Hi Fizzer,

so i try to follow this issue and want to have a look at your trademark. But i can't find anything on USPTO (United States Patent and Trademark Office) or DPMA (to have a look from germany) or euipo.europa.eu.
However i do find the activision one: https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4804:7mhy36.5.4

Why is that so? Have i done something wrong?

Thank you very much.
I hope that everything will be allright for you and warzone.com :)

Edited 4/15/2021 14:54:14

yo but the UK is not part of the EU anymore so would it count here. I doubt it but now u worry me :0

I agree with my friend Kratt. This situation is a unifying common cause for the community. You have my support and donation, comrade Fizzer.

trademark law varies around the world.
if the EU deadline is approaching then you must oppose it fast
In the USA it is to do with who used it first.
in the EU it is to do with who registered it first but there is a period you can oppose it in. And you have IMHO a winning case.
I can pass on details of a UK based person that could handle this for you a trademark specialist and advise about other parts of the world also
A solo specialist like you so not a massive city law firm which will cost more.
I am sure she will give you a starter session for free

Sadly, due to COVID, I'm not in situation to donate and all I can do right now is what I did, buy a month membership and try to spread the word about this. I'm sure even if you lose, it's not the end of the game, you can always change the name of the game, and community will be with you.

@Mark the problem I guess is to oppose in EU too, it's more money to spend.And the worst part of this, is that Activision has the money to just extend this to consume Fizzer resources. Activision don't cares if they are right or not. They can just throw the money winning at the end getting their opponents exhausted.



BTW, I don't know how much Fizzer needs. I mean, AFAIK he didn't explained how the money will be spent. If it's the money his lawyer asked, or if it's the money needed in case he loose. Because if he lose, I think he will have to pay his lawyer and Activision costs.

Why Activision, WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!?

@C4nt3r: Money spend is one thing, money long term lost is another.

@KoЯni

If you search for Warzone in the patent site you'll find 12 listings for that word alone, of which seven are dead. Of the five 'live' ones, the top two are Fizzer's (serial number 90290658 and 90290628 for service mark and trademark respectively). Then there's Activision's and then there are two more for unrelated things (subwoofers and cigars) which shouldn't conflict with games. I see that the requests are for standard character marks, which answers my previous question about whether this is about the word in general or some more specific design element (it's for the word in general), and therefore Fizzer is right to fight it.

Bunch of Warzone trademarks expired, registered, filed....
https://www.tmdn.org/tmview/welcome#/tmview

The biggest concern I see would be the brand "EVE: VALKYRIE - WARZONE" trying to inpugn the brand "WARZONE" because it has the previous use.

"WARZONE"
first use: 2017-11-13
Serial Number: 90290658 (live)
Goods and Services: IC 041. US 100 101 107. G & S: Providing online non-downloadable game software

"EVE: VALKYRIE - WARZONE"
first use: 2017-09-26
Serial Number: 87512201 (live)
Goods and Services: IC 041. US 100 101 107. G & S: Entertainment services, namely, providing on-line computer games; Entertainment services, namely, providing online video games; Entertainment services, namely, providing an on-line computer game

Edited 4/15/2021 18:39:31

In my point of view, this case is a common procedure for granting a trademark.
The examiner pointed out two previous marks, filed by Activision, so Fizzer has six months to prove the first use of the "WARZONE" brand to be granted as a trademark.

SUMMARY OF ISSUES:

- Prior-Filed Applications (U.S. Application Serial No. 90020455 and 90020487)
- Specimen Refusal (Webpage specimen does not include required date printed/accessed)

see:
https://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn90290658&docId=OOA20210407133713#docIndex=0&page=1

this was the last document published by the USPTO site:

see - documents tab:
https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=90290658&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch

Therefore, the correct response to this procedure required by the USPTO examiner is essential for the civil action decision to be declared in favor of Warzone.com, LLC

@Fizzer, I think you should forward in response to the USPTO examiner's request a copy of a screenshot and the own link of some video published on youtube containing the "warzone" mark proving its prior use before 2020-04-10, or even better before 2017-09-26.

btw, I didn’t read all the previous posts, maybe you’ve already solved this issue through legal advice

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SY3AXPwBFcs&t=60s

Edited 4/15/2021 21:15:57

Something like this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzRRWc8DRSg

Or even this, published in March 2020: https://youtu.be/AkQn1pIZdY4

When you search for Warzone on Youtube only COD videos come up...

Response options. Applicant may respond to this refusal by satisfying one of the following for each applicable international class:

(1) Submit a verified statement, in a signed affidavit or supported by a declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20 or 28 U.S.C. §1746, specifying the URL of the original webpage specimen and the date it was accessed or printed.

(2) Submit a different specimen (a verified “substitute” specimen), including the URL and date accessed/printed directly on the specimen itself or in a separate statement, that (a) was in actual use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application or prior to the filing of an amendment to allege use and (b) shows the mark in actual use in commerce for the goods and/or services identified in the application or amendment to allege use. Applicant must also submit the following statement made in a signed affidavit or supported by a declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20: “The substitute (or new, or originally submitted, if appropriate) specimen(s) was/were in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application or prior to the filing of the amendment to allege use.”

(3) Amend the filing basis to intent to use under Section 1(b) (which includes withdrawing an amendment to allege use, if one was filed), as no specimen is required before publication. This option will later necessitate additional fee(s) and filing requirements, including a specimen.

For an overview of the response options referenced above and instructions on how to satisfy these options using the online Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, see the Specimen webpage:

https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/laws/specimen-refusal-and-how-overcome-refusal

Edited 4/15/2021 20:59:15

Hoeg Law just made a video about this case earlier today.

https://youtu.be/PXpVqYZw92w

August/25/2017
https://www.warzone.com/blog/index.php/2017/08/

October/25/2017
https://www.warzone.com/blog/index.php/2017/10/

Edited 4/16/2021 02:10:48

I noticed how all of the articles about this end with "we've reached out to Activision for a comment" but never to Warzone.com

Fizzer, have you been contacted by any reporters?

Hoeg Law mistakenly called Warzone a sequal to Warlight in his video.

"In 2017, the game was re-written from scratch with a ton of new features and launched as Warzone, the sequel to WarLight." that's what fizzer writes himself....

I know that’s what Fizzer says, but it always struck me as strange. Warzone isn’t a sequel to Warlight; it’s a rebranding of the same game.