憤怒的小雞紅包版，配以精美的游戲畫面，可愛的風格，有不同顏色的小雞、貓頭鷹、鳥雀等，消除就可以領取紅包獎勵了。

憤怒的小雞賺錢版特點

1、趣味性十足的闖關大作戰，看看誰能第一個順利的過關，用自己的實力贏得紅包。

2、輕松耐玩的燒腦大作戰，體驗一場十分過癮的連線挑戰，順利通關之后還能領取紅包。

3、數以百計的不同難度級別等待著您的挑戰，級別越慢，每個級別的時間越短。

憤怒的小雞賺錢版點評

1、Q可愛的小動物帶著愛

2、炫目華麗的特效

3、清新美麗甜美的畫風

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，不過在玩法上有點不一樣，可以跨區移動，玩的時候注意看教程。個人實測看了兩個視頻得到4000紅包劵，后面應該會變小，能拿多少算多少吧。

憤怒的小鳥vs小雞？美國一餐廳商標侵權知名手游

即使不玩手機游戲的人也應該都聽過“憤怒的小鳥”這款游戲。從iOS應用程序起家，憤怒的小鳥已經從游戲領域延伸到電影、兒童節目、烹飪書籍，甚至食品行業。其與餐廳“憤怒的小雞”商標侵權異議案件正是集中在食品領域。

Angry Birds Trademark Infringement Case

憤怒的小鳥商標侵權案

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公司所有。該公司在美國專利商標局（USPTO）擁有多個注冊商標，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商標，異議的對象正是憤怒的小雞。

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.

大多時候商標異議發生在同一行業，但是在這個案件中，發生異議的雙方是娛樂公司和一家餐廳。憤怒的小雞援引一家韓國炸雞店作為自己的店名來源。雖然這兩個品牌看起來似乎沒有什么相關性，但羅維奧娛樂公司聲稱憤怒的小雞餐廳提供的產品和服務足夠讓消費者產生誤會。

How Does a Restaurant Infringe on a Game?

餐廳如何侵權游戲？

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年申請商標-同年憤怒的小鳥首次發布，可能就不會有任何商標侵權的法律問題。在那時羅維奧娛樂公司的最新游戲品牌還沒有獲得全世界關注，而現在憤怒的小鳥已經出現在各個角落了。

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，憤怒的小鳥已經將品牌擴展到很多領域，包括食品類的零食、蛋糕、糖果、系列醬汁。正是在這個領域羅維奧娛樂公司認為消費者可能會產生誤會。

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.

消費者是否可能會產生誤會是判定商標侵權的首要因素，而這取決于一個公司是否會擴展到其他產品領域，在憤怒的小鳥一案中正是這種情況。憤怒的小鳥稱，若憤怒的小雞商標被核準注冊，其品牌形象會被稀釋。

What Happens Now in the Angry Bird Trademark Case?

憤怒的小鳥商標侵權異議目前進展如何？

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售系列醬汁，但是該品牌在此之前已經在食品行業站穩腳跟，因此羅維奧娛樂公司向憤怒的小雞餐廳品牌提出異議。如果羅維奧娛樂公司能證明憤怒的小雞品牌logo與憤怒的小鳥形象類似，該案件將會被進一步加強。

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形式申請注冊，但該公司至少從2017年就開始使用這個名字。這家餐廳可以在2021年1月16日之前對異議進行答辯，如果娛樂公司獲勝，這家餐廳只能重新起名做品牌。