This is a "he-said, she-said" in terms of whether this is true, but again, every media outlet reporting on it says a C&D was sent.

Yes, but no article is citing sources. They most likely got their information from the case-files, just like we did. Fizzer is denying sending a C&D to Activision, while Activision is stating that it was sent. The news outlets get their facts from the publicly available file, in which Activision's claims are laid out. That's not to say Activision is wrong, of course; just to show that the news outlets have a source of information that they're citing from and that the source might be wrong.

This is, again, not what they're suing for, according to media outlets. Since their argument, as someone else pointed out, hinges on the idea that the two can't be mistaken for one another (questionable), and that "warzone" is just a common word that can't be trademarked, they're very clearly arguing for their ABILITY to use it. Not that you/we SHOULDN'T be able to use it. Their arguments go against the type of scheme Fizzer describes here.

The filed case does indeed make it sound like that. However, there are these are two points that, taken in conjunction, suggest otherwise and do actually support Fizzer's narrative:

4. Declaring that Activision’s pending applications for registration of the
marks WARZONE and CALL OF DUTY WARZONE may proceed to
registration;

5. Declaring that Defendant’s pending applications for registration of the
mark WARZONE should not proceed to registration;

I'm not a (trademark) lawyer, but to me this suggests as much as Activision wanting to trademark the word 'WARZONE' while denying Fizzer the right to file for the same trademark. Do correct me if I'm wrong though.

I think (and again, Farah no lawyer, don't take Farah's word for it) this case rests upon the question whether Fizzer or his lawyers sent a C&D to Activision. If they did, it kind of sounds like kicking the hornet's nest and getting punished for it. If they didn't, Activision is completely overplaying their hand.

Time will tell.

Here is the GoFundMe refund form if you feel you donated to this campaign in part or in full based on the misrepresentation that no cease and desist letter had been sent by Fizzer to initiate the fight: https://www.gofundme.com/contact/suggest/donor

---

@Scorchie: Every media outlet reporting on this is relying on a single source, which is Activision's complaint. If you are a US citizen, you can use PACER to find the complaint yourself. If you trust me, I've uploaded a copy of all public legal documents submitted to the California Central District Court, including Activision's complaint: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fvqiprIa_0wIQCDUBdEeyiXXxBUKeV1e/view?usp=sharing

Actvision is not suing for merely an exemption from Fizzer's trademark. Indeed, their argument is that Fizzer's trademark is invalid. If you open the complaint, scroll to the Prayer for Relief section (this is where the plaintiff tells the court what it asks for). They want the court to:

• Say that Activision's use of Warzone and Call of Duty: Warzone aren't violating any trademarks held by Warzone.com, LLC
  
• Say that Activision's trademarks for Warzone and Call of Duty: Warzone should be allowed to proceed to registration
  
• Say that Warzone's trademarks for Warzone should not be allowed to proceed to registration

In other words, this whole case is about who gets to trademark "Warzone" in video games. Activision filed to trademark it in June of 2020; Fizzer filed in October of 2020. Since then they've had competing claims for trademarking "Warzone." This can be a little bit tricky to follow because, as you've noticed, Fizzer (or his lawyers) is the one who's accused Activision of trademark infringement, and it looks on the surface like Activision is just suing Fizzer to make that go away. Indeed, if you're not familiar with the case, it incorrectly looks like Fizzer is the aggressor. Fizzer's GoFundMe post certainly doesn't help clear things up.

However, there's a huge risk to this site if Activision is able to register their trademark for "Warzone." If you have a trademark, you can sue people on two grounds:
1. Infringement: this is when someone confuses their product with yours because they are using something similar to your trademark. For example, if you walk into a diner called "McDonald's Diner" thinking it has something to do with "McDonald's" the big chain. Or you buy a coffee from "McCoffee's" thinking it has something to do with "McDonald's." In both those cases, McDonald's can sue the similar-sounding companies for infringing on their trademark- because they use their trademark in such a way that the average consumer would confuse their product with McDonald's.

2. Dilution: this is when consumers won't confuse the trademark but you hurt the strength of a famous trademark in some way. For example, Polaroid (the camera company) won a dilution-by-blurring suit against Polaraid (an air conditioning business) even though no one would've confused Polaraid for Polaroid, because Polaraid weakened the image conjured up by the name Polaroid. Similarly, the North Face jacket company won a dilution suit against the South Butt for tarnishing their trademark.

So if Activision successfully gets the trademark to "Warzone," they now have legal avenues they can use against Fizzer. For example, when Call of Duty: Warzone players show up to this site thinking it's got something to do with Call of Duty: Warzone (like outlined in Fizzer's GoFundMe post), that's an example of confusion and could be used by Activision to argue their own trademark infringement case against Fizzer. Since Activision is big and "Call of Duty: Warzone" is famous, they can also pursue dilution claims. On top of that, Google, Apple, etc., have online tools for dealing with trademark infringement (they have to do that with the content they host). Activision could, if they get the "Warzone" trademark, decide at any time to go to Google and Apple, show them their registered trademark for "Warzone" in the United States, point to these other video game websites and apps named "Warzone," and get them taken down for infringing on their trademark for "Warzone."

Even if the legal claims from Activision lack merit, they will create a financial and logistical burden for Warzone. If they have the actual registered trademark for "Warzone," doing all this would be a lot easier. Activision wouldn't have to be malicious or mean to do any of this, by the way- they'd just be protecting their trademark (because not going after infringement or dilution over time weakens your trademark, so you have to fight for it if you want to keep it).

I think Fizzer's GoFundMe post did a poor job of highlighting what is at the heart of the case and why we players should care. The risk is that Activision gets to trademark the name "Warzone" and then the future existence and health of the game we play will be largely at their mercy because its very name will be something they have trademarked. If Fizzer can't get the money to pay his trademark lawyer, he can't pursue this case properly and the entirety of his life's work is at stake. It's really important for the future of Warzone that Fizzer get the legal funds to pursue this instead of just letting Activision trademark "Warzone." From a player perspective, it doesn't matter that much if Fizzer loses the rest of the case- it's okay if Activision gets to keep calling its game "Warzone," and it's okay if Fizzer is not able to register "Warzone" for himself; however, if Activision is able to register "Warzone" that could be a huge blow.

Edited 6/7/2021 05:54:45

Stop explaining things so well, Knyte!

There's one detail to add to this story. A trademark in the US is not based on when someone applies for it; it's based on when the trademarked product was released and hit the market. This is a huge oversimplification, but the conclusion of many caveat laws is (and again, Farah no lawyer) that Fizzer should have the upper hand when it comes to registering Warzone as a trademark, given that Warzone was released 4 years earlier than CODWZ.

Fizzer:

If they get the trademark, they can go to Apple + Google and say "Hey this app is named Warzone, and we have the registered trademark for Warzone, please delete the apps" and then poof, Warzone is gone. I had no choice but to oppose the trademark.

Scorchie:

This is, again, not what they're suing for, according to media outlets. Since their argument, as someone else pointed out, hinges on the idea that the two can't be mistaken for one another (questionable), and that "warzone" is just a common word that can't be trademarked, they're very clearly arguing for their ABILITY to use it. Not that you/we SHOULDN'T be able to use it. Their arguments go against the type of scheme Fizzer describes here.

My view point:

Correct, Activision is not suing to steal the name. They are doing that with a trademark application (See step 1 below, not step 3).
Step 1, Activision filed for a trademark for 100% usage of the Warzone mark in a "Video game".
Step 2, Warzone.com opposed it, and countered with their own application stating prior use.
Step 3, Activision filed a lawsuit to get a ruling they can use the Mark even though it is already used by Fizzer.
You can't read one document to understand the full picture, but all of them in a row to see Fizzer is correct. Regardless Warzone.com is required to oppose someone trying to register his name. Apple and Google are not courts, they will just review the trademark is active and remove Warzone.com from the App stores.

The news outlets are quoting the Step 3 lawsuit paperwork. This is one sided and only contains quotes from Activision because they filed it first. Fizzer already has said it contains an inaccurate set of facts. Fizzer has not filed an official response yet, but I expect he will and he will debate the truth of their claims. Activision has already shown they lie. Unless a reporter is asking Fizzer to rebut a statement he hasn't gotten a chance to refute anything yet. I suspect, the Judge will throw out the case. I can see issue with the case. Besides that the trademark office was already processing the trademark claims in step 1 & 2. There was no need engage in step 3 except to make it expensive for Fizzer. The trademark office has a process to settle all this already.

Edited 4/13/2021 22:54:27

Excellently said, to everyone who responded to me with valid critiques. This is a very complicated situation, to be sure.

l4v.r0v, thank you so much for providing that link. That is the clearest explanation of everything that has happened, lengthy as it is. It seems like many of Activision's points are valid, but I can also understand how them acquiring their own trademark could cause trouble down the road. Basically, it seems like it boils down to a much different debate than most people here think.

It's not a battle for Warzone to be allowed to continue to be Warzone. It's a battle to extract financial compensation from Activision for perceived damages to Fizzer's business, and to stop them from registering their own trademark. If the latter happens, as l4v.r0v points out, Activision could cause problems for us down the road. They also make some reasonable claims, and some unreasonable ones. All I'm saying is, this isn't an existential battle in terms of black and white. There are so many shades of grey here, and it doesn't help that the ONLY source that's painting a full picture is a court document. Neither the articles about this nor Fizzer have made the whole situation clear, because, to be fair, it's so Byzantine in nature.

Edited 4/13/2021 23:08:27

Here is the GoFundMe refund form if you feel you donated to this campaign in part or in full based on the misrepresentation that no cease and desist letter had been sent by Fizzer to initiate the fight: https://www.gofundme.com/contact/suggest/donor

---

There's one detail to add to this story. A trademark in the US is not based on when someone applies for it; it's based on when the trademarked product was released and hit the market

For anyone who wants to learn more about this, the terms you're looking for are "first-to-use" and "first-to-file"

Edited 6/7/2021 05:54:55

*grabs popcorn*. I noticed that game theory recently done a video on the legalitity amd morality of modern day adds so i was wondering if they would be happy to cover something like this as it is right how their street especially as multiple situations has happened in the past like this one

I don't have much to add other than thanks to all you guys for the claims and counterclaims and the brilliant explanations. This is why I love the Warzone community and I would hate to see it suffer.

You have my sword...
And my axe...

Anyways, you need people of intelligence on this sort of... mission... quest... thing.

I love Legal Eagle, I watch all his videos.

CallMeKevin reference? I can't be the only one who read it like that

you have my sword
You have my axe
Need people of intelligence

Me: cant have a party without the bard. I bring my trusty ukulele

Here is the GoFundMe refund form if you feel you donated to this campaign in part or in full based on the misrepresentation that no cease and desist letter had been sent by Fizzer to initiate the fight: https://www.gofundme.com/contact/suggest/donor

---

Anyways, you need people of intelligence on this sort of... mission... quest... thing.

Most importantly, he needs adequate and competent legal representation, which he has but quickly costs money. The best thing any of us can do right now for Fizzer and for this game is to spend/donate money to help this game and to help other people find the GoFundMe (https://www.gofundme.com/f/activision-is-suing-warzone) and the Support Warzone bundles (https://www.warzone.com/SupportWarzone).

If you feel inspired to help, do what you can to get those two links in front of as many people as possible.

Edited 6/7/2021 05:55:06

I'd be ok if Fizzer wanted to use these to rename this game: ZombieWars, Zombie Map Warfare, Zombie Apocalypse, or ZombieVision (a slap down to that other company). But, I really like the current name and hope he prevails. All hail the great Fizzer!

What is it with the zombles man

Edited 4/13/2021 23:38:47

(Was that sarcastic, UFO?)

Of course :p

It's not a big deal.

Of course :p

It sounds like the Activision legal squad is just like “Hmmmm what’s a small game that we can sue so we can get money and media coverage” with no regard to the fact that you have to actually have a case in order to win

lol, yea that sounds accurate.