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.

on my mobile app there is a box checked on the bottom left corner that says watch this thread. De-Select that.

I guess Randy Ficker won't reply in this thread again.
I have played 7 years and this probably will be my only community post.
I don't think Randy will be able to "turn things around" after this. You've done a lot of good thing with and for this game, and blundered a fair bit of times as well.
I only hope that you look into Warzone's future and find a way to manage this game adequatedly.

On regards to the trial, I'd say that no drastic outcome will occur.

Activision responded to Warzone.com, LLC's counterclaim with a motion to dismiss the counterclaim and grant judgement on the trademark infringement pleadings. You can find it at https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oBDBQMIS8WVzTylVI-PrlEg22lF4P5nJ/view?usp=sharing

I highly recommend reading it if you don't understand what Activision's argument is or believe this is going to be a clear-cut victory for Warzone.com, LLC, if they just show up in court. It's also very spicy (see the footnotes) and a fun quick read. The first paragraph makes Activision's case for why this is actually a clear-cut victory for Activision:

This case presents a textbook example of trademark overreach. Defendant and Counterclaimant Warzone.com, LLC (“Counterclaimant”) is a game developer that distributes a game titled Warzone. Though Counterclaimant’s Warzone is just one of more than a dozen games whose title includes that common English word “warzone,” by this lawsuit, Counterclaimant seeks to prevent Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant Activision Publishing, Inc. (“Activision”) from using the word “warzone” as a subtitle for an installment in its enormously popular Call of Duty series of games – notwithstanding that Activision’s Call of Duty game is about military combat in a virtual warzone.

If you're waiting for the next update, we should get something by late August. The date Activision keeps referring to is August 27, 2021, but things might happen earlier or later.

---

Quick recap for those just tuning in: There's two claims (cases) in play.
Activision v. Warzone.com, LLC, which stems from Activision's claim, seeks to force Warzone.com, LLC, to drop any claims of trademark infringement against Activision. This case also claims that "warzone" is a descriptive word mark- in other words, that the word "warzone" merely describes a game like Call of Duty: Warzone (which takes place in a virtual warzone). Descriptive word marks are usually not granted trademark protection, except when they have gained secondary meaning in the minds of consumers (like "Sharp" has for Sharp televisions). In full, Activision claims that "warzone" just describes the game but when someone hears "warzone," they think Call of Duty: Warzone. This is important because trademarks are supposed to be source identifiers rather than product identifiers- so they're arguing that "warzone" in a video game makes the consumer believe they're dealing with Activision. Accordingly, Activision asks for the court to grant them the trademark registration for "warzone" (which Warzone.com, LLC, has objected to), to grant them the trademark for "Call of Duty Warzone" (which Warzone.com, LLC, has also objected to, claiming it violates their own "warzone" trademark), and (obviously) to deny Warzone.com, LLC, their requested trademark registration for "warzone."

In response to Activision v. Warzone.com, LLC, Warzone.com, LLC filed a trademark infringement counterclaim against Activision- Warzone.com, LLC v. Activision. They claim that "warzone" is either a suggestive word mark or an arbitrary word mark, both of which are inherently distinctive (and therefore trademarkable by whoever is the first to use them). A suggestive mark is a mark that relates to the product but requires some non-obvious logical leaps to connect it- for example, "Gorilla Glue" suggests something to do with strong glue (gorillas have strong grip) but the connection is non-obvious enough that, if you hear "Gorilla Glue" you only think of one company's brand rather than strong adhesives in general. An arbitrary mark is a mark that has some meaning but that meaning is totally unrelated to the product- like "Apple" for the computer company- so that consumers hear "Apple" in the context of computers and only think of one brand, not some specific types of computer products. Furthermore, Warzone.com, LLC, claims that Activision has infringed upon their trademark by naming their game Call of Duty: Warzone, and therefore Warzone.com, LLC, asks the court to prevent Activision from further using the word "warzone" to sell their video games and/or make Activision pay Warzone some amount of money to make them whole, plus some additional money for bad behavior (intentionally infringing on someone's trademark). Specifically, Warzone.com, LLC, claims reverse consumer confusion, which is a special case of trademark infringement (consumer confusion) where a big company jumps in with a product that uses the smaller company's brand, causing consumers to associate the brand with the big company instead. Note that proving Activision is a big company and that their use of "warzone" harmed Warzone.com, LLC, isn't enough: Warzone.com, LLC, still has to prove that they have a trademark and that this trademark was infringed upon. It's perfectly legal if someone destroys your business in fair competition; what Warzone.com, LLC, has to instead prove is unfair competition- and their path to doing so here is by proving that Activision had no right to use "warzone."

The latest: Activision had until today to respond to the counterclaim by Warzone.com, LLC. They asked for and (with Warzone.com, LLC's agreement) received one one-month deadline extension so they and Warzone.com, LLC, could come to a settlement and not have to go to court. Today, as the deadline extension ran out, they filed a strongly-worded motion to dismiss Warzone's claims (of trademark infringement) as their response to the counterclaim.

They ask for the judge, on August 27, 2021 (or as soon as possible after that), to dismiss the counterclaim and end the countersuit. This would still leave the original claim- and the question of who gets the registered trademark for "warzone"- in play.

You can read it here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oBDBQMIS8WVzTylVI-PrlEg22lF4P5nJ/view?usp=sharing
And find the other main documents here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oBDBQMIS8WVzTylVI-PrlEg22lF4P5nJ/view?usp=sharing

---

Facts we don't have: As we gawk at these documents, it's worth remembering that a lot of the information about this case is non-public. For example:

- We do not know how the settlement negotiations are going (although with the latest document, I suspect not well)

- We do not know what amounts of money are being asked for or offered in settlement. Per https://www.washingtonpost.com/video-games/2021/06/04/warzone-name-lawsuit/, Warzone.com, LLC, initially asked for 0.25% of Call of Duty: Warzone's profits (we don't know how profitable CODWZ is, but per Activision, Warzone.com, LLC, "demanded millions of dollars in damages"), while Activision countered with $10,000- this happened before April 2021. We can make informed speculations about what the parties might be offering- e.g., Activision's legal fees if they pursue this case to its end (and win) can easily get into the six figures, so rationally they would save money if they offered Warzone.com, LLC, a settlement offer less than that. But of course, we don't know whether the parties are being reasonable- for all we know, Activision could be offering $1 and demanding Warzone.com, LLC, shut down their game, or Warzone.com, LLC, might still be asking for millions of dollars in damages.

- We do not know what's going on with the dispute around the alleged cease-and-desist letter. We know that Activision claimed that Warzone.com, LLC, sent them a cease-and-desist on November 20, 2020. Although Fizzer claimed several times- on this thread and elsewhere- that Activision fabricated a "flat-out 100% lie," apparently out of thin air- we now know that Warzone.com, LLC, sent Activision a letter on November 20, 2020. However, Warzone.com, LLC, disputes whether this letter was a cease-and-desist letter. While the letter has been submitted into evidence by Warzone.com, LLC, it is not public (as far as I can tell). We do not know what the contents of this letter are. That said, we again can make informed speculations: we know, from a direct quote in Activision's initial claim, that this letter contains the phrases "change the name of its games, stop using Warzone’s WARZONE mark, and abandon the trademark applications." This could be in the context of (as Activision claims) demanding Activision do all those things, or it may have simply been a statement by Warzone.com, LLC, that a court might make Activision do all those things if they go to court and lose (but that's also something you'd put in a cease-and-desist letter). We know, in general, that this letter has something to do with Activision ceasing its use of the alleged "warzone" mark, and that it in some way hints at the idea of Activision having to potentially pay massive damages (per Activision's characterization) in court if they do not do those things. For what it's worth, "cease and desist" isn't some legally meaningful term that triggers special behavior, there's nothing particularly special about C&D letters (they're just a common practice, not some magical class of legal document), and what counts as a cease-and-desist letter is really broad. It's not clear to me why the characterization of the 2020/11/20 letter as "cease-and-desist" is in dispute, especially since the discourse in this thread and elsewhere around Activision's C&D claim has more to do with whether Warzone.com, LLC, initiated the fight by poking the bear and asking for millions, rather than whether they specifically did so in the form of a cease-and-desist letter.

And, crucially:
- We do not know Warzone.com, LLC's response to the various claims and legal arguments in Activision's motion to dismiss. We'll hopefully get them soon, and I hope they're just as spicy!

Disclaimer: While this update attempts to be even-handed, its author is not impartial and looks forward to an Activision win.

Edited 7/30/2021 13:00:38

"It's perfectly legal if someone destroys your business in fair competition; what Warzone.com, LLC, has to instead prove is unfair competition."

Lol by that logic you could sue the whole court system as winning by having more money to abuse deadline extensions in in principle also unfair competition for justice.

having more money to abuse deadline extensions in in principle also unfair competition for justice.

What do you mean by this? Activision's deadline extension for the settlement negotiation had been mutually agreed upon by both parties. And they look like they're trying to speed up the case, which is probably in their best interest since legal risk is not fun to deal with for a 70 billion dollar publicly traded company.

Abuse of the legal system can sometimes go punished, though so far nothing here looks abusive unless your bar for abuse is merely going to court with good lawyers.

Edited 7/30/2021 10:09:26

Okay i did not know this.

in response to the latest news of activisons staffs letter that activison dismissed. it looks to be that 1000s of activison staff are due to walkout. that's the rumours at least

gg sus with the Texas flag

Hello, Fizzew!

Thanks for the update Knyte!

https://www.avclub.com/blizzard-president-j-allen-brack-steps-down-following-1847413979


President of Blizzard Entertainment, J. Allen Brack, has officially left his position at the company. His exit comes weeks after Activision Blizzard was sued by the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing for rampant discrimination and sexual harassment. The company allegedly fostered a “frat boy culture” at the $65 billion gaming company.

Activision Blizzard president and COO Daniel Alegre said Brack “is leaving the company to pursue new opportunities,” in a released statement Tuesday. The press release makes no mention of the ongoing scandal or of Brack’s potential role in it.

Starting his career at the company in 2006, Brack took over as president of Blizzard in 2018 after co-founder Michael Morhaime left in 2018. The former president is specifically named in the scathing lawsuit as one of the many company executives who were allegedly aware of the discrimination and harassment against women employees and “failed to take effective remedial measures in response to these complaints.” In one instance, an employee told Brack that women on the Battle.net team were “subjected to disparaging comments, the environment was akin to working in a frat house, and that women who were not ‘huge gamers’ or ‘core gamers’ and not into the party scene were excluded and treated as outsiders.”

In the wake of Brack’s departure, EVP of development Jen Oneal and Mike Ybarra, EVP and GM of platform and technology, have been appointed co-leaders of Blizzard.