Hello all! This is a very nice thread however, there is one qualm that I do have concerning all of this that is long overdue.

Whenever I go to warzone.com and look at the front page I see in blue letters 'Activision is suing us!' Of course, this may make sense to all of you, but my eyes do not work as well as they used to and I inadvertently end up reading the words 'Activision is acting sus!'

I find this sort of tomfoolery highly problematic. Not only is the warzone community a highly prestigious community in which enjoyment is handled in a professional manner, warzone has nothing to do with Activision(trademark)!

To make matters even worse, this inappropriate quip has managed to find its way to the front page of this website nearly every day for the past four months. I'm beginning to lose my patience as I gloss over the same four words every time.

Activision is acting sus!

@Slate: Just add this to your AdBlock filters and it'll go away:

www.warzone.com###HomeSection > div:nth-of-type(4)

Edited 7/4/2021 05:10:46

This is my first post in this thread, but I want to say something. When you look up "Warzone", the screen floods with COD links. Make of this what you want, but I felt this was worth saying.

Any updates?

On PACER: The motion to appear pro hac vice was granted on July 6, 2021 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/pro_hac_vice). It means that Brett E. Lewis (https://ilawco.com/attorneys/brett) can represent the defendant in the United States District Court for the Central District of California even though he is in NY, without committing unauthorized practice of law. (This is just a merely procedural thing; the case is federal so it's not like it's being governed by California state law.)

Otherwise the only recent activity has been the deadline extension (on 06/21) to allow Activision more time to respond since they're in the middle of settlement negotiations with Warzone.com, LLC.

i would be happy with a settlement for us to go back to warlight. it's been terrible since COD:W was announced and all Google results went to that

The fact that it went back to settlement discussions is interesting.. and a positive note for us..

I think that's just how it works. Legal proceedings are expensive so even once you've started you probably don't wanna go all the way.

I dont know why u called the game from WarLight into Warzone and finally into Warzone Idle later.
Why not using the first name only?

But I agree if u say u are the "owner" in some kinds of view of that name. 2017 was before Activisions games. Maybe they think u made it later... I dont know why you need money now, u alreay ARE the owner. Why u need money to defend something that is already yours? What kind of world are we living in?

For the worst case - just call it back to WarLight. I liked the name rly much in the past and i couldnt understand in 2017 why u renamed it.

Ok, friendly greets from germany so far. May the name be with you.

To be honest I liked 'warlight' brand better but that is ridiculous. I think you can turn it into an opportunity to get a lot of positive publicity especially that activision blizzard rather do not have very good PR, maybe the only more disliked game company is EA. It may be pretty stressful though. Good luck!

risk

wisk

They legally have no right to do this. If anything, OUR Warzone has the right to countersue, if the owner here felt like he wanted to since this site used the name first.

@emporer then the argument comes up about why not the other warzone games that other devs made before this game was named it

If anything, OUR Warzone has the right to countersue, if the owner here felt like he wanted to since this site used the name first.

They are. That [the owner here feeling like he wanted to sue since this site used the name first] is what set the lawsuit off- Warzone.com, LLC, mailed Activision and asked for 0.25% profits, after Activision filed to trademark "Warzone" for itself. The negotiations over that got nowhere and Activision filed a lawsuit to get the court to tell Warzone.com, LLC, to fizz off. In response, Warzone.com, LLC, is fighting to get the court to prevent Activision from trademarking "Warzone" and to make Activision stop using "Warzone" and pay them for the damage to Warzone.com, LLC, that occurred as a result of Call of Duty: Warzone being a vastly more popular game using the name "Warzone" than Warzone.com, LLC's own Warzone brands.

They're probably back in settlement negotiations so we'll probably find out soon enough how this all pans out. I doubt either party is going to go all the way on this. The potential risks + legal fees easily dwarf either party's upside in pursuing the case to its conclusion.

EDIT: clarified some grammatical ambiguity that might've misled Tac(ky)tical into thinking the countersuit referred to the cease-and-desist

Edited 7/18/2021 07:49:20

it is pretty obvious ppl confuse the two games when someone joins the *official* Warzone discord and post links to their "Warzone" games (which are rly just clips of them 360 no-scoping like MLG pro).

it is also annoying when i look up warzone on twitch or youtube and ALL I FIND is call of duty. use to be, i could watch old warzone streams on youtube and relive some good days.

if this isnt proof that ppl are/can and will confuse the two games, dont know what is.

@kynte for someone who has spent an exuberant amount of time on this website, you are not very helpful. i wonder where you find these numbers and information

WAIT?!?!?!?

Activision is suing us?

Is this about them clearly plagiarizing Warzone?

its technically a counter sue because warzone sent a "cease and desist" letter. that being said its very common for this big companies to try to take on small markets because the small markets dont have the funds to wage a true legal battle

@kynte [sic] for someone who has spent an exuberant [sic] amount of time on this website, you are not very helpful. i wonder where you find these numbers and information

The only number in my post was the 0.25% of CoD:WZ profits, which comes from Fizzer via a Washington Post puff piece (https://www.washingtonpost.com/video-games/2021/06/04/warzone-name-lawsuit/):

Ficker’s attorney, Derek A. Newman, later sent a cease-and-desist letter to Activision, and the two parties began trying to settle the case. Ficker said his ask was 0.25% of Call of Duty Warzone’s profits. While Activision has not released any revenue figures specifically around “Warzone,” which monetizes by selling in-game currency that can be used on cosmetics and a seasonal battle pass, the company announced in May that it had been played by 100 million people. Activision countered with an offer of $10,000, according to Ficker, which he rejected.

if this isnt proof that ppl are/can and will confuse the two games, dont know what is.

You're right. You quite obviously don't know what is and isn't proof of consumer confusion.

its technically a counter sue [sic] because warzone sent a "cease and desist" letter.

No, it's a countersuit because Warzone responded to Activision's claim by filing a counterclaim alleging trademark infringement via reverse consumer confusion, on June 8, 2021. So Activision is suing Warzone.com, LLC, but Warzone.com, LLC, is also suing Activision. There is nothing surprising about that and if Warzone weren't countersuing Activision, that would raise questions.

Ample information about this case is available on PACER and within this thread. If you are unfamiliar with using PACER, I can happily retrieve the documents and send them to you over Discord (l4vr0v#2623). I suggest consulting some of that before making further incorrect inferences.

Edited 7/18/2021 07:48:01