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with a sticky situation over attempts to trademark the word “candy” for a wildly popular smartphone game, King.com has withdrawn its application.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

Lecture

IPIC/McGill Summer IP Course 2026: Understanding Trademarks

July 14, 2026

Montreal

Charitable

Bridges From School to Work Gala 2026

June 22, 2026

Washington, DC

Charitable

Banding Together 2026

June 18, 2026

Washington, DC

Articles

Article_D.-Mass-Patent-Litigation-Update-October-2024

D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update: April 2026

June 1, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Consistency Is Key – USPTO Issues Three New Informative Decisions

May 29, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Discretion All the Way Down: USPTO Uses a Discretionary IPR Denial to Justify a    
§ 325(d) EPR Denial

May 28, 2026

Articles

Colorado Replaces Landmark AI Act: An Overview of the New SB 26-189 Framework

May 26, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

IPR and PGR Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in March and April 2026

May 26, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Before the Holding, the Message: Director Squires Uses Magnolia Medical to Outline PTAB Discretionary Denial Policy Changes

May 20, 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