@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

@Z have u been under a rock for the last 3 months lol.

sure nobody is going to buy a skin on call of duty thinking it applies here, and no one is going to buy membership here thinking it will apply to call of duty.

still, fizzer's main source of advertising is the playerbase, which is being drowned out.

use to be, if you look up warlight or warzone memes, or even media on youtube, it was easy to find. now? goodluck!! there are players like SNBX, Aura Guardian, Mythic, whom made dozens on dozens of videos. if you don't have them subscribed or saved, you will never find these videos looking up "warzone." literally, i have tried :D

seems warzone.com is a niche game that is being drowned out by a much larger company that is trying to get copyrights to a name that has been in use for several years. call it how you see it

its gotten to the point where call of duty players will join our official discord and post their twitch accounts to gain attention, and that is definitely some confusion there

Tac(ky)tical: check out Ironhawk v. Dropbox, an ongoing reverse consumer confusion case that went through the same district court as this one- https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/19-56347/19-56347-2021-07-06.html. It should give you some idea of what the law actually cares about. Or look up "Sleekcraft factors."

Consumers confusing a Discord server or Twitch category associated with Warzone.com for one associated with Activision's Call of Duty: Warzone doesn't suggest that they're confusing the products, only the venues associated with them. If you're looking to prove actual confusion (which isn't needed for a trademark infringement case, and is indeed not easy to prove), you need to show that consumers are looking at Warzone.com's products and thinking they have something to do with Activision Blizzard's Call of Duty: Warzone brand, or that consumers are looking at Activision Blizzard's Call of Duty: Warzone-branded products and believing they have something to do with Warzone.com, LLC.

It's quite conceivable that someone could mix up Discord servers for two different products without believing they are actually related in some way. They just believe that the Discord server itself is related to one of the products when it's instead related to the other.

Either way, I think you should look at the Sleekcraft factors (and specifically, Ironhawk's claims based on those factors) to get a better grasp of what "trademark infringement" via reverse consumer confusion entails. The stuff you're pointing to- the arguments for actual confusion- are some of the weakest parts of Warzone.com, LLC's case imo. Conversely, one of the arguments that Activision Blizzard should have no trouble selling to a jury is that absolutely no one is going to look at Warzone and believe it was made by a 70 billion dollar company or look at Call of Duty: Warzone and think Fizzer had anything to do with it.

I agree that the success of Call of Duty: Warzone has put Warzone.com, LLC, in a tough position after they chose to build their whole company brand around the word "warzone" in spite of considerable warnings and pushback from the players. (There's a reason that name change got bundled into the Unity update/codebase migration after seemingly getting stalled when it was first attempted. It's because "warzone" was simply not a good strategy, and the choice to go for that name seems to have come from an outdated domain-name-is-everything mode of thought. If you're about to blow $60,000 on a domain name for a brand/product that isn't already making tremendous revenue, just wire that money to a Nigerian prince. At least you'll have more fun throwing it away that way. Look at how Discord didn't bother getting discord.com until they'd already proven their product with discordapp.com. When you want pizza, you go to Dominos, not pizza.com.)

Competition sucks to be on the losing side of. But keep in mind that intellectual property law is only meant to protect you against unfair competition. If "my product lost a lot of money to the competition" were good enough to win a case, BlackBerry would have made a killing off of Apple. You have to actually win the case before the damages matter.

Edited 7/20/2021 07:49:13

im not a lawyer and dont wish to pretend to be, but it seems to me there is only competition because of the name Activision chose to use. a name that had already been IN USE for several years. now i know fizzer did not have trademark, but there are laws here in america to protect intellectual property even without trademark. i hope fizzer earns what is his, and warzone, warlight, idc,

F*** ACTIVISION lol.

a name that had already been IN USE for several years

It's a(n admittedly uncommon) dictionary word[1] already used by over a dozen games well before Warzone.com, LLC, came along. Are you as upset about Halo: Infinite?

When Fizzer purchased Warzone.com, he said:

Warzone is much easier to recognize since it's an actual English word.

Only now, with a cash grab on the line, does he argue that it's not.

now i know fizzer did not have trademark

He doesn't have a registered trademark but whether or not (and to what extent) he has a common law trademark is in dispute in this case.

but there are laws here in america to protect intellectual property even without trademark

Yes, that's the common law trademark I described above.

We'll see what happens; it's a live case.

Just try to actually look things up or talk to someone with expertise before jumping to conclusions, is really all I'm trying to say. I honestly can't tell if you're even typing your comments sober.

Also if you're willing to bet money on the outcome of the case, hit me up on Discord or via Warzone DMs.

1: It's a recognized alternate spelling of "war zone" that's been in use at least as far back as 1893 - https://www.google.com/search?q=%22warzone%22&tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:1800,cd_max:1899&lr=lang_en&dpr=1&tbm=bks

Edited 10/4/2021 03:04:37

Have u seen the new news article talking about an activison female employee committing sudoku and lots of charges of sexual harassment and inequality.

Activisons getting attacked from all angles atm

wow just read some of the allegations and.. just wow.

Here's the link: https://www.pcgamer.com/activision-blizzard-lawsuit-alleges-discrimination-sexual-harassment-and-frat-boy-culture/

Unsurprising tbh. Not only do game studios have notoriety for how they treat their employees but I know a few people who work or worked at Blizzard (all male) and it sounds like the managers there get away with some abuse and mistreatment of those below them.

Maybe this is good for Warzone since it might (purely speculating) reduce Activision's appetite for further legal risk and make them more willing to settle this case at a higher amount.

fizzer - 1
frat boys at Activision/Blizzard - 0

this further brings the public against activison and more likely to believe our case

How is Fizzer doing by the way?

I was right all along!
This entire company must be purged!

another thing which will effect activisons finances is the release of the new halo and battlefield. both of which look to be smashing games when they come out. (the new battlefield gameplay trailer was insane). I almost pity activison with all these battles they need to face

For those waiting for updates: Activision has until through July 29 (Thursday) to respond to Warzone's counterclaim. So by end of week we should expect new documents on PACER. Don't get your hopes up, though. It could be just another deadline extension.

Oof, I come back after a few years to this :(

good to see some familiar names.

Regardless of who's right I think we all have an obligation to support the game we play's livelihood.

Why did it change from WarLight, anyway?

https://www.businessinsider.com/activision-sexual-harassment-lawsuit-employee-letter-abhorrent-and-insulting-2021-7

A letter from over 1,000 employees at gaming giant Activision called the company's response to a sexual-harassment lawsuit 'abhorrent and insulting'

Activision employees said the company's response to a new lawsuit was "abhorrent and insulting" in a letter sent to management, several media reports said.

"To put it clearly and unequivocally," the letter from over 1,000 Activision employees said, "our values as employees are not accurately reflected in the words and actions of our leadership."

The letter, reportedly sent to management this week, was created in the wake of a new lawsuit brought by California against Activision. The suit alleges a "pervasive frat boy" culture at the company, where female employees were harassed, paid less than their male counterparts, and retaliated against by human resources when they reported issues.

Read more: Activision Blizzard influencers are turning their backs on the video game giant after a lawsuit claimed that female employees dealt with harassment and discrimination

Activision's "'frat boy' culture is a breeding ground for harassment and discrimination against women," the suit says. The suit, brought by California's Department of Fair Employment and Housing, was filed after a two-year investigation into the California gaming giant behind franchises such as "Call of Duty" and "Overwatch."

In response, Activision executive VP Fran Townsend told employees in an email that the claims in the filing were "distorted and untrue." The suit, she said, was "truly meritless and irresponsible."

In the letter, signed by over 1,000 Activision employees, which Bloomberg and Kotaku reported was sent to Activision executives this week, staffers criticized management as fostering "a company atmosphere that disbelieves victims."

California's DFEH interviewed current and former employees for its investigation and said it found rampant misconduct across departments at the company. Female employees on the "World of Warcraft" team, for instance, were said to have received sexual advances from male coworkers. Some male staffers on the team reportedly made rape jokes.

Activision Blizzard is a publicly traded video-game maker and publisher with more than 9,000 employees. A spokesperson told Insider in a statement that "the picture the DFEH paints is not the Blizzard workplace of today."

How do I stop these fucking messages , it’s getting pretty annoying that you’re getting sued, I couldn’t care less.