憤怒的小雞紅包版，配以精美的游戲畫面，可愛的風(fēng)格，有不同顏色的小雞、貓頭鷹、鳥雀等，消除就可以領(lǐng)取紅包獎(jiǎng)勵(lì)了。

憤怒的小雞賺錢版特點(diǎn)

1、趣味性十足的闖關(guān)大作戰(zhàn)，看看誰(shuí)能第一個(gè)順利的過(guò)關(guān)，用自己的實(shí)力贏得紅包。

2、輕松耐玩的燒腦大作戰(zhàn)，體驗(yàn)一場(chǎng)十分過(guò)癮的連線挑戰(zhàn)，順利通關(guān)之后還能領(lǐng)取紅包。

3、數(shù)以百計(jì)的不同難度級(jí)別等待著您的挑戰(zhàn)，級(jí)別越慢，每個(gè)級(jí)別的時(shí)間越短。

憤怒的小雞賺錢版點(diǎn)評(píng)

1、Q可愛的小動(dòng)物帶著愛

2、炫目華麗的特效

3、清新美麗甜美的畫風(fēng)

4、意外刺激障礙

憤怒的小雞賺錢版是真的嗎

憤怒的小雞雖然也屬于消除類小游戲，不過(guò)在玩法上有點(diǎn)不一樣，可以跨區(qū)移動(dòng)，玩的時(shí)候注意看教程。個(gè)人實(shí)測(cè)看了兩個(gè)視頻得到4000紅包劵，后面應(yīng)該會(huì)變小，能拿多少算多少吧。

憤怒的小鳥vs小雞？美國(guó)一餐廳商標(biāo)侵權(quán)知名手游

即使不玩手機(jī)游戲的人也應(yīng)該都聽過(guò)“憤怒的小鳥”這款游戲。從iOS應(yīng)用程序起家，憤怒的小鳥已經(jīng)從游戲領(lǐng)域延伸到電影、兒童節(jié)目、烹飪書籍，甚至食品行業(yè)。其與餐廳“憤怒的小雞”商標(biāo)侵權(quán)異議案件正是集中在食品領(lǐng)域。

Angry Birds Trademark Infringement Case

憤怒的小鳥商標(biāo)侵權(quán)案

Angry Birds is owned by Rovio Entertainment. The company has several registered trademarks with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), and many of them are directly mentioned in the Notice of Opposition filed by the company on December 7, 2020. This filing targets an application filed by Alexander Lee and Sang Kuk Park for Angry Chicken.

憤怒的小鳥歸羅維奧娛樂(lè)公司所有。該公司在美國(guó)專利商標(biāo)局（USPTO）擁有多個(gè)注冊(cè)商標(biāo)，該公司在2020年12月7日提起的異議中涉及其中大部分注冊(cè)商標(biāo)，異議的對(duì)象正是憤怒的小雞。

Many oppositions involve brands in the same industry, but in this case, the case pits an entertainment company against a restaurant. The application for Angry Chicken references a Korean chicken restaurant. And while the two brands may seem unrelated, Rovio is claiming that the goods and services at issue are related enough to cause consumer confusion.

大多時(shí)候商標(biāo)異議發(fā)生在同一行業(yè)，但是在這個(gè)案件中，發(fā)生異議的雙方是娛樂(lè)公司和一家餐廳。憤怒的小雞援引一家韓國(guó)炸雞店作為自己的店名來(lái)源。雖然這兩個(gè)品牌看起來(lái)似乎沒(méi)有什么相關(guān)性，但羅維奧娛樂(lè)公司聲稱憤怒的小雞餐廳提供的產(chǎn)品和服務(wù)足夠讓消費(fèi)者產(chǎn)生誤會(huì)。

How Does a Restaurant Infringe on a Game?

餐廳如何侵權(quán)游戲？

If the application for Angry Chicken had been made in 2009 – the year Angry Birds was first released – there may have been no legitimate claim of trademark infringement. At the time, Rovio’s newest gaming brand had yet to gain international attention. Since that time, however, the Angry Birds name has shown up just about everywhere.

如果憤怒的小雞餐廳在2009年申請(qǐng)商標(biāo)-同年憤怒的小鳥首次發(fā)布，可能就不會(huì)有任何商標(biāo)侵權(quán)的法律問(wèn)題。在那時(shí)羅維奧娛樂(lè)公司的最新游戲品牌還沒(méi)有獲得全世界關(guān)注，而現(xiàn)在憤怒的小鳥已經(jīng)出現(xiàn)在各個(gè)角落了。

From children’s footwear to Angry Birds minigolf, the brand has expanded far outside its original footprint. The Angry Birds trademark is now on several edible products such as snack foods, cake toppers, candy decorations and even a line of sauces. This is where Rovio claims a likelihood of confusion is likely to exist.

從兒童鞋帽到迷你高爾夫，憤怒的小鳥已經(jīng)將品牌擴(kuò)展到很多領(lǐng)域，包括食品類的零食、蛋糕、糖果、系列醬汁。正是在這個(gè)領(lǐng)域羅維奧娛樂(lè)公司認(rèn)為消費(fèi)者可能會(huì)產(chǎn)生誤會(huì)。

One of the key considerations of whether consumer confusion is likely – a primary element of trademark infringement – is whether a company might expand into other product lines. In the case of Angry Birds, this has already happened. The megabrand also claims that trademark dilution would occur if the Angry Chicken trademark were granted.

消費(fèi)者是否可能會(huì)產(chǎn)生誤會(huì)是判定商標(biāo)侵權(quán)的首要因素，而這取決于一個(gè)公司是否會(huì)擴(kuò)展到其他產(chǎn)品領(lǐng)域，在憤怒的小鳥一案中正是這種情況。憤怒的小鳥稱，若憤怒的小雞商標(biāo)被核準(zhǔn)注冊(cè)，其品牌形象會(huì)被稀釋。

What Happens Now in the Angry Bird Trademark Case?

憤怒的小鳥商標(biāo)侵權(quán)異議目前進(jìn)展如何？

Only two months have passed since the nationwide release of Angry Birds sauce, but the brand certainly had a foothold in food products before that point. Because of this, Rovio may have a legitimate case against the applicant for Angry Chicken. This case may be strengthened further if Rovio can prove that the Angry Chicken logo looks similar to that of Angry Birds.

憤怒的小鳥兩月前在全美發(fā)售系列醬汁，但是該品牌在此之前已經(jīng)在食品行業(yè)站穩(wěn)腳跟，因此羅維奧娛樂(lè)公司向憤怒的小雞餐廳品牌提出異議。如果羅維奧娛樂(lè)公司能證明憤怒的小雞品牌logo與憤怒的小鳥形象類似，該案件將會(huì)被進(jìn)一步加強(qiáng)。

While the Angry Chicken application was for an intent to use trademark, the company appears to have been using the name since at least 2017. The restaurant brand has until January 16, 2021 to respond to the opposition notice, and if the larger entertainment corporation is successful, the restaurant may need to rethink its name and branding.

雖然憤怒的小雞近期才以商標(biāo)形式申請(qǐng)注冊(cè)，但該公司至少?gòu)?017年就開始使用這個(gè)名字。這家餐廳可以在2021年1月16日之前對(duì)異議進(jìn)行答辯，如果娛樂(lè)公司獲勝，這家餐廳只能重新起名做品牌。