Candy Crush Saga Studio Trademarks the Word "Candy"


New member
Dec 18, 2009
It sounds like they also went for copyrighting the digital depiction of candy...

They know Chocolate Freckles, Toffee, Jelly Beans etc have been around for ages right? How could they possibly have a claim to copyright something they just ripped from any local supermarket.

Like to just claim something as their own...

I want to claim The Sky! in gaming, make it so no one else can use a sky without my permission... My god... It's almost plausible...


New member
Aug 30, 2011
Fucking atrocious. The word candy. Jesus Christ.

From now on, the only words that can be trademarked are completely made up words not found in any language naturally or original phrases of 2 words or more, and using part of a trademarked phrase does not count as infringement. There. Fixed.

Even if the game that is 'infringing' is a clone of Candy Crush, while I realise the importance of fairness, in this case I could not give less of a fuck considering how blatantly a money-harvesting uninspired piece of shit Candy Crush is.

I think there should probably be more enforcement of gameplay similarity and less of title similarity.


Neloth's got swag.
Aug 22, 2011
On the one hand, yes, this is fucking excessive. King has no ownership of the word "Candy", not in any shape or form. Fuck, can you imagine all the strippers named Candy being stuck paying royalties to a Danish mobile dev?

Yes, I'm obviously kidding, but this raises a point. The concept of intellectual property is utterly and completely broken. I've tried to explain it to friends, being an aspiring writer, but the only thing some people see is that I.P. ownweship is what guarantees royalties, and royalties are largely what keeps writers afloat.

I pirated my share of games during my teenage Lean Cow years. If I happened to initiate an unpacking process or launched a Scene executable within sight of my parents, the obligatory lecture on copyrights would follow. Back then, I couldn't retort anything - but now I know that the bulk of any lawsuit's money goes not to the developers, but to the publisher. Hack up a paperback and sell it to your students in photocopied form so it costs less? You owe every unsold copy to the publisher. Not the author - the *publisher*.

People need to be paid for their work. It's unavoidable and necessary. The problem is the current system no longer favors those who *need* to make money off of this to live, it favors people who simply *want* more money, largely to further business-related growth.

You can justify your freemium purchases in Candy Crush by saying you're actually paying the devs who work for your updates and balance tweaks, but the fact is - you aren't. You're paying King's CEO and CFO more than the App coders.

As far as suggesting something new is concerned - good luck, honestly. I keep trying it around the family table, and I'm almost considered a thief. Bring up alternative payment methods to American friends as a Canadian and bam, you're automatically labelled a Socialist.

Half the problem is ideological, honestly. There probably are better systems out there, but they just won't have that Hardcore Capitalism ring that some economists find comforting.

Elementary - Dear Watson

RIP Eleuthera, I will miss you
Nov 9, 2010
All Candy Casino Slots - Jewels Craze Connect: Big Blast Mania Land
I can't tell if this is a title of a game, or just a list of the metadata that fell into the wrong section on the form!

I can't wait for Super-Mega 4-Pics-1 Angry Crush with Friends: Little Pocket Doodle Saga!


Madness to my Methods
Feb 28, 2010
Didn't Apple try to trademark "Pod" a long time ago and got laughed out of the patent office? The hell is going on, there's a glitch in the Matrix, something's not right, MOM!!!


Is not insane, just crazy >:)
Jan 5, 2011
Doomsdaylee said:
As a aspiring game dev, this just makes me wonder: Does this mean I'll be sued if I want candy to heal my characters?
That just reminded me of Secret of Mana. The Mana series is owned by Square.


I now root for Square to realize this and wipe these morons from the legal face of reality.


New member
Apr 2, 2010
I see this and imagine what is next...

Snoop Dogg trademarks the word "weed".

Thousands of stupid swaggy kids paying to him to use it into their Facebook posts.

Maybe is a overstatement but I made my point,but if these fellows can do that, the whole world will going nuts.


New member
Oct 17, 2012
Strazdas said:
FIrst thing after reading this article: deleting the game from my phone. I want nothing to do with company as shitty as this....
I wish I could say the same, as I deleted Candy Crush a few weeks ago. It lived on my phone for about four days.

I can sort of see where the devs are coming from though. Imagine cheap candy-like pillows showing up at Target or on iPhone case designs, only those products wouldn't be infringing on the legal framework provided according to the article. Still, if Candy Crush turns out to be the next Angry Birds I know one thing for sure; I will avoid anything and everything associated with it like the plague.

Hero in a half shell

It's not easy being green
Dec 30, 2009
Strazdas said:
Hero in a half shell said:
Also why are no politicians ever discussing copyright law, somebody get Jon Stewart and tell him to research this stuff, raise a bit of stink to get it in the public conscience.
because there is noone paying them to? politicians only do what the highest bribe giver tells them to. and its perfectly legal too, you call it lobbyism.
They should be more like our Northern Irish politicians, you can get them to do pretty much anything if you just promise a press opportunity and a free lunch!


New member
Aug 13, 2009
Now I don't have a problem with the principal of Trademarking or Copyrighting for that matter, but what I really do think we need is some kind of "common sense test". For instance if I was to produce a game and call it "Candy Crunch" then it would be a blatant attempt on my part to infringe on the Candy Crush brand and they should have recourse to stop me, but it isn't the word "Candy" that is the sole problem, it is my deliberate use of alliterative words and their arrangement that is as big a contributing factor.

So what I would like to see is rather than a "company X trademarks a word and this means no one else can use it" system, we instead move to a system where "Company X trademarks a phrase or title, and if they feel this has been infringed then a common sense test is applied". This test would consider A. Has the complained about product named their product in such a way as to cause confusion with the trademarked brand. B. Has the complained about brand benefitted from this at the expense of the protected brand. If it was decided yes on both counts then the company holding the trademark could seek redress.