My litmus test is: What would happen to you if you said this to a group of five dudes in downtown Oakland.
You'd get your ass beat, that's what. Just because you have Harvard lawyers writing your pretty copy doesn't make it any less thuggish. Thuggish behavior should be met with a punch to the face, is what I say.
Oakland has nothing over Fremont (and it's resident thugs) :P
You've left out some important details like what you would name the store and what the logo would be. Apple will most certainly sue a grocery store if that's what you're asking.
Good point - if I called it The Apples Store or The Applestore and has full glass front etc that would certainly be asking for trouble - but if I called it Apples Galore and made it look like a tree house maybe not so much.
Regarding Candy Crush - isn't that just a rip off BeJeweled and half a dozen other games of exactly the same strategy but with different graphics?
Good point - if I called it The Apples Store or The Applestore and has full glass front etc that would certainly be asking for trouble - but if I called it Apples Galore and made it look like a tree house maybe not so much.
Regarding Candy Crush - isn't that just a rip off BeJeweled and half a dozen other games of exactly the same strategy but with different graphics?
Trademark laws is funny in that when it states that a word is generic, it only applies to the business it's used for. So Apple Inc. and Apple Records can get a trademark on the word "apple" because the word "apple" is not a generic term in the computer or music business. But the word "apple" is generic when your business is selling apples. So chances are, you will not be able to trademark the word "apple" by itself for a store that sells apples. Otherwise it would lead to you being able to sue any store selling apples with the word "apple" in their name. But you can get a trademark for something like "The Candy Apple Store" or "The Apple Orchard". This will not give you any rights to just the word "apple", "candy" or "orchard" when it pertains to any businesses that sells apples.
Apple most likely cannot stop any businesses selling apples from using the word "apple" in their name because "apple" is a descriptive word for the business they are in. It would like if Apple Computer can stop any computer business from using the word "computer". Now if the business was selling plumbing supplies or footwear and wanted to use the word "apple" for their store name, then Apple Inc. can argue that the only reason why "apple" is in the their name is to capitalize on their now famous "Apple Store" trademark. So Apple Inc. will most like win in this case. Even though the word "apple" is not generic for the plumbing or footwear business, it's also not descriptive. But the outcome would be different if there were no Apple Stores that the consumers can confused it with. Now the logo is another issue in itself.
Actually, Microsoft lost their legal battles against Lindows. Eventually, they did settle but in no way did Microsoft win anything through a court room. In fact, they backed off the legal strategy because they started to fear the Windows trademark would be ruled as too generic.
In the instant case, I find it highly doubt that "Candy" would be upheld as a legitimate trademark as it is an extremely generic term by itself. The problem is that to get to the moment and have a trademark (or patent or copyright) declared invalid by a court, someone has to invest a lot into legal fees.
If I recall, Microsoft actually bought out the company and then shut it down rather than risk going to trial and losing. (Funny though, that googling it don't bring up much about the suit at all.) I think Microsoft paid way more than what the company ever hope to make selling "Lindow". Almost like how Apple Inc. bought out the "Apple" trademark from Apple Records. Only Apple Inc. licensed back the trademark to Apple Records, so it's is still around with the same name and logo. Apple Inc. just wanted to put a stop to all the Apple vs Apple court cases that seems to pop up every time Apple Inc. venture into a new business.
If you have an iOS or Android device you've probably been spammed to hell with redirects to candy crush saga so they can stay at the top of the app stores "most viewed" listings. I have plenty of complaint emails about them hijacking traffic from ad-supported sites.
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/4895878?start=30&tstart=0 " Websites that I have used for years and never had a problem before now all open up to candy crush saga. Like ign.com, wptv.com, cnet.com, etc. I try it on other iPhones with no problem. Simply load a web page and it reloads to an adtrack.king.com/modules/adTracking address, there's more to it, but when I click on the URL bar the address disappears so I'm not able to see the full address plus it loads like three or four other address within a second before the adtrack.king.com address loads. There have never been any banners or ads that popup for me even to click on. I don't know how else to explain it. There are NO ads! And no my phone is not jail broken. "
Seriously, this kind of behavior makes Zynga look like a saint. King may deny the allegations, but someone on their side had to approve this behavior otherwise it would never have been in the ad network in the first place.
If you have an iOS or Android device you've probably been spammed to hell with redirects to candy crush saga so they can stay at the top of the app stores "most viewed" listings. I have plenty of complaint emails about them hijacking traffic from ad-supported sites.
Nope, because I never allowed myself to be suckered into using the Chrome browser on any platform apart from the Android phones I own and rarely use.
If I recall, Microsoft actually bought out the company and then shut it down rather than risk going to trial and losing. (Funny though, that googling it don't bring up much about the suit at all.) I think Microsoft paid way more than what the company ever hope to make selling "Lindow". Almost like how Apple Inc. bought out the "Apple" trademark from Apple Records. Only Apple Inc. licensed back the trademark to Apple Records, so it's is still around with the same name and logo. Apple Inc. just wanted to put a stop to all the Apple vs Apple court cases that seems to pop up every time Apple Inc. venture into a new business.
Xandros bought them out then discontinued it a short time later. Microsoft came to an agreement for a sum of money and the Lindows trademark was transferred to Microsoft and Lindows rebranded to Linspire.
The Click'N'Run environment Michael Robertson created was a great idea and was supposed to be released for other Linux distributions, but haven't seen it anywhere. Real shame. It remembered what you had previously installed, had free and paid applications (and a method to purchase them), and allowed you to keep lists of applications for 1 click installs for times when you are setting up a computer and want a certain suite of apps. Maybe if we looked around, we would find something else like that????
Comments
Wrong.
Justify thyself!!
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
Can't be worse than Blotto's "I Wanna be a Lifeguard"
You must be able to find previous computer games that used "saga", no?
http://www.amazon.com/Panzer-Dragoon-Saga-Sega-Saturn/dp/B000FT61OU
http://www.amazon.com/Unlimited-Saga-PlayStation-2/dp/B00009ETL0
What do these folk have to say about "candy" trademarks??
www.candystand.com
or here....
http://coolmath-games.com/0-oh-my-candy/index.html
just search Google your self for "candy games" and see all the hits.
--
I decided to ask King.com directly , hopefully they'll respond.
My litmus test is: What would happen to you if you said this to a group of five dudes in downtown Oakland.
You'd get your ass beat, that's what. Just because you have Harvard lawyers writing your pretty copy doesn't make it any less thuggish. Thuggish behavior should be met with a punch to the face, is what I say.
Oakland has nothing over Fremont (and it's resident thugs) :P
You've left out some important details like what you would name the store and what the logo would be. Apple will most certainly sue a grocery store if that's what you're asking.
A.pl vs. Apple: Polish Grocery Store Finds Itself in Tech Giant's Legal Crosshairs
Good point - if I called it The Apples Store or The Applestore and has full glass front etc that would certainly be asking for trouble - but if I called it Apples Galore and made it look like a tree house maybe not so much.
Regarding Candy Crush - isn't that just a rip off BeJeweled and half a dozen other games of exactly the same strategy but with different graphics?
Regarding Candy Crush - isn't that just a rip off BeJeweled and half a dozen other games of exactly the same strategy but with different graphics?
Yup.
Good point - if I called it The Apples Store or The Applestore and has full glass front etc that would certainly be asking for trouble - but if I called it Apples Galore and made it look like a tree house maybe not so much.
Regarding Candy Crush - isn't that just a rip off BeJeweled and half a dozen other games of exactly the same strategy but with different graphics?
Trademark laws is funny in that when it states that a word is generic, it only applies to the business it's used for. So Apple Inc. and Apple Records can get a trademark on the word "apple" because the word "apple" is not a generic term in the computer or music business. But the word "apple" is generic when your business is selling apples. So chances are, you will not be able to trademark the word "apple" by itself for a store that sells apples. Otherwise it would lead to you being able to sue any store selling apples with the word "apple" in their name. But you can get a trademark for something like "The Candy Apple Store" or "The Apple Orchard". This will not give you any rights to just the word "apple", "candy" or "orchard" when it pertains to any businesses that sells apples.
Apple most likely cannot stop any businesses selling apples from using the word "apple" in their name because "apple" is a descriptive word for the business they are in. It would like if Apple Computer can stop any computer business from using the word "computer". Now if the business was selling plumbing supplies or footwear and wanted to use the word "apple" for their store name, then Apple Inc. can argue that the only reason why "apple" is in the their name is to capitalize on their now famous "Apple Store" trademark. So Apple Inc. will most like win in this case. Even though the word "apple" is not generic for the plumbing or footwear business, it's also not descriptive. But the outcome would be different if there were no Apple Stores that the consumers can confused it with. Now the logo is another issue in itself.
Actually, Microsoft lost their legal battles against Lindows. Eventually, they did settle but in no way did Microsoft win anything through a court room. In fact, they backed off the legal strategy because they started to fear the Windows trademark would be ruled as too generic.
In the instant case, I find it highly doubt that "Candy" would be upheld as a legitimate trademark as it is an extremely generic term by itself. The problem is that to get to the moment and have a trademark (or patent or copyright) declared invalid by a court, someone has to invest a lot into legal fees.
If I recall, Microsoft actually bought out the company and then shut it down rather than risk going to trial and losing. (Funny though, that googling it don't bring up much about the suit at all.) I think Microsoft paid way more than what the company ever hope to make selling "Lindow". Almost like how Apple Inc. bought out the "Apple" trademark from Apple Records. Only Apple Inc. licensed back the trademark to Apple Records, so it's is still around with the same name and logo. Apple Inc. just wanted to put a stop to all the Apple vs Apple court cases that seems to pop up every time Apple Inc. venture into a new business.
If you have an iOS or Android device you've probably been spammed to hell with redirects to candy crush saga so they can stay at the top of the app stores "most viewed" listings. I have plenty of complaint emails about them hijacking traffic from ad-supported sites.
https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/chrome/EDJTbPaW5dg[1-25-false]
"There seems to be a javascript redirect affecting a lot of website forums and such on mobile chrome. Is anyone doing anything about this at all? Its sending users to the Playstore to dowload Candy Crush Saga app."
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/4895878?start=30&tstart=0
" Websites that I have used for years and never had a problem before now all open up to candy crush saga. Like ign.com, wptv.com, cnet.com, etc. I try it on other iPhones with no problem. Simply load a web page and it reloads to an adtrack.king.com/modules/adTracking address, there's more to it, but when I click on the URL bar the address disappears so I'm not able to see the full address plus it loads like three or four other address within a second before the adtrack.king.com address loads. There have never been any banners or ads that popup for me even to click on. I don't know how else to explain it. There are NO ads! And no my phone is not jail broken. "
https://www.flickr.com/groups/htc-one/discuss/72157633535029198/
"HELP!!! every 15 minutes i get a notification to download candy crush ..I dont' want to download it!!! has anybody else had this happen? i'm a very new htc one user...and old..pls help... "
Seriously, this kind of behavior makes Zynga look like a saint. King may deny the allegations, but someone on their side had to approve this behavior otherwise it would never have been in the ad network in the first place.
King is an evil company, sorry.
If you have an iOS or Android device you've probably been spammed to hell with redirects to candy crush saga so they can stay at the top of the app stores "most viewed" listings. I have plenty of complaint emails about them hijacking traffic from ad-supported sites.
Nope, because I never allowed myself to be suckered into using the Chrome browser on any platform apart from the Android phones I own and rarely use.
Just ask Eminem.
M&M?
Dude, you just infringed against the 'C' word!
Nope, because I never allowed myself to be suckered into using the Chrome browser on any platform apart from the Android phones I own and rarely use.
Well good for you. But this happens on iOS Safari as well.
I've never seen it.
If I recall, Microsoft actually bought out the company and then shut it down rather than risk going to trial and losing. (Funny though, that googling it don't bring up much about the suit at all.) I think Microsoft paid way more than what the company ever hope to make selling "Lindow". Almost like how Apple Inc. bought out the "Apple" trademark from Apple Records. Only Apple Inc. licensed back the trademark to Apple Records, so it's is still around with the same name and logo. Apple Inc. just wanted to put a stop to all the Apple vs Apple court cases that seems to pop up every time Apple Inc. venture into a new business.
Xandros bought them out then discontinued it a short time later. Microsoft came to an agreement for a sum of money and the Lindows trademark was transferred to Microsoft and Lindows rebranded to Linspire.
The Click'N'Run environment Michael Robertson created was a great idea and was supposed to be released for other Linux distributions, but haven't seen it anywhere. Real shame. It remembered what you had previously installed, had free and paid applications (and a method to purchase them), and allowed you to keep lists of applications for 1 click installs for times when you are setting up a computer and want a certain suite of apps. Maybe if we looked around, we would find something else like that????