they are trying to say that : Frizzer first published his strategy game in 2017, however he didn’t file a trademark for the name until October 2020. Meanwhile, Call of Duty: Warzone was released in March 2020, with a trademark first filed in June 2020.
I am not sure, but considering the lawsuit is already on, isn't it too late for that? If Fizzer looses, he has to pay, and i doubt Activision would be lenient when they can get money, no matter how little it is.
From my experience, the suit has little to do with winning. Activision can throw out the lawsuit, knowing that Fizzer has very limited resources and they can keep it going in the courts until he either runs out of money or until the point is moot (when they have a new version of Call of Duty out). Goliath always wins in these cases.
the thing with cod: warzone is that it is meant to be a continous thing like fortnite or apex so u saying that it will be pointless when they make a new cod game is kinda moot. they used warzone to advertise cold war after all
To prove the website was in use in/before 2017 is easy:
1. payment receipts/registration for warzone.com domain: 8,721 days old Created on 1997-06-08 Expires on 2021-06-07 Updated on 2020-05-09
2. any dated terms of service / privacy agreement documents from the warzone.com website
3. any timestamped files related to the website and/or backend
===============
Biggest defense against Activision is: - did your marketing team perform a google search of "warzone" when you were selecting names for your game in 2020? - did your marketing team try visiting the website warzone.com when you were selecting names for your game in 2020?
@C4nt3r Attorney fees in trademark cases are awarded to the prevailing party in "exceptional circumstances" only. That's not as rare as the wording might make it sound, but it's still the exception rather than the rule.
As far as these comments about Goliath always winning, etc. - not really. Trademark infringement at this level isn't that difficult or costly to defend; it's not a patent fight between Google and Samsung. I'm not minimizing the situation and I get that Activision has more money than Fizzer; I'm just saying that Activision's greater resources aren't necessarily going to enable them to dominate the action.
Finally, if I were Fizzer I would strongly consider offering to change the name back to Warlight. I never got the reason for the change, I still call it Warlight, and no one here is going to be confused or put off by it. Offering to take that step might even put a practical end to Activision's lawsuit by cutting off their damages, as they have to show consumer confusion to prevail (if I'm understanding the nature of the case correctly; I haven't read any court docs) .
I loved everything you said except the last part about going back to Warlight. Does anybody who joined after the name change like warlight more? I'm honestly asking. I truly think that anybody who thinks of Warlight as a better name is a person who just doesn't like change. Even change for the better is viewed as a negative.
My intention is not to attack you, aerial assault, and I apologise if you take offense.
The game was never called "Warlight". If I remember right the initial name "WarLight" came from Silverlight, a technology which the site is not even using.
That's correct, Norman, Microsoft Silverlight was the programming language used to initially create the game. this was before flash, itself before whatever it is now iirc.
Also it was warlight.net (still works) as opposed to warzone.com. it was much more difficult to tell people about verbally. warlight is not a word, while warzone (at least according to the court documents) is and the .com really helped too, before the app.
This has been debated endlessly, and WarLight is not only a more unique name with history in the game but it rolls off the tongue a lot better and is generally still used by a lot of players.
