From taxi cabs, to subways, to airplanes, to your dinner table,
it was virtually impossible to avoid "Candy Crush Saga"
in 2013. With over a half billion downloads on Facebook and
mobile devices, Candy Crush was the year's most downloaded
gaming app.
However, Candy Crush and its owner Kings have also received
publicity for another reason. Perhaps due to the overwhelming
success of Candy Crush, in February 2013, Kings attempted to
register the term "CANDY" as a standard character mark in
the United States – a bold brand protection move that,
paradoxically, may have harmed the brand by earning the company a
negative reputation as a "trademark bully."
Trademark licensing deals for clothing, housewares, electronics,
and accessories have been profitable for other gaming app
developers – such as Rovio Entertainment Ltd., creators of
the app "Angry Birds," with over a dozen registered
trademarks in the U.S. for "ANGRY BIRDS" and related
marks. So, it's not surprising that Kings would also try
to obtain trademark protection. However, what was
particularly problematic for Kings and its application for
"CANDY" was the term's perceived
"genericness," and the fact that Kings was being fairly
aggressive in its enforcement, sending strongly-worded cease and
desist letters to tiny start-up mobile app developers
(e.g., Benny Hsu, maker of "All Candy Casino
Slots," or "Candy Slots" for short) and seeking
removal from app stores.
By early 2013, the blogosphere was flush with articles describing
King as a "trademark bully," and even a "trademark
troll." In addition to the negative commentary, several
developers created online games mocking King's efforts to
trademark its app name. In its own defense, King drew
parallels to mobile gaming apps like "Clash of Clans,"
which had been copied and ripped off by mobile apps offering
similar game play and similar visual elements due to the rise in
its popularity.
By late February 2014, Kings had decided to abandon its U.S.
trademark registrations, perhaps as a result of the negative
publicity. (See Serial No. 85842584, IC 009, 025,
041) (abandoned February 24, 2014). Other Internet/mobile
brand owners, such as Facebook and Pinterest, have also come under
attack for attempting to register and enforce marks considered to
be "generic," e.g., "TIMELINE," and
"PIN," respectively. However, these companies have
not succumbed to the pressure. Candy Crush, on the other
hand, recently announced an IPO seeking a $7.6 billion valuation,
and perhaps wanted to avoid unnecessary distractions.
Of course, Candy Crush as an app is still going strong, and the
negative publicity to Kings may abate after abandoning the
marks. However, similarly-situated mobile app developers may
look to Kings and Candy Crush as a "cautionary tale" of
what can happen to an emerging brand when it adopts an aggressive
strategy and "overreaches" in the brand protection
arena.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.