TL;DR: Law requires expertise. Unless you are legally trained, assume you do not understand the case and just do what you can to help Fizzer. Let's try to reduce the misinformation in this thread going forward.

The Twitch streamers (MrTrolldemort, CursonaFun, AbsolutelyEthan) have set great examples here. None of them pretended to know much about the case, they just outlined what's going on from a layperson perspective, and overall they've been successful in getting money into Fizzer's legal fund.

I mean the gist of Activision's strength is that they're saying warzone is a commonly used term, and thus not protected, right

No, that's only part of their response to (per their complaint) a claim by Warzone.com, LLC, that Activision is infringing on their trademark and causing consumer confusion.

This thread, the GoFundMe, and public communications about this lawsuit have an astounding amount of misinformation about even what's at issue in this case. Ignore secondhand sources, learn a little bit about trademark law in the US (no, your knowledge from another country is not sufficient), and then read Activision's complaint and look into relevant case law.

Otherwise assume you do not understand anything about the case at all (for most of us, it's very close to the truth) and treat it as a black box with the information that Activision has good lawyers, Fizzer has good lawyers, Activision is suing Fizzer, Fizzer believes this suit threatens Warzone as a whole, and there's a GoFundMe for you to donate to Fizzer's legal fund. Beyond that, well, if the law were this easy to figure out, lawyers wouldn't make so much money or stress so much about passing the bar exam. It's a hard field. It takes years of study to put things in their proper contexts and to figure out how court cases will go. Almost everyone who thinks they know the law but lacks formal legal training absolutely does not understand the law at all and should be ignored when they provide legal commentary.

If you work or study in a field that requires expertise, think about how hard it was for you to gather even a basic understanding of your field, how easy it is for people to be confidently misinformed about it, and how confused they might be by seeing basic, dumbed-down summaries of something in your field or by looking at something in your field that they do not have the context to understand. If you work in medicine, look at the public's understanding of vaccines and how confidently people spread vaccine misinformation. If you work in software, look at the public's understanding of things like cryptocurrency or artificial intelligence or how the internet works. If you work in finance and accounting, look at the public's understanding of... pretty much everything in your field.

Then apply that insight to this case and you'll get a picture of how completely confidently confused laypeople (including myself) are in this thread. Just find ways to help Fizzer (if you trust him + care about the game) and don't worry about understanding the case unless you are willing to devote a considerable amount of time and energy into learning American law. This is not something you can learn from reading the complaint, watching videos on YouTube, or running a Google search.

Edited 5/15/2021 21:45:24

well said

so what I have read says fizzer may have picked his name first and Activision after but since Activision has money they can come after him and take it away... using legal shenanigans and complex reasons why they should be able to do so... is this pretty accurate?

yea... it's frickin big money against the small guy. if I pick a name for my cologne in 1970 and it is called "Kardashian stank" and 20 years later the family comes after me to take it away because Khloe don't like it they can eat dirt.

change the last two letters.

No, that's not right at all Strangesme II. Please refer to the message by ⚙️t⚙️m⚙️t⚙️n

Edited 5/17/2021 06:52:00

"it the law were this easy to figure out, lawyers wouldn't make so much money or stress so much to pass the bar exam."
who was first? the rest is just lawyer shenanigans and mumbo jumbo that means nothing but they get paid "so much money" to figure it out.
Who was first?

this is about money and how Activision wants it for themselves. that is it.

I understand you have some misgivings about lawyers, especially with how they are portrayed in the media. Legal shenanigans are a real thing, but the law is about achieving public policy goals. You cannot simply state that everything is a legal shenanigan. Most of the law is routine, and common-place. And the law, as a whole, does achieve the public policy goals it intends to. You are looking at the exceptions and not the norm, perhaps out of some kind of resentment towards lawyers as a whole.

---

TRADEMARK BASICS

About the legal problem at issue, I'll give you an analogy. Suppose you open a pizza store called "Bob's Palace" in Wisconsin. The store does reasonably well. But then, 2 years later, some guy named Bob wants to open a waterpark called "Bob's Palace" in Miami, Florida. The question for you is, can the first Bob stop the second Bob from using the name "Bob's Palace"?

Trademarks are specific, both in location and in scope. The fact that you open a pizza place does not mean you own the words "Bob's Palace" for all intents and purposes. Trademarks are designed to prevent "unfair competition." "Unfair competition" in this context would exist if a reasonable consumer would confuse the waterpark Bob's Palace with the pizza place Bob's Palace. Due to how different the two brands are and how unlikely it is that there is any market overlap between the two brands, you'd be hard-pressed to state that the waterpark is taking any business from the pizza place, let alone unfairly competing with them.

But you must not mistake "unfair competition" with normal fair competition. The unfairness is a requirement. Many of you correctly point out that Activision's actions may damage Warzone. But the mere act of damaging Warzone isn't sufficient to say they are "unfairly competing" with Warzone. In the above analogy, if the Bob's Palace pizza place started to lose sales because a new pizza place, Sally's Corner, opened down the street, would that be unfair competition?

No. Competition, by it's very nature, often involves one brand suffering at the hands of another. You need to cite specific bad or anti-competitive conduct to say the competition is "unfair."

---

APPLYING THE BASICS

Now let me ask you another question. Let's suppose there was another "Warzone" game that came out before this one. But that "warzone" game was completely different; there is literally no commonality other than the name. Is Fizzer's version of Warzone" unfairly competing with these previous Warzone games? In other words, is Fizzer's version of the game stealing customers that this earlier game would otherwise have from the NAME alone?

I want you to keep this answer in mind, because it's no longer a hypothetical. It's reality. There were several games called "Warzone" that existed before this game. Now again, I ask you, is Fizzer's game of Warzone unfairly competing with them?

And lastly, I ask this: If you say that Fizzer's game isn't violating the trademark rights of the previous warzone games, how is Activision violating the trademark rights of THIS game? Do you have a logically consistent way of reconciling the two?

It seems to me that the only logically consistent way to resolve the two is to say that Activision's actions are worse because they are a large gaming giant. I know there is a lot of anger towards Activision for other valid reasons, and there is a fear that they are using their money to get an unfair advantage. But stop and think about it. If they weren't a big gaming giant, would there even be this much outrage? The fact that Activision is a giant company isn't reason enough to say they are guilty. If you think it is, then what you really want is class warfare, not any "fair" adjudication of the law.

---

CONCLUSION

I'm not going to go into the actual legal analysis of this case because 1) I'm not on the bar yet, and 2) as someone who will be admitted to the bar, I have an ethical obligation to not make careless statements about pending cases. But I hope I have given you some things to consider. The major thing I wish for you to take from this is that the situation is much more nuanced and complex than you are making it out to be. And it certainly isn't just "legal shenanigans."

Edited 5/17/2021 08:15:26

you are saying since there were games called warzone before fizzer changed the name from warlight that future companies that decide to change their name to warzone has the right to claim it? if one of the other older games (still in business) had issue with this one than they win. if fizzer turned on an older company and said they are not allowed to use it anymore because he is bigger and can afford lawyers then he would be a huge turd and should lose in a court of law. Simple.

Or....that all of the warzone games have their own trademark rights but none of them are infringing on each other. That's what I was alluding to.

They can all separately have trademark rights and not infringe on each other if their bubbles don't overlap. You can't simply state that the first person to use a name period has exclusive rights to the name for everything. Like, if I own a store called "Burger", I do not magically own the word burger. Your statement quickly breaks down if you think about it.

I'm not saying that the bubbles do not overlap. I am saying that there is question if they do, and that's all I will say on the matter, as stated above. I tried my best to make my response as clear and explanatory as possible. All I request is that you seriously consider what I'm saying, rather than making knee-jerk conclusions.

God this forum is getting all formal :D

I love it

Edited 5/17/2021 12:56:52

If I were in your shoes, this is how I would read the enemy. They're suing you not with the intention of winning a lawsuit or even going through with the lawsuit. They've done this purely in hopes that you'll get scared and willingly change your game name, in which case, they've won for free. By not changing the name, you're calling their bluff. At this point they'll either step up the pressure (continuing with the hope that you'll change the name voluntarily) or they'll just drop it. I predict that at some point sooner or later, they'll just drop it. They can't win.

I once broke of dealings with an insurance company and several months later they sent me a letter stating I owed them some money with threats to send a collection agency after me. I called them and told them I'm not paying them and I'd gladly go to court and fight it if they want to press the matter. Never heard from them or any collection agency again.

They sent the threat just to see if I'd get scared and willingly send a cheque.

Moosehead, that isn't right at all. Please refer to my previous messages.

Also, the situation here is entirely different. They didn't send Fizzer a letter; they literally filed a complaint in district court. If your point is that they don't want to actually take it to court, they already did.

Why are you so convinced they can't win? Can you cite one reason for why you think that? If not, again, let's just try to support the game in the way we can and not spread misinformation.

well this isn't good

Mr Fizzer. I don't feel so good about this :(

maybe the name could return to Warlight?

Usually the issue with having these giant legal battles isn't that you lose the judgement but that you run dry of money before all the lawsuits close.

I hope they win. fix this game.