直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

INCONTESTABLE® Blog

Amid Bitter Backlash, Company Abandons Efforts to Trademark ‘Candy’

February 28, 2014

Authored and Edited by Brian R. Westley

Faced with a sticky situation over attempts to trademark the word “candy” for a wildly popular smartphone game, King.com has withdrawn its application. King.com expressly abandoned its application in a filing Monday with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The interactive entertainment company filed the “candy” application a year ago in connection with “Candy Crush Saga”—a game downloaded tens of millions of times on Facebook in which players can mix and match sweets to gain points. Although the PTO had preliminarily approved the mark, King.com was widely criticized for attempting to register “candy” and for sending cease-and-desist letters to other developers that use “candy” in the titles of games. In a letter posted last month on King.com, co-founder and CEO Riccardo Zacconi explained that his company was not trying to control the world’s use of the word “candy.” Instead, he said, the company wanted to prevent others from developing games with similar titles to unfairly capitalize on King.com’s success. The negative publicity surrounding the “candy” trademark underscores the careful approach brand owners must take in policing their marks while not overreaching and facing bad publicity. King.com still has pending trademark applications for “candy crush saga,” “candy crush,” and “candy crusher.”

Tags

abandonment, trademark bullying, video games

Copyright © 2014 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. 


DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.

Related Insights

Hybrid Conference

Intellectual Property Law Institute 2026 – California

October 19-20, 2026

San Francisco

Hybrid Conference

Intellectual Property Law Institute 2026 – New York

September 28-29, 2026

New York

Seminar

IAM and WTR Live: Australasia IP Forum 2026

August 11, 2026

Melbourne

Conference

2026 China Pharmaceutical Innovation Conference

July 22-24, 2026

Shanghai

Webinar

Successful Strategies to Win Alice Motions and Fee Awards in Patent Cases Against Non-Practicing Entities

July 22, 2026

Webinar

Lecture

IPIC/McGill Summer IP Course 2026: Understanding Trademarks

July 14, 2026

Montreal

Articles

EPR Academy, Part 4 of 6: Choosing Between EPR, IPR, PGR, and Reissue

July 1, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Deadline Evolution: Director Extends Deadline for Requesting Director Review of Institution Grants to 30 Days

June 30, 2026

Articles

How Low Can You Go? Courts Lower Marking Defense Burden, Raising Patent Damages Risks

June 29, 2026

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP