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.

Of there will be a real court hearing, I hope it will be on live stream.

Beren, I think part of it at the same time was the transition away from flash to unity, so a lot of it might have required some level of recoding and modifying the code.

How many times can you update a game before it becomes a new game?
"The video game of Theseus"

i get that reference XD

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.

Anyway hope that it all goes well but if we have to go back to the name warlight that is all good too

It's not good if Fizzer has to pay Activision's no doubt exorbitant lawyer costs...

Would you rather I became a member or donated half that on the go fund me page

member. it funds fizzer more. more money more good

activision is sus

I wonder why the name of this game is so important. Wouldnt it be easier to find a new name?