Oh no

U.S. civil and procedural law

The US civil process differs fundamentally from civil law proceedings in continental European legal systems.

Additional information:
American civil justice

The American judicial system is two-tiered, that is, there are courts at the federal level ("Federal Courts"), namely in three instances, namely

the United States District Courts
the United States Courts of Appeal
the United States Supreme Court



There are also the courts of the individual states ("State Courts"), which also have three instances. In California, for example, they are

the Superior Courts of California
the California Courts of Appeal
the California Supreme Court

The competences of the Federal Courts and the State Courts partly overlap, partly they are mutually exclusive (see below). There is no obligation to represent a lawyer in American proceedings - unlike in proceedings before the regional courts in Germany.

American civil procedural law is not pure case law based solely on precedent judgments, but is codified to a certain extent, both at the national level through the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (USC Title 28), as well as at the state level through state civil procedure codes, such as the California Code of Civil Procedure.

According to these procedural rules, the role of the court is different from that of a court in German civil proceedings. Thus, the judge has a role that guides the proceedings rather than deciding the proceedings. Only legal questions are decided by the judge, the determination of the facts relevant to the decision is in most cases left to a jury (so-called “finder of facts”). Procedural declarations or decisions (such as the application or briefs accompanying the process) are always served within the party and not ex officio.

The requirements for the content of an application are far less strict than in Germany. As a rule, a general designation of the basis of the claim without a detailed explanation of the facts is sufficient (so-called “notice pleading” or “code pleading”) without the claim being rejected as unsubstantiated. A quantified complaint is usually not required. The background to this is that after a lawsuit has been filed, a fact-finding process (“discovery”) is carried out in which the parties are given the opportunity to collect information on the facts relevant to the decision.

A major difference to German civil proceedings is that, regardless of the outcome of the proceedings, each party usually bears its own legal fees. A claim for reimbursement of costs by the opponent usually does not exist or only to a limited extent even in the event of victory.

There is no fee schedule for lawyers comparable to the German Lawyers' Remuneration Act (RVG). Rather, in contractual matters, an hourly fee is usually agreed, with hourly rates between USD 200.00 and USD 500.00 (sometimes even more) to be expected. In criminal cases, such as accident cases or class actions, contingency fees are also common, ranging from 30 - 40% of the amount to be fought.

The actual court costs are independent of the amount in dispute and are a flat rate per claim. In the United States Court for the Northern District of California in Francisco, for example, the fee for filing a lawsuit is currently USD 400.00 (as of 09/2015).

For those who have some experience but have no idea what they are doing across the Atlantic.

can we get an update fizzer

I don't know what it's like compared to other countries, but the courts here seem to move very slowly. Especially if one side is very well funded and does everything in its power to drag it out. That seems like the obvious legal strategy for Activision, to just file every possible motion to delay as much as possible, which would drain Fizzers bank account and force him to settle or give up or something. I believe we (as Americans) only have the right to a speedy trial in criminal proceedings, while this is a civil case.

And when I say slowly, I mean the first thing to happen (even without one side delaying) is usually months after the initial filing.

It's rather ironic. The name change was almost universally hated by the old warlighters. But Fizzer insisted anyway. No one in the community thought the name needed changing. The thread where it was announced was pretty damning evidence of why it was a bad idea. Someone might have even mentioned that the name was already used before but my memory of it is hazy.

I remember the old cards, too. They were clean looking and abstract, they matched the game well. Now they are faced with completely pointless and stupid cartoons. The game is "fought" with just numbers anyway not tanks or even soldiers. It makes no sense. There was ZERO reason to change them as well, but Fizzer insisted anyway. It seems that Fizzer wanted some cheesy game marketed towards toddlers. Just look at the logo, it doesn't actually match the game at all.

Now he is being sued for a decision that should have never happened in the first place. Good Riddance.

I stopped playing like 6 years ago. Warlight was greatest back before coins and levels and points. No idea why I'm even here, I got bored and remembered the nostalgia and spent like an hour trying to find my old account (I still thought I was Brown Nose the Pirate) and it took me several levels of "forgot password" just to get here again.

(Although, I will admit Fizzer would be completely redeemed in my mind if he released an "Old School Warlight" a la Old School Runescape, that ran an old version of the game but perhaps with the better AIs)

Edited 5/2/2021 02:23:17

@ADDERALL XR

If small design changes like this is enough to write comments like these, we're all better off without you. Hope you stay away for another 6 years.

Edited 5/2/2021 23:48:17

God I love the Internet. always gives something to entertain me with.

*me realising that I can edit comments on mobile now :D*

Edited 5/2/2021 20:00:10

"we're all better off without you. Hope you stay away for another 6 years. "

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wd3PJHCrQ7k

How is the lawsuit going got any news on it?

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

---

The defense has 60 days from April 9, 2021, to respond to the summons. That'll be Tuesday, June 8, 2021.

I checked PACER today to see if any new documents had been filed with the court- nothing interesting, just standard procedural stuff like Fizzer's lawyers waiving their right to a service of summons. It looks like the Judge in charge of the case initially has recused herself for having a financial interest in one of the named parties (she probably owns Activision stock) and the case has moved to a new judge. If you are curious about when to expect updates and how the rest of the case will go, the new judge filed an Initial Standing Order which more or less details how the rest of this process will go. I've uploaded this doc on my Drive so you can view it without having to get the doc from the court (https://drive.google.com/file/d/16slWvC-90H0LkxdPwGavkAKYB3YafYyZ/view?usp=sharing).

Edited 6/7/2021 05:56:19

thx

recused herself for having a financial interest in one of the named parties (she probably owns Activision stock)

bold of you to assume she isn't Fizzer's lover.

or she could just be a lover of the big, fortnite style game mode on call of duty.

Clearly no viable case for Activision. Warzone an established name, in use, for financial gain. This automatically qualifies it for copyright protection. Request for remuneration to sell the name are always done when one party wishes to obtain use of the name. This is not illegal or improper and is an excellent, established business model going back over 150 years. There is nothing in copyright law about one have more use for a name than another. It is simply, "I used the name for my business", "No one else established prior use of the name", "I have any documented use of the name of any kind for any duration" (website for more than 1 second), and "I used it in the course of making money" (establishes liability for the company attempting to take the name". The countersuit AGAINST Activition involves, 1) "They used the name I (Warzone) had previously established and made money from it" (Must be within the same industry, i.e. Computer Gaming), and/or, 2) "They damaged MY business in using the name". Both of these are definitely true as, 1) They named their game with the name Warzone and they made money from selling the games" and 2) Google (#1 search engine) does NOT show as first result MY business, causing MY potential customers to go to the wrong page, thereby costing me money.

The suit by Activision Fails and demands compensation (remuneration) AND the Countersuit Succeeds, as the copyright to the name was already established AND Warzone.com lost money. ALL Legal fees and costs for Warzone.com legal defence (including all documented time spent on that defense must be paid by Activition, AND all estimated losses to revenues do to improper website redirects in the search engine. FURTHER, if it can be show that Activision motivated Google to not list Warzone.com first (email of any kind), GOOGLE can be successfully sued for damages to Warzone.com income.

I am sure Warzone owners have been made aware of all this by their lawyers, but I thought I would throw all this out for the members.

All of this is not rocket science, it is well-established in court proceedings for thousands of cases that the lawyer will locate with 15 minutes of labor.

Edited 5/5/2021 04:31:44

But then again why would Activision sue knowing full well that the case is aginst them because every single thing u said karl about copy right is in fizzer's favour

they must have a trick up there sleeve.

The trick is money.

They have more, so they can fight for longer.

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

---

because every single thing u said karl about copy right

1) This is a trademark case, not a copyright case.
2) Take any unsolicited legal opinions (or advice) about specific cases on the internet with about 3-4 tons of salt. For malpractice and liability reasons, lawyers overwhelmingly avoid providing this type of legal commentary since, if it gets taken as legal advice and backfires, they may be on the hook (https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Liability+for+giving+bad+legal+advice+on+the+Web.-a020409874). So the vast majority of legal commentary about specific cases on the internet tends to come from people without legal training or people with some legal knowledge who vastly overestimate how much legal knowledge they have (like the cops on reddit's /r/legaladvice sub).

Edited 6/7/2021 05:56:30

I'm going to second what l4v.r0v said.

I just graduated law school and am currently studying for the bar exam. I'm also a registered practitioner with the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, and have read Activision's complaint in detail. I worry that a lot of misinformation about this case has been shared, including on this thread. That misinformation may not have any consequences really; at the end of the day, a court will hear this case and qualified people will make arguments and decisions.

But I suggest you all keep an open mind and refrain from making conclusions from wrong information. I too will refrain from making any conclusions on this public thread, but I feel the need to say one thing - Activision's legal claims are far stronger than many of you are making them out to be.

Legal arguments are not as simple as one party being right and one party being wrong. Often, both parties can make good arguments. Activision can make many good arguments in this case.

If you wish to discuss morality, that's a separate question entirely. While the law strive to abide by morality, the law and morality are not always aligned. Whether Activision has a legally correct claim/defense under trademark law is not the same question as whether they are morally correct in this situation. And yes, the lawsuit involves trademark law, not copyright law. The two are different and should not be conflated.

I mean the gist of Activision's strength is that they're saying warzone is a commonly used term, and thus not protected, right? Obviously this very much depends on the case, but as I understand it the warzone game name had not been previously trademarked, right?

I think that if warzone, the game, had been trademarked this would have been a tougher case.