Has my game interface been copied?

Guys, pardon if you have already seen this in another forum, but I wanted to get as many opinions as I could. I am the developer of the game TanZen, which is a tangram game with a zen garden theme. My game has been on the App Store for nine months. Here is a screenshot of my game:



Now, I've had a competitor on the App Store for the last few months. They make a game called Tangram Puzzle Pro. The visual interfaces are not similar, except for the fact that he borrowed my use of a selection ring to rotate the shapes. I'm fine with that, as other games use rings to rotate/manipulate game objects. However, checking their website today, they are now selling a PC game, called Tangram Puzzle Pro: Secret Garden. They have a playable demo, and here is a screenshot:



They're using a sand motif, and green pieces, which is very similar to my motif. Now, I don't know if that is grounds for copyright infringement/intellectual property issues, but what I do know is the way they've presented the pieces is entirely based on my design. I spent a couple days coming up with that layout, so it would fit perfectly on the limited iPhone screen, and all they've done is flip it.

I feel they are now violating the rights of my game. But before I send them a friendly email to modify their game, I wanted to get some opinions from fellow developers. So your opinions on this would be very much appreciated. Thanks!

 

Thanks for your response, brewstermax. To play on a PC, you have to click and drag, and it has the same rotation wheel they have in the iPhone version (wonder where they got that idea from ), so it's another click and drag.

 

The thing is, the rectangle is one of the traditional tangram shapes, which is why it is used so often. It is a complete puzzle, and nobody can own it. However, I believe the placement of the default pieces is unique, and is not something I've seen in any other tangram game (and I've seen a load of them during my initial designing of the game). Regardless, I think the overall presentation (default piece placement, sand garden theme, and green pieces) could be a case of trade dress. And leaving out the legal bits, this is quite clearly a swipe of my design concept. Both our game's reviews contain references to each other's products. It's impossible that this is an accident. They are trying to profit from the most identifiable features of my game.

 

Well, it would be nice if things could be handled in a friendly manner, but I am certainly considering a legal solution.

 

Thanks DaveMc99. Yeah, TanZen has a very unique look among tangram games, or at least it did. As I said in a previous post, this may be a case of trade dress.

 

If it is the default mode, and is how most people identify the game, then yes. There are over a million copies of TanZen/TanZen Lite in circulation, not even counting the pirate market. The game has been as high as #12 on the App Store, and has been around for nine months. More than 70,000 people choose to update the paid version of the game every time I do an update, and that number grows each time. The look and feel of my game is key to its sales. That seems like trade dress to me.

Quoting the Wikipedia entry (no, I do not consider it a legal source):

"Trade dress may be either “inherently distinctive” or acquire distinctiveness through “secondary meaning.”[20] Inherent distinctiveness means that the trade dress is so arbitrary or fanciful in relation to the product or entity it represents, that this arbitrariness itself serves to distinguish the product from others.[21] Distinctiveness through secondary meaning means that although a trade dress is not distinctive on its face, the use of the trade dress in the market (the “good will” of the trade dress) has created an association between that trade dress and a source in the mind of the consumer.

Although the law is evolving, as it stands now, product packaging (including packaging in very general terms, such as a building’s décor) may be inherently distinctive.[22] However, product design, that is the design or shape of the product itself, may not be inherently distinctive, and must acquire secondary meaning to be protected."

 

I believe I will be contacting a lawyer for the best first course of action. I don't want to shoot myself in the foot here.

 

What boggles my mind is that they think they can go from their original iPhone design to this design, and not expect me to notice the similarities:

 

I have just sent the relevant info to a local lawyer who deals with intellectual property, as I'd like some pro advice as to my options. They may just say to send a personal email, but it'd be nice to know all the options ahead of time. Better safe than sorry.

 

Wow, that's pretty bold plagerism! Probably not the case here, since they aren't actually using any of my game's media, just my design concepts, and company goodwill.