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.

Bold of the people in here ‘correcting’ the owner of this game and website on his own lawsuit, especially in such a way that looks like they’re rooting against him or couldn’t care if he loses.

Correcting him literally does nothing here, and posting an indifferent attitude towards the situation in this thread shows quite a bit of hubris.

Activision, and the companies it’s purchased, have a history of abusing trademark law to bully out smaller companies that cannot afford the legal fees to defend themselves. That’s what this is: a billion dollar corporation is using its money to ensure it can do what it pleases. To Activision, this is not a matter of ‘how much’ they think they’re right, it’s ‘how much’ money they need to spend to get this over with.

This is from the filing (in case anyone hasn't seen)

----

30. On November 20, 2020, Defendant’s counsel sent a “cease and desist”
letter to Activision’s counsel, demanding that Activision “change the name of its
games, stop using Warzone’s WARZONE mark, and abandon the trademark
applications.” Defendant also advised Activision that Defendant “would be within
its rights to seek to enjoin Activision from using the WARZONE mark and to
recover monetary relief as a result of Activision’s infringing use… [including]
Activision’s profits attributable to its use of the WARZONE mark in ‘Call of Duty:
Warzone’ or a reasonable royalty.” Activision disputes these allegations, and
expressed its position in a letter dated February 16, 2021.

31. Activision and Defendant continued to correspond concerning this
dispute in early 2021. However, they were not able to reach an agreement, and on
March 4, 2021, Defendant’s counsel sent a letter to Activision’s counsel, stating
that “Activision’s use of the WARZONE mark has caused actual consumer
Case confusion and damaged [Defendant].” Defendant’s counsel also made a monetary
settlement demand and demanded a response to that demand by March 12, 2021.
On March 24, 2021, Activision made a counterproposal. On April 5, 2021,
Defendant rejected the counterproposal and did not offer to continue the
negotiations.

Edited 4/14/2021 00:37:16