Activision is suing an indie developer over the 'Warzone' trademark

[JaseC64]

^^^

Yes, Sony/GG should sue Activision.

Also release Killzone: Warzone as the battle royal that they've been secretly working on. The title at least would make sense given the history of the mode with the franchise.

 

[BossAttack]

$10,000 counter offer? What a fucking joke.

Click to shrink...

His initial ask was insane. .25% of Warzone revenue is beyond crazy for use of a generic name.

 

[grand]

Is there any available way to crowdfund his legal efforts? Frankly I think a mass contribution for his defence against Activision and their absolutely disgusting behaviour would be so, so beautiful

Click to shrink...

Good luck dude, Activision as always are scummy as fuck. litigation battles against large entities are a lot of hard work and most likely activision's strategy would be to outlast/out money you.

Is there any way around this? I also wouldnt mind supporting him via gofundme or patreon if this is set up. Hopefully more journalists pick this up , review copies be damned.

Click to shrink...

I can't stress enough that people really shouldn't donate to this GoFundMe. This isn't a random person defending themselves with no money. This is the developer behind a rather successfully game with the assets to have both legally obtained the warzone domain for over $60,000 and to have started this legal process last year without complaint. They already have a lawyer for this issue and it's impossible to know the details of their legal contract with them (is flat rate? Hourly? Retainer? Contingency?). You simply can't safely deduce whether this indie developer actually requires help to afford the legal fees. At the very least they don't need the funds to start their defense as that's already happening.

 

[Senator Toadstool]

^^^

Yes, Sony/GG should sue Activision.

Also release Killzone: Warzone as the battle royal that they've been secretly working on. The title at least would make sense given the history of the mode with the franchise.

Click to shrink...

Sony never registered it and I don't believe you can sue unless you register which it looks like this guy did right after Activision contacted him according to the UPTO.

Also if you ever see TM on a product that doesn't mean it's registered. Any one can put it there kind of as evidence. ® is the mark for a registered copyright that's been granted

 

[Razgriz417]

what a generic word to sue over lol

 

[Deleted member 17184]

Activision is suing Warzone, organized by Randy Ficker

Hello, my name is Randy, and I’m being sued by Activision for being an indie game developer. … Randy Ficker needs your support for Activision is suing Warzone

www.gofundme.com

Click to shrink...

I'm guessing people are using whatever name they want to use in this GoFundMe.

 

[Senator Toadstool]

what a generic word to sue over lol

Click to shrink...

It's for use in video games right now ask gamers about playing warzone and 99% are going to identify call of duty. it's acquired a secondary meaning in the video game battle royale market (I don't think battle royale would be trademarkable in the gaming market as it'a merely discriptive). Activison wants to use warzone as a shorthand in the gaming market and have gamers know it's coming from them not anyone else. It's a source identifier. they're not copyrighting the name.

 

[SirNinja]

Here's hoping this doesn't result in a "Pra[e]y for the Gods"-type situation where the indie dev gets bullied into putting an unnecessary extra vowel into the name of his game, or something similarly dumb. He's got a good case, but Activision's got like a million times the money.

 

[Lukemia SL]

Dunno why but it reminds me of that dude who thought he owned the word Edge or something. Then Bethesda with the word Prey

edit wow SirNinja I replied to the first page and never saw your post lol.

 

[Whitemex]

When I think Warzone I think of WWF Warzone

Click to shrink...

No you see, there is clearly space between the words War and Zone so it's not the same.....some lawyer probably

 

[MysticGon]

On what fucking grounds, imminent domain? Kick rocks Activision.

 

[Smash-It Stan]

Bethesda sued Mojang over their game title "Scrolls" and they 'settled' but the trademark and everything around it went to Bethesda, who license the name out to Mojang now. It's dumb but other giant companies have done this before and won.

 

[Atheerios]

I don't think the creator of Warzone.com should be given permission to register the trademark for videogames either.

There are too many games in the past that have used Warzone as part of its name. A common word like that should never be owned by someone.

Let's not repeat the "Saga" saga.

 

[Vilam]

Neither of them seems particularly wrong. Activision should just "make him whole" with 60k like he claims he wants and they can both go their separate ways.

 

[Atom Heart Mother]

Bethesda sued Mojang over their game title "Scrolls" and they 'settled' but the trademark and everything around it went to Bethesda, who license the name out to Mojang now. It's dumb but other giant companies have done this before and won.

Click to shrink...

funny now that bethesda and mojang are now owned by the same parent company lol

 

[Senator Toadstool]

No you see, there is clearly space between the words War and Zone so it's not the same.....some lawyer probably

Click to shrink...

tm doesn't mean registered.

 

[Romir]

I still remember Nick Fisher's (aka trixter) original warzone.com from 25 years ago. It was named for the SubSpace ctf warzone. He later created the Gamefan which went bust after the dot com bubble. Sites including Penny Arcade were owed millions in banner revenue.The last we heard of Nick he was in jail for soliciting a minor.

 

[fanboi]

Wait. The indie developer sued first? Offered him cash to settle it? Then activision sued just to use the name warzone?

 

[Fularu]

I don't understand why people are painting Activision as some sort of vilains here. It's far more complicated than just « big corpo trampling small indie dev »

 

[ChristianM]

No doubt Activision are scum but I find it hard to side with the indie dev here. Generic name already used in several games and he decided to sue Activision for a ridiculous amount. Refused to settle an now being counter sued.

 

[panda-zebra]

I don't think the creator of Warzone.com should be given permission to register the trademark for videogames either.

There are too many games in the past that have used Warzone as part of its name. A common word like that should never be owned by someone.

Let's not repeat the "Saga" saga.

Click to shrink...

One of the more reasoned posts in this thread.

Warzone/War Zone/WarZone have been used for games for decades and are pretty generic, from the 8-bits, through 16-bits, from a series of 4 tank battle browsers games to a VR FPS as recently as 2019.

Buying the rights to a domain name doesn't come with any added bonuses over the use of it when the name is so generic. My take, given what's in the OP, is Ficker spied an opportunity to shake down Activision and he should have leapt at that 10k offer with open arms, but probably hoped for more if they were willing to do that so readily. His lawyer in the ear spying an opportunity... greed... whatever it was, turning that down and pushing harder put Activision on the offensive and surely that should have been the obvious outcome. I find the gofundme pretty distasteful in all honesty, a self-inflicted David and Goliath scenario where David wants zero risk of a loss with an army of backers to secure a payday I personally don't believe is deserved - fuck all chance I'd be giving money to that "cause"... there's actual worthy recipients out there that weren't on the prowl for free cash.

Activision can afford to make this as ugly as they like. but the best result here is they both get laughed out and told nobody has the right to lord over the phrase "warzone" as it's already ubiquitous in game titles.

 

[DealWithIt]

Good luck, David.

Click to shrink...

He's got a good case. I would probably take it on the facts in OP. Likely to get money from Activision. Probably not .25%, but not a crazy opening offer.

The mark is not insanely strong, but it might be good enough to win. If I were Activision I would not want the fight. A court could order you to rebrand.

 

[Veezy]

Wait. The indie developer sued first? Offered him cash to settle it? Then activision sued just to use the name warzone?

Click to shrink...

If I understand correctly, indie developer made Warzone. Then, that same developer bought the domain warzone.com. Then, Activision/Blizzard made CoD: Warzone. Activision/Blizzard trademarked the word "Warzone" and "Call of Duty: Warzone" in June of 2020. Later, in October of 2020, the indie developer also filed a trademark for "Warzone" and had their lawyer send a cease and desist. I'm assuming that the conversation, with more legalize, was "my client owns the domain, their game is literally Warzone, we have the prior historical stand on this name, so pay us some royalties on a consistent basis determined around the percentage of your sales, 0.25%, and we'll go away."

Activision/Blizzard said "Naw, son, we'll give you $10,000 to go away." The indie developer said "no, you make billions, I had the name first and the domain first, that's not enough." As time went by, Activision/Blizzard decided they were done debating and decided "we want that trademark to ourselves, you shouldn't have even disputed it since nobody would ever confuse our two products so you trying to set up the same trademark is bullshit, and for the trouble of us suing you, you need to pay our legal fees."

Ethically, and I could be wrong, I believe Activision/Blizzard is in the wrong. Warzone, as a domain, was purchased way before the trademark by Activision/Blizzard and even before they created CoD: Warzone. I'm assuming, and this is only an assumption, that the indie developer took the steps they did in response to the first trademark, fearing what could happen to them from a cash standpoint. Of course, what that developer was literally afraid of is happening. I don't think anybody should trademark "Warzone," but if that's the literal name of your game and Activision is trying to trademark it, I can see why somebody would be afraid.

Activision/Blizzard should lose. Unfortunately, I don't think they will. I think, and I'm not a lawyer, they'll argue "there's no confusion between the two, we technically trademarked the word first, we tried (in their definition) in good faith to negotiate a reasonable settlement, and they refused to be cooperative." Then, regardless of how bullshit that series of arguments is, they have billions and can just grind this out for years.

 

[Mr Swine]

Not the first time they sue for a trademark

Remember Cataclysm? Gearbox has to chance the name of Homeworld: Cataclysm to Homeworld: Emergence

 

[fanboi]

If I understand correctly, indie developer made Warzone. Then, that same developer bought the domain warzone.com. Then, Activision/Blizzard made CoD: Warzone. Activision/Blizzard trademarked the word "Warzone" and "Call of Duty: Warzone" in June of 2020. Later, in October of 2020, the indie developer also filed a trademark for "Warzone" and had their lawyer send a cease and desist. I'm assuming that the conversation, with more legalize, was "my client owns the domain, their game is literally Warzone, we have the prior historical stand on this name, so pay us some royalties on a consistent basis determined around the percentage of your sales, 0.25%, and we'll go away."

Activision/Blizzard said "Naw, son, we'll give you $10,000 to go away." The indie developer said "no, you make billions, I had the name first and the domain first, that's not enough." As time went by, Activision/Blizzard decided they were done debating and decided "we want that trademark to ourselves, you shouldn't have even disputed it since nobody would ever confuse our two products so you trying to set up the same trademark is bullshit, and for the trouble of us suing you, you need to pay our legal fees."

Ethically, and I could be wrong, I believe Activision/Blizzard is in the wrong. Warzone, as a domain, was purchased way before the trademark by Activision/Blizzard and even before they created CoD: Warzone. I'm assuming, and this is only an assumption, that the indie developer took the steps they did in response to the first trademark, fearing what could happen to them from a cash standpoint. Of course, what that developer was literally afraid of is happening. I don't think anybody should trademark "Warzone," but if that's the literal name of your game and Activision is trying to trademark it, I can see why somebody would be afraid.

Activision/Blizzard should lose. Unfortunately, I don't think they will. I think, and I'm not a lawyer, they'll argue "there's no confusion between the two, we technically trademarked the word first, we tried (in their definition) in good faith to negotiate a reasonable settlement, and they refused to be cooperative." Then, regardless of how bullshit that series of arguments is, they have billions and can just grind this out for years.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, the thread title is a but misleading, sounding like Activison is doing this out of the blue.

Sure, they should have offered way more then 10k, but the initial claim was insanity as well.

But you are right, they could stall this forever and bleed the smaller developer dry.

 

[Griffith]

Reminds me of when Mojang was sued by Bethesda for naming one of their games "Scrolls".

 

[KDR_11k]

Because it's just a MP mode and being able to trademark that kinda stuff would be fucking stupid.

Click to shrink...

You can trademark anything if you want to, every Pokemon name is trademarked. They probably didn't bother to.

 

[Veezy]

Yeah, the thread title is a but misleading, sounding like Activison is doing this out of the blue.

Sure, they should have offered way more then 10k, but the initial claim was insanity as well.

But you are right, they could stall this forever and bleed the smaller developer dry.

Click to shrink...

I'd understand the trademark on the phrase "Call of Duty: Warzone". Genuinely, I don't really see a problem with that. I can imagine some shovelware company naming a generic FPS a phrase similar to that to trick people. It's not crazy.

I actually agree that very few people would confuse the game Warzone with Call of Duty: Warzone. However, when Activision/Blizzard trademarked the word "Warzone," the initial developer was stuck. This is possibly projection, but from a business standpoint, I can imagine the panic of the literal name of your game being trademarked by a billion dollar corporation.

Did the indie developer ask for too much? Maybe, could have been a high ball offer to negotiate. I don't know. Was taking the $10k and avoiding all this the better choice. Depends, what were they thinking the long term impact of just taking the 10k would be? Ultimately, I think Activision/Blizzard are well aware of the power they wield in this situation and are making a small problem, to them, just go away. That, is pretty shitty.

 

[ToTheMoon]

The most critical part of this (for judging who's in the right) is sadly absent from the article: the negotiations. Did Activision say "There's no way we're going higher than 10k"? Did the indie dev say "I won't accept anything less than 0.25% of your revenue"? Who backed out? The article implies that he wants 60k now... did he let Activision know that at the time? Or did he decide to take a gamble on rejecting them so that he could stoke the flames and ride the publicity? The screenshot from the first page makes it seem like he's taking this lawsuit to advertise his game.

 

[Pyro]

Activision fucking sucks but the title of this thread is misleading because the indie developer is the one suing Activision for the name. Still, hope the little guy can win this one. Plus I can't believe Activision's so greedy they can't part with a quarter of a percent of revenue.

Man Killzone's Warzone mode ruled. I never did understand why no game since copied it.

Click to shrink...

Funnily enough I also first thought of Killzone. KZ2's Warzone mode, big maps, and potential for 2 & 1/2 hour matches (30 minutes for each objective) were legendary.

 

[Kolx]

Shit like warzone should not be owned by anybody.

 

[Vinx]

I don't understand why people are painting Activision as some sort of vilains here. It's far more complicated than just « big corpo trampling small indie dev »

Click to shrink...

People are painting Activision as the villain because they don't like Activision.

Which party is in the right and which party is in the wrong doesn't matter in this case.

 

[grand]

He's got a good case. I would probably take it on the facts in OP. Likely to get money from Activision. Probably not .25%, but not a crazy opening offer.

The mark is not insanely strong, but it might be good enough to win. If I were Activision I would not want the fight. A court could order you to rebrand.

Click to shrink...

It's actually a fairly bad case for the indie developer and they're very unlikely to get what they want. Their goal here is to advertise their game, raise legal funds through GoFundMe and get money out of Activision. But Activision's goal and the actual lawsuit is a legal battle about who should get to register the trademark for Warzone in videogames. Getting money out of Activision shouldn't be the end goal and will likely hurt his case.

Also a court can't order them to rebrand lol. The worst case scenario for Activation is the mark being deemed too generic to register but that the public consciousness of the term defends Activision's usage of it.

The indie developer really shouldn't have tried to play hard ball with the negotiations when they weren't even granted the registration rights of the trademark yet (and applied after Activision). But based on the quotes in the article, the indie developer does seem to be misreading this legal battle as a way towards a monetary settlement rather than gaining ownership of the trademark. It's no surprise that Activision walked away from negotiations and entered in the lawsuit if the indie developer was misunderstanding the situation to such a degree (which their initial offer suggests as any monetary settlement in this scenario should be a flat fee and never a portion of future profits. That would be a direct admission that the indie developer has some sort of ongoing ownership or liscense over the term, which they clearly don't.)

 

[jmsebastian]

People are painting Activision as the villain because they don't like Activision.

Click to shrink...

People aren't painting Activision as the villain. Activision is, in fact, a villain. They're a corporation. Is the indie dev good for trying to sue Activision? No. Trademarks are almost always BS and trying to secure one for a word as common as Warzone is ridiculous. That doesn't make Activision not a villain for flexing their legal muscle to essentially destroy an indie developer and prevent anyone else from using a common word in their game title. Two sides in a conflict can be villains, just look at Apple v. Epic. Both are such awful companies that they make cartoonishly evil corporations in movies look mild in comparison.

And Activision's history of being an awful company should be enough to turn anyone with an ounce of empathy against capitalism forever.

 

[DOA]

good thing neither of them used the word "scrolls" in the names, or that would have become a real clusterf*#k.

now seriously, i hope that this time will show the big companies what happens on the other side of the copyrights laws

 

[mutantmagnet]

$10,000 counter offer? What a fucking joke.

Click to shrink...

Out of touch billionaire business can't even guess the actual cost of that domain is higher than that.


Jokes aside its pretty harsh Ficker had to spend around 60k just to acquire the domain. Starting up a business can be very expensive even as sole proprietorship.