Comment by will_brown | Hacker News Reader

Comment by will_brown | Hacker News Reader

Lawyer here. I once received a C&D letter for my business, vblood.com, a vampire themed energy drink from a competitor claiming they owned the TM rights to "blood" for beverages. That was a little different they filed the TM in the wrong category and I claimed defense of "descriptive use" how else would a blood themed beverage be described?

However, the Candy Crush Saga creators are even further behind the 8-ball on the TM "Candy" vis-a-vis video games. Why? Hasbro (one of the largest toy makers in the world) filed a TM for "Candy Land" - for interactive video games, in addition to many other TM categories - well before Candy Crush even existed. See: http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4809:el5e10...

It would be very difficult to maintain their legal argument (i.e. "Candy Slots" is likely to cause confusion with their TM "Candy") and simultaneously argue that "Candy" does not create likelihood of confusion with "Candy Land".

Advice: See a Lawyer and protect your rights.

Edit: USPTO does not permit a direct link to TMs, and the above link probably errors. https://www.dropbox.com/s/4lzhe7ah9t8fae3/Candyland.pdf

Edit 2: The 1st Dropbox link is a link to a "cancelled" TM, this is the current "Candy Land" TM registration for video games. https://www.dropbox.com/s/ev2wpx9o6bu1grc/candy%20land.pdf

Thank you for that — it's a shame someone belonging to the same professional group as you advised King to do something stupid and provocative. I really wish sanctions from Bar associations were stronger when it comes to empowering large clients to bully others in spite of common sense.

I don't know that I would agree that this should be an issue against those practicing law. While I think we can all agree that its unethical, it is within the law as it is now. We could go on all day blaming the lawyers, but they are not the source of the problem. Only one of many results of a system that has its flaws.

Members of bar associations are often required to follow a set of ethics.

Doing unethical (but legal) is already something that bar associations will sanction against. The only question is what each bar association consider unethical.

Direct link: http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=85673657&caseType=SERIAL_N...

Do you know if counter-suing for some form of extortion over frivolous IP lawsuits (or threats thereof) has ever been attempted or tested?

As I understand it, people trading with that name BEFORE the trademark was filed, can continue to use the name as well.

If we limit the analysis to video games, I would feel comfortable saying yes. (Because video games are generally not limited to a certain geographic area). As a countr example (I think it is Pizza Hut) there was a small mom and pop brick and mortar resturant in a small town that predates the multinational corporation, The mom and pop do not need to change their name but they can not expand.

*it is best not to answer legal questions generally, the answer will always be: maybe. A legal analysis must be done with specific facts

Reply on news.ycombinator.com