Skip to main content

King Settles 'Candy Crush Saga' Trademark Disputes Amicably

Intellectual property disputes are never pretty, especially when they involve the trademarking of fairly common words. Candy Crush Saga developer King went into legal fisticuffs against both Banner Saga developer Stoic and CandySwipe developer Albert Ransom over the words "saga" and "candy," allegedly to protect King's trademark over Candy Crush.

King's legal action has incited controversy and ire from the gaming community and was the inspiration behind the "Candy Jam" game jam.

According to both Stoic and Ransom, King has quietly and amicably settled the trademark disputes with both companies.

"Stoic is pleased to have come to an agreement with King regarding Stoic's The Banner Saga trademark, which enables both parties to protect their respective trademarks now and in the future," reads a brief statement on the Stoic website.

"I am happy to announce that I have amicably resolved my dispute with King over my CandySwipe trademark and that I am withdrawing my opposition to their mark and they are withdrawing their counterclaim against mine. I have learned that they picked the CANDY CRUSH name before I released my game and that they were never trying to take my game away. Both our games can continue to coexist without confusing players," states Ransom via the CandySwipe website.

  • bemused_fred
    If I recall correctly, it seems the only reason that they're having to do this is because if they don't, it will set a precedent that any other company can ignore their copyright. Whether King wanted to or not, if they didn't take Stoic to court, they would have been powerless to prevent any knock-off games that later tried to use (or abuse) their trademark in a less innocent way. It's not ideal, but it's the fault of shitty copyright law and not King studios Per Se.
    Reply
  • patrick47018
    It's hilarious that his last name is really Ransom, that is essentially what they were going to be doing. Holding a common word for ransom
    Reply
  • rabidmob
    Sounds like a win for king. Essentially they've neutralized two key opponents and keep the trademark.

    King myself those trademarks was not the outcome I wanted to see.

    This trade-marking of everyday words it's incorrigible.

    I won't be purchasing anything from king. I hope those backfires on them in a big way.
    Reply
  • rabidmob
    Sounds like a win for king. Essentially they've neutralized two key opponents and keep the trademark.

    King myself those trademarks was not the outcome I wanted to see.

    This trade-marking of everyday words it's incorrigible.

    I won't be purchasing anything from king. I hope those backfires on them in a big way.
    Reply
  • Solandri
    If I recall correctly, it seems the only reason that they're having to do this is because if they don't, it will set a precedent that any other company can ignore their copyright. Whether King wanted to or not, if they didn't take Stoic to court, they would have been powerless to prevent any knock-off games that later tried to use (or abuse) their trademark in a less innocent way. It's not ideal, but it's the fault of shitty copyright law and not King studios Per Se.
    You'd be right if Ransom's game were named Candy Crunch or something which could easily be mistaken for "Candy Crush." But "Candy Swipe" is pretty obviously different, and King applying for a trademark on "Candy Crush" does not give them ownership of the word "Candy" in any game.

    This has always been a case of King way, way overstepping their legal authority under trademark law. I would've preferred the lawyers behind it being disbarred for ignorance of the law. But I suspect King will be canning them for leading the company on this wild goose chase, which I suppose is good enough.
    Reply
  • bemused_fred
    Words

    Hey, would you look at that! One of us has sources and one doesn't!
    Reply
  • setve
    Hi,
    candy crush saga is an andriod game on phone.
    But, i can play candy crush saga on pc with Bluestacks .

    Reply