how Trademarks are supposed to work.

 

First off, understand that the actual purpose of a trademark is to protect consumers.  It's helpful for businesses too, that's why they work to preserve them, but they exist for you, not them.

 

As an example, let's go with Pledge Floor Polish.  Almost certainly, this is trademarked, even though the word pledge is already in common usage.  This is a good thing, believe it or not.

 

First off, understand that your trademark only protects you in certain fields, typically.  In this case, floor polish.  If you wanted to make a game called Pledge (possibly with some manner of oath-based mechanic), they'd be hard-pressed to stop you.  However, if you made floor polish (or a similar cleaning product) and tried to call it pledge, they'd stomp that down right away.  If this weren't so, anyone could make Pledge Floor Polish.  Or Suburu cars (Suburu just being the Japanese name for a constellation).  Or an IBM computer.  It would be much harder to tell who had made what.  If your Pledge floor polish didn't make your floor nice and shiny, but instead promoted mold growth, attracted ants, and turned your hardwood green, you'd have a much harder time telling who help responsibility.  Was the floor polish your friend recommended this Pledge?  Or that Pledge?  Who deserves the good reputation?  Who deserves the bad one?  

 

We place the responsibility for policing trademarks on the companies themselves.  As I said, it does benefit them too (since it makes sure you know exactly whose ad it was you saw, or which car your brother-in-law recommends).  And yes, sometimes it does get abused.  They try to apply their trademarks far more broadly than the law intends.  To your Pledge game, for example.  Or a product that uses only part of the name, as in Candy Crush Saga vs. Banner Saga suit.

 

The issue here isn't that Saga is a common word.  Doom is a common word, but if I made an FPS with that name, id Software would rightfully be upset with me.  It's that Saga is only a part of each name, and that it's been used extensively in other game titles.  It's not a name that customers are likely to think of as exclusively relating to Candy Crush.  No one is going to look at Banner Saga and think, "Hey, what was that Bejeweled clone?  This must be it."

 

To put it another way, Reaper is a common word.  Should I be able to make my own Reaper brand miniatures?

[Leader of the Rats]

Ya I guess you make a good point.

[EvilJames]

That's a pretty much what I meant Jackmann. King isn't trademarking thier name they are trademarking parts of their name. They are abusing this and that's just wrong.

[JackMann]

Oh, I agree it's wrong.  I was just commenting on the idea of common words as trademarks.

[Slendertroll]

Now, it's also worth noting that trademarking parts of names is just as acceptable, as long as it's the key part of the name. "Reaper Miniatures" is the name of the company, but another miniature-selling company calling themselves simply "Reaper" or "Reaper Figures" would be obviously violating trademark. A company calling themselves "XYZ Miniatures," however, would be in the clear. Part of King's issue is that they're trying to apply the trademark to the least identifying part of the name (Saga being a relatively meaningless modifier in context), not just a part of the name.

[EvilJames]

They successfully trademarked the word candy as well though and I would argue that it isn't a strong enough identifier to do that for. Fortunatly they don't seem to want to abuse the tm they do have so far, just the one they don't yet have.