Sorry your browser is not supported!

German Lawyer request the removal of all iPhone apps that use "Memory" in keywords, title and description

In summary:
A German company called "Ravensberger" send a Cease and Desist for over 1000 apps that already use memory in keywords, title and description.

Register information / Trade mark registered
http://register.dpma.de/DPMAregister/marke/register/2352486/964625/DE

from here
http://krapps.com/2009/11/03/ravensburger-memory-iphone-app/
Ravensburger Lowers Ban Hammer On Apple For Trademark Infringement – Developers Beware!

So have you noticed the ton of memory match games available for download in the App Store? From the “vanilla” titled Memory app to more “exotic” titles like Beer Memory, Sexy Memory, Christmas Memory and Monsters Memory … Apple sells just about every memory game flavor.

Uh, make that past tense … Apple SOLD just about every memory game flavor. Seems there is a big ol’ German company called Ravensburger ( http://www.ravensburger.com/company/about_us/index.html?locale=us ) who owns the registered trademark “Memory”. A year after the App Store went live, the bad ass folks at Ravensburger finally decided they had seen enough and sent Apple notice. Dated 8/13/09, Ravensburger Digital GmbH (a subsidiary of Ravensburger) sent Apple a 4-page letter informing them of the trademark violation, requesting Apple remove the offending applications … and on a final note, inviting Apple to explore a possible partnership with Ravensburger.

Ravensburger – “You will certainly understand that our company cannot and will not tolerate the unauthorized use by third parties of its trademark Memory®, for designating games and toys as being offered, inter-alia, in your company’s highly popular iTunes store. We therefore kindly invite you to take the appropriate measures to remove from your platform those products offered under the designations which interfere with the trademark rights of our parent company and to confirm that his has been effected in due course.”

(complete letter can be downloaded HERE)
http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/2719164/Ravensburger/Ravensburger Apple Memo.rar]http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/2719164/Ravensburger/Ravensburger Apple Memo.rar

Similar to the app approval process, it seems Apple did not act quick or effective enough for Ravensburger. Two months after initial contact, on 10/15/09, Ravensburger emailed Apple that they found a large number of sellers who are still offering apps using their registered trademark “Memory” and new “illegal” memory apps being approved by Apple. Ravensburger even attached an Excel spreadsheet of sellers who were still in violation.

Ravensburger – “In accordance to German law you are obliged to make sure that products offered on your internet platform are not infringing our rights in the trademark “memory” … You have not complied are you are still not complying with your obligations under German law … As a final attempt to avoid a legal conflict, we hereby ultimately ask you to remove from your platform all applications using our trademark “memory” as listed in the file attached hereto no later than October 22, 2009. Should we still find one of the infringing applications after October 22 on your platform, we do not see any other possibility than to immediately take the appropriate steps.”

Well that finally got Apple’s attention. Emails from AppStoreNotices@apple.com went flying. The initial email requested sellers to fix the problem because pursuant to the agreement with Apple, sellers are responsible for any liability to Apple because of a rights infringement claim. A second email, dated 10/29/09, served as a blunt reminder to sellers who did not previously comply:

Apple – “Ravensburger has advised that this matter is still not resolved … Please contact Ravensburger immediately regarding this issue … If the matter is not resolved shortly, Apple will pull your app from the App Store.”

Developers we spoke to were surprised by their infringement (they had no clue such a common word as “memory” was a registered trademark), but will comply by changing there app’s name. There was concern amongst developers that they would also not be allowed to use the keyword “memory” … however after a brief delay, Apple communicated that this keyword technique will continue to be acceptable.

On final note, seems developers need to be extra careful with this Ravensburger thing. Not only were apps cited with the term “Memory” in their title, but Ravensburger reported apps such as … Jirbo Match – Mem – Monkey Preschool Lunchbox – Twin Tiles … as being in violation as well. Ravensburger made it clear they also do not want sellers using “Memory” in the descriptions of app. Ouch! … fair warning – p**s off Ravensburger, bet the ban hammer. Play it safe … just stick to developing fart apps.

Forum talk iphonedevsdk

http://www.iphonedevsdk.com/forum/business-legal-app-store/32602-your-app-will-removed-if-you-use-word-memory.html

And here for Apple developer forums

https://devforums.apple.com/thread/27841?start=25&tstart=0

Now I must say this has me worried as I have an iPhone app coming out with the word 'memory' amongst many other words in the title. Now this is worrying for developers as if this is legit, then any corporation or entity can trademark a word and just take it out of use, imagine if the word zombie or war or fighter gets trademarked, those words are taken out of use in using them in any part of your title. I hope this is not the case, I hope some of you skilled in law can make sense out of what seems to be very worrying legal wranglings.

Oh ffs...

How pathetic.

Just to reiterate, that's the word 'memory' anywhere in the title of the app, and anywhere in the body of the description of the product. It seems like they are saying, we own this word.

memory memory memory memory memory memory memory memory memory memory memory memory memory memory memory memory memory memory memory memory memory memory memory memory memory memory memory memory memory memory memory memory memory memory memory memory memory memory memory memory memory memory memory memory memory memory memory memory memory memory memory memory memory memory memory memory memory memory memory memory memory memory memory memory memory memory memory memory memory memory memory memory.

I was just going to suggest that NeX

Now post again so we can see if whether or not you were taken by German swat teams and brought before their tyra- er, CEO.

Everyone mentioning their computer's memory in their sigs, ya better take it out. You may be banned following a letter to TGC. Oh snap I said it

Well, I was taken away by a swat team and they injected me with this stuff... what was it called, that they removed all knowledge of...? I can't re... damnit... what's the word? No recallation of the word at all.

I think I had a similar experience...it's kinda faint, I can't recall much. I feel like something is missing from my head. Is it a word? No, I don't think so. Seems bigger. Like something I would use everyday. Why would a company want to remove that? Must have been my childhood mem-

EDIT: Agg, it happened again.

Microsoft owns a trademark for the word Windows, with wares pointing to software, so it's entirely credible that a company could have trademarked a word like Memory, wish wares pointing to a video game. To arbitrarily send out cease and desists to all developers with the word memory in the description is rather lame, and probably won't stand up in court.

The difference between Microsoft and Ravensberger, however, is that Microsoft isn't a patent/copyright/trademark troll. We still have applications like Window Blinds, which I think would have definitely received a C&D if these Ravensberger jokers owned the "Windows" trademark.

Ravensburger have a case for apps just called "Memory" or "[topic] Memory" - They aren't taking the word out of general use. If they go after the descriptions and suchlike they'll be on trickier ground, but for example the board game Monopoly. There are many variations (Football Monopoly, Kids Monopoly, Star Wars Monopoly etc.) but these would all have to get permission to use the name in that sort of instance. There's a big difference between that, however, and some sort of business/SimCity style game saying something in the description about building a monopoly - that wouldn't be infringing on the trademark. The problem is just using the exact title or similar themed versions as your title.

I thought there was a law against registering generic words as a trademark.

From hence forth, I own the word "the".

I would love to copyright the word "the". Every time someone used it they would have to pay a royalty to me. Wouldn't that be great.

Anyway, this is stupid. I love how people try to always claim they own something just so they will be noticed. This is almost as stupid as when Microsoft copyrighted the Page Up and Page Down keys. Not to mention the useless Pause / Break key that only was useful when DOS was the main OS of PC's.

Looking up trademark law...
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/tmlaw2.pdf





So, it seems like (in the US at least) you can trademark a common work or phrase, but only if you use it in a product.

This is even worse than the other thread about the "visually impaired" guy suing Sony.

I happen to have about 35 years experience in this area of the law, but unfortunately the experience is from a US perspective.

First point, Ravensberger is asserting a German trademark registration for the supposed trademark "MEMORY". That may or may not be a generic or a descriptive word in Germany, and I would like any of our German forum members to help out on that point.

The registration covers goods described as "Legekarten-Spiele", which is very roughly translated as a card placement game, where I believe you try to match pairs or the like, which is a memory type of game the likes of which I have seen in numerous incarnations for many years.

In some cases, a term that has a generic or descriptive meaning in a particular language can achieve a trademark status in a nation that uses a different language even though the translation of the word would be generic or descriptive in that nation and therefore not deserving of trademark protection.

The section of what is called, in the U.S., the Lanham Act, quoted by BMacZero, does not actually permit registration of a descriptive term if the term is currently used by others in a descriptive manner on similar goods in the United States. The section he quotes enables someone applying for a registration to submit evidence of exclusivity of use, namely evidence that although the term seems descriptive nobody else is using it and the person applying for registration has been the only one known to be using it. In general, the rule of thumb is something like 5 years. If you use a descriptive term as a "trademark" for your product for five years and nobody else does, you can get a registration. The registration is still subject to attack, incidentally.

In the U.S., the test of trademark infringement is whether the consumers would think that the apps under attack originated with Ravensberger because the consumers associate the component term "MEMORY" with Ravensberger or some sole source, even if the name is not known. If I had to chose sides, I would rather represent the accused infringers, in the U.S. at least. In Germany - I'd rather seek an opinion from someone who fights the wars over there.

In the U.S., someone publishing a game with a title that included the word "memory" in a descriptive manner for a game which IN FACT was a game involving or testing memory, such as Kim's Game from the Kipling novel, would not likely be found to infringe someone else's alleged trademark on that ground, even if the trademark had been registered.

One consideration that would be relevant in a US court would be whether Ravensberger provides apps of this nature that bear its alleged trademark. If all it has done under this supposed trademark "MEMORY" is the card game, it would probably not fare well over here.

Good to know, Jeff .

I just checked the U.S. register. A trademark registration for a card game entitled MEMORY is owned by Hasbro, a well-known toy company over here, acquired from Milton Bradley, a previously well-established seller of printed board games and card games, not Ravensberger.

I've dealt with Ravensberger in the past on a copyright license for artwork for jigsaw puzzles, and litigated against Hasbro on a copyright infringement matter involving t-shirt spoofs of their Mr. Potato Head toy. I haven't dealt with either on a trademark dispute as yet to the best of my recollection.

However, based upon the limited info presented in this thread, I would tend to side with Fallen One if a squabble arose over here. I'd go through the roof if a client of mine were sued for selling an app that tests your memory by someone who has done no more than peddle a card game called "memory" if my client had done no more than use the word "memory" in a manner to describe his app.