Well..... at least fizzer isn’t trying to cover it up by deleating forum posts

Strange that there is no opposition filed in Europe

EU TMs are first-to-file, hard to oppose on the basis of prior use absent public recognition.

Does that mean that Warzone might only used by Warzone.com LLC in USA?

No. Activision would need to establish infringement and/or get an injunction.
Separate issue, with not only bad PR but likely varying legal hurdles in the form of prior user protections.

ripped off or conned

Alternatively, all parties' actions could be interpreted charitably as sincere and reasonable. For example:

• Activision could be suing because they want to use legal fees to shut down an indie game over its name, or because they received a demand letter implying legal consequences and decided to call its bluff by taking the matter to court themselves.
  
• Warzone might be pursuing damages and an injunction because they want to control a word and get $, or they might just be maximizing Activision's perceived legal risk to expand their negotiating range and achieve a settlement where Activision subsidizes the costs of moving away from "warzone."
  
• I might've lied about retiring to end a conversation, or I might've meant it but unwisely checked the forums when logging out of my alts and noticed an accusatory extrapolation of my own analysis that made me uncomfortable.

Or something in between. Or something else entirely.

We just don't know these why's, and we often don't realize what we don't know. See https://www.warzone.com/Forum/543174-activision-suing-?Offset=296 - had no idea then about the letter labeling dispute, so I jumped to an unnecessarily speculative conclusion about motive (probably many more examples of my failures on this front, in this thread- glass houses, right?). This thread, since its early days, has been full of speculations about intent, especially ill intent. I suggest we learn from this and stick to what's more knowable- focusing on facts, predictive models, and real outcomes- instead of giving in to a failure mode of human reasoning by confidently claiming we understand others' intent. (Not to knock on Tomfool- your post is why I think it's good to be transparent and communicative about these judgements, so they can be discussed instead of buried and left to fester as they influence our decisions and interactions. My error in post #297 spurred others to surface the information I'd missed.)

If we want to understand, then we should also be understanding.

----

and noticed an accusatory extrapolation of my own analysis that made me uncomfortable

Please don't feel uncomfortable. It wasn't an accusatory extrapolation of your own analysis.

What I said was "I have absolutely no problem saying out loud what you think Knyte is thinking." Mike has continually insinuated that you may have unscrupulous motivations. At times it seems like he outright inculpates you (the way I do Fizzer). I tried to make it clear to him that you have been avoiding speculation.

Additionally, I didn't extrapolate based on what you have been saying. I developed my own opinion based on information that has come under my own cognizance. This information came from the legal documents, Fizzer's own statements, his GoFundMe nonsense, and also what you have been saying - as well as what others have said.

----

ripped off or conned
Alternatively, all parties' actions could be interpreted charitably as sincere and reasonable...Warzone might be pursuing damages and an injunction because...

When I opined that Fizzer may be ripping people off or conning them, I wasn't talking about the lawsuit. I was referring to the GoFundMe page. Even if his motivations are as you hypothesize, and he is possibly just trying to get Activision to foot the bill for a domain transition, he would still be misleading the people from whom he is asking support.

----
Knyte - I love the things you say and the way you say them. I enjoy reading your posts. You're obviously too brilliant for your own welfare (you might want to take out an insurance policy). But I think you might be giving yourself too much credit for other people's thoughts and contentions on this matter.

I'd also like to repeat what I said at the beginning of my post:

First let me make something clear: I can't read minds and I don't know everything that has ever happened. So what comes next is merely my philosophy based on what I do know.

I agree with you entirely that we can't possibly know people's intentions and we shouldn't claim to know things which are unknowable. However, I don't think speculation is without value. Sometimes it's reasonable, and perhaps necessary, to postulate; to surmise.

----

Well..... at least fizzer isn’t trying to cover it up by deleating forum posts

That is truthfully something that has been giving me cause to stop and consider Fizzer's guiltlessness.

If I may, let me say this--
If it turns out that someday we find that Fizzer was doing the good and just thing all along - that he was needlessly and shamefully targeted by Activision; that instead of crumbling in fear and retreat, he bravely stood up to the corporate tyrant with the help of the little people who have proudly supported him all along, and in the process secured a legal precedent that will benefit intellectual property underdogs for generations:
I will happily apologize and take back everything I said.

Nevertheless, Fizzer does not have to answer to me or any of his detractors in the first place.

Also, Mike, please forgive me. I started my first post by mentioning you because I thought it was a clever way to introduce my own opinion. I love my own opinions and will use any excuse declare them.

Moreover, when I said:

Mike has continually insinuated that you may have unscrupulous motivations. At times it seems like he outright inculpates you (the way I do Fizzer).

I meant it half in jest, partly sarcastic, and a just smidge seriously.

;-)

How to win warlight argument:

-read 1000 word comments
-respond in a 5000 word comments

conditions: use formal, intellectual language

profits?

knyte bites back with 10000 word comments.


response: bar is set higher. Now you must
write a book about Fizzer's psychoanalysis and tell Activision's lawyers what they're doing wrong,
and tell them solution to win the case.

Yea what the fuck.
I for the part find it absolutely irrelevant who is "right." I just want the outcome where Fizzer will continue to support and improve the game i love without too much costs for myself.

conditions: use formal, intellectual language

Betcher ass, son!

I have found yet another video of someone talking about this dispute, this time from another lawyer. This lawyer, Leonard French, goes in-depth talking about Fizzer's counter to Activision's initial case, Activision's 1st attempt to dismiss the dispute, Fizzer's counter-statement to negate Activision dismiss plea, Activision's 2nd attempt at dismissal, and Fizzer's claims in the GoFundMe.

Video was published on 11/1/21 (Nov 1, 2021)
https://youtu.be/ft3LSNsMivk

thanks for sharing Splat! I think there's hope for our Warzone!

also thx to Splat! interesting. Especially interesting that even this lawyer does not dare to predict how the case will go. oO

Hmph

To this day I still type "www.warlight.net" to get here.

At the time of the rebranding to Warzone it seemed to me that changing the name to a generic English word could have detrimental consequences. After all, the purpose of branding isn't creating a name that makes sense to people, it's creating a name that people remember.

My brain will forever associate this game with the name "Warlight" for exactly the reasons that it IS NOT a commonly used generic English term.

Warlight was better branding than Warzone in the first place because it did exactly what branding is supposed to do: Make a product memorable and stand out from the crowd.

Litigation is expensive. It is also all-consuming of ones life for an independent individual. Big companies don't suffer from fatigue. They don't suffer from the expense of lawsuits like this one.

Speaking from experience, it is very difficult to back down from a legal battle when you feel you are in the right and you've been putting your heart, soul, and energy into it... but maybe in this case the energy would be better spent in re-rebranding to the brand that made this game in the first place. The one that is memorable and unique. The one that is close to the hearts of all the players who've been faithfully playing the game for years. The one we all remember.

I have no interest in questioning Fizzer's motives or tactics like some have. The fact is... none of us would be here if he hadn't created this game. None of this would matter to any of us.

Thanks, Fizzer, for making a great game. The things I've stated in this post were in the interest of being constructive so I hope you understand that in the event that you read this.