This one actually throws for a loop.
About a week ago, Activision filed a complaint against an indie developer; specifically, the developer of a web-browser game titled Warzone. And, as you’d naturally expect, it’s over the usage of the title “Warzone”. To be even more to the point, this entire argument is over whether or not Activision has a right to title their game with “Warzone”.
After all, Randy Ficker, who developed Warzone (and is, in the complaint simply referred to as Warzone.com), created the strategy game (the site actually bills it as “Better than Hasbro’s RISK®”) in 2017. So open and shut case, he should be in the right, he’s the one being beat down by a large corporation, right?
Well…
As it turns out, he never trademarked the name. As a matter of fact, Activision trademarked “Warzone” for their game in June 2020, a few months after the mode went live. Whereas Ficker didn’t trademark anything until October 2020. But they’re still the ones filing a complaint against him, so they must still be in the wrong, right?
Well…
On November 20th, 2020, Warzone.com’s legal counsel sent a cease and desist letter to Activision, and “demanding that Activision ‘change the name of its games, stop using Warzone’s WARZONE mark, and abandon the trademark applications.’” Moreover, Warzone.com, per Activision’s account, has threatened legal action over the name, including seeking “massive damages” in recompense.
In essence, he wasn’t even on their radar to begin with, so:
Per the complaint:
Defendant’s threats of litigation and active efforts to block Activision’s trademark registrations have created an actual and live controversy as to the parties’ respective rights to use or register trademarks that include the word “Warzone.” Because Activision’s use of the “Warzone” title is both protected by the First Amendment and unlikely to cause consumer confusion, Activision is entitled to a declaration that it has not infringed Defendant’s alleged trademark and is entitled to have its pending trademark applications mature to registration.
Ficker, however, contends that there is confusion caused by the name. From a post on his GoFundMe for the legal battle:
Inconceivably, I get contacted all the time from people who are confusing our two games.
People tell me all about how their xbox can’t connect, or how their PS4 got hacked, how they wish they could carry teammates, etc. My game isn’t even on xbox or ps4. I send the same reply to each of them: “Warzone and Call of Duty: Warzone are different games. You should contact Activision.”
Years ago, I set up a category on twitch for fans of my game to stream it. Today, it’s filled with people streaming Activision’s game. Go look at it right now. That’s my logo, can you find even one person streaming my game? The regular streamers of my game are frustrated by this, but apparently it’s inconceivable to Activision that this could happen.
Randy, you are (in all likelihood) having mental laps run on you by zoomers. Also, sidenote:
While both parties sought a settlement, the process broke down after each side rejected a proposal, with Warzone.com leaving the table entirely after Activision refused to roll over. Per a statement made to Polygon by an Activision-Blizzard spokesperson:
The defendant named in this suit has baselessly threatened the company. We do not infringe his intellectual property. We are filing this action so the court can reject his frivolous and irresponsible claims.
My God, it’s like watching a disaster happen in slow motion.
Source: Polygon
About Author
