
![]() |
11 people marked this as a favorite. |

"What news do you bring, Mr. Mint?"
"It is as we feared, King Kandy. The enemy has come. They have swept down from the Gumdrop Mountains, crushing all candy resistance before them. We have already lost the Molasses Swamp and the Lollipop Forest. It is only a matter of time before they sail the Ice Cream Sea and lay siege to your castle, milord."
"Besiege Candy Castle? Preposterous! Our confectionary battlements are impenetrable, even for their army!"
"That's the worst news, milord. They...they have a second army."
"WHAT! Who! Who has allied with this rival king?!? I will have him caramelized!"
"Someone who has long desired your saccharine crown, milord. Someone who would step on the necks of any in their way to sit upon the Royal Icing Throne."
"Lord Licorice?"
"Aye, milord. He has already betrayed you. He has Jolly and Plumpy, and has beguiled Gloppy the Molasses Monster to join his cause."
"We are doomed."

![]() |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |

"What news do you bring, Mr. Mint?"
"It is as we feared, King Kandy. The enemy has come. They have swept down from the Gumdrop Mountains, crushing all candy resistance before them. We have already lost the Molasses Swamp and the Lollipop Forest. It is only a matter of time before they sail the Ice Cream Sea and lay siege to your castle, milord."
"Besiege Candy Castle? Preposterous! Our confectionary battlements are impenetrable, even for their army!"
"That's the worst news, milord. They...they have a second army."
"WHAT! Who! Who has allied with this rival king?!? I will have him caramelized!"
"Someone who has long desired your saccharine crown, milord. Someone who would step on the necks of any in their way to sit upon the Royal Icing Throne."
"Lord Licorice?"
"Aye, milord. He has already betrayed you. He has Jolly and Plumpy, and has beguiled Gloppy the Molasses Monster to join his cause."
"We are doomed."
Cant wait to read the second part!

MrSin |

Hama wrote:They'll get steamrolled by an army of lawyers from various other companies. I can already hear the stampede in the distance...Not before a bunch of smaller companies get punched in the face over it.
Anyone else imagine the candy related anthropomorphic personifications of various business groups getting into a brawl while their delicious candy pieces fall from the sky?

Orthos |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Caineach wrote:Anyone else imagine the candy related anthropomorphic personifications of various business groups getting into a brawl while their delicious candy pieces fall from the sky?Hama wrote:They'll get steamrolled by an army of lawyers from various other companies. I can already hear the stampede in the distance...Not before a bunch of smaller companies get punched in the face over it.
Were's Wreck-It Ralph when we need him?

Werthead |

Aranna |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

It IS the trademark offices fault... bureaucrats are the worst thing ever conceived. Like when McDonald's trademarked the "Mc" and sues anyone who ever uses "Mc" including a charity performer who's real name started with "Mc"... they were winning that suit by the way and only compromised after an entire state threatened to boycott McDonald's.

Orthos |
7 people marked this as a favorite. |

It IS the trademark offices fault... bureaucrats are the worst thing ever conceived. Like when McDonald's trademarked the "Mc" and sues anyone who ever uses "Mc" including a charity performer who's real name started with "Mc"... they were winning that suit by the way and only compromised after an entire state threatened to boycott McDonald's.
Where are the Nac Mac Feegle to terrorize some lawyers when you need them?

Tacticslion |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |

Aranna wrote:It IS the trademark offices fault... bureaucrats are the worst thing ever conceived. Like when McDonald's trademarked the "Mc" and sues anyone who ever uses "Mc" including a charity performer who's real name started with "Mc"... they were winning that suit by the way and only compromised after an entire state threatened to boycott McDonald's.Where are the Nac Mac Feegle to terrorize some lawyers when you need them?
Or Dr. McNinja!

Tacticslion |

And then there's the comic book series, Saga.
O.O
'dat Comic.
I - foolishly - read the first "free" comic.
I have - somehow - avoided buying more. I didn't know that I had that much willpower.
Holy mackerel.
I suppose it's because I spend all my comic money on the Trades for Fables and Unwritten.
Anyway, sorry for the tangent.
Back to King being terrible.

Scott Betts |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

It IS the trademark offices fault...
No, it's not. The trademark office is not responsible for enforcing trademarks.
bureaucrats are the worst thing ever conceived.
No, they aren't. Corporate greed is almost certainly worse.
Like when McDonald's trademarked the "Mc" and sues anyone who ever uses "Mc" including a charity performer who's real name started with "Mc"...
You mean the McFest case.
they were winning that suit by the way
No, they weren't. The suit hadn't gone to trial. It's likely that, had it gone to trial (and had McClusky secured capable representation), the objection would have been dismissed.
and only compromised after an entire state threatened to boycott McDonald's.
You mean some people in Illinois acted like they might boycott but probably wouldn't have done so in any real number because boycotts like that tend to be poorly-attended?

![]() |
4 people marked this as a favorite. |

Aranna wrote:It IS the trademark offices fault...No, it's not. The trademark office is not responsible for enforcing trademarks.
It's also not their job to do something stupid like let a company trademark common words. Hell, I don't blame King, if the trademark office is f--king stupid enough to let them trademark the words "candy" and "saga" then they might as well take advantage of the idiocy.

Rynjin |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |

Aranna wrote:It IS the trademark offices fault...No, it's not. The trademark office is not responsible for enforcing trademarks.
It is however their job to prevent silly trademarks like this from ever seeing the light of day, unless I'm mistaken. It's the same reason I can't go up and copyright the word "Jeremy" because that's my first name...nevermind that it's a very common name in the US and in some other parts of the world, and others have just as much of a right to use it as I do.

MrSin |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |

Readerbreeder wrote:Come on, you know that he wouldn't be Scott if he didn't stand in defense of everything other people hate...Scott Betts wrote:Logic and stuffAwww, come on, Scott! We've got a good hate-in going here! Why ruin the groove?
Yeesh, that's like standing in the way of a steamroller don't you know. The metaphorical kind that can't hurt you from behind a computer screen, but a steamroller none the less!(okay, a lot less.)
Sometimes its best just to let people have their opinion. I'd say INB4 something, but I think I'm late...

Slaunyeh |

It IS the trademark offices fault... bureaucrats are the worst thing ever conceived. Like when McDonald's trademarked the "Mc" and sues anyone who ever uses "Mc" including a charity performer who's real name started with "Mc"... they were winning that suit by the way and only compromised after an entire state threatened to boycott McDonald's.
They tried that locally, too, but lost.

Werthead |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |

Stoic have told King to do one, and pointed out that a key definition of the word 'saga' means a story of Viking origin, which fits their Viking fantasy game a lot better than a game about candy and the crushing thereof.

Scott Betts |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |

Scott Betts wrote:It is however their job to prevent silly trademarks like this from ever seeing the light of day, unless I'm mistaken. It's the same reason I can't go up and copyright the word "Jeremy" because that's my first name...nevermind that it's a very common name in the US and in some other parts of the world, and others have just as much of a right to use it as I do.Aranna wrote:It IS the trademark offices fault...No, it's not. The trademark office is not responsible for enforcing trademarks.
Trademarks are not copyrights. They are entirely separate concepts. They do not work the same. They do not represent the same thing. They are not enforced in the same way. Copyrights have literally nothing to do with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
It's not that you cannot copyright "Jeremy" because it's a super common name. You cannot copyright "Jeremy" because it's not a creative work. You could trademark the name, but it would be sort of silly to name a product, brand, or establishment "Jeremy". It's far more reasonable to name an establishment "Jeremy's", and then trademark that.
(For those who don't care to click through, that's a live trademark registration on the mark "Jeremy's".)
People register trademarks involving common words all the time. Hell, even common foods! Here's the trademark for "Cupcake" held by the wine company.
King owning the "Candy" mark in the scope of digital entertainment products does not mean they own the word "candy" or even that other companies cannot register marks using that word.
It simply means that they have registered their mark - part of the public identity of what they clearly hope to make a brand - and that they can now defend themselves against other people seeking to trade on that name in a way that takes advantage of consumers' association.
Now, if someone tried to trademark "Candy" in the scope of confection food products (or whatever category actual candy falls into), they would probably be denied the registration because that word is already in common usage within that scope and thus would have ambiguous meaning associated with it from the get-go.
That said, going after Banner Saga because they are registering the "Saga" mark is bad - not because they were allowed to register the mark, but because it is abundantly clear that Banner Sage is not an attempt to trade on the Candy Crush Saga name or brand. A reasonable judge will dismiss the objection.

Scott Betts |

Scott Betts wrote:It's also not their job to do something stupid like let a company trademark common words. Hell, I don't blame King, if the trademark office is f--king stupid enough to let them trademark the words "candy" and "saga" then they might as well take advantage of the idiocy.Aranna wrote:It IS the trademark offices fault...No, it's not. The trademark office is not responsible for enforcing trademarks.
A lot of people in this thread don't seem to realize that registering a trademark does not mean they literally own every usage of the word.

![]() |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

I know you absolutely love to play the devil's advocate, but seriously dude, you're f&%*ing defending the right to trademark common words and then try to bully something that's only vaguely competition out of business. That'd be like me trademarking the word "advocate" and then using it to get you kicked off the forums.
Hmmm.........