Activision Mad About Modern Warfare 3 Site, Trying to Get it Taken Down

[Fursnake]

I'm disappointed that the Justin Bieber icons don't have a cheesey moustache and/or some blacked out teeth on them...

 

[Vibhor]

Legally, Activision has a case on this. You can deny it all you want, the law will give them that domain.

We'll see that soon enough

 

[thepyrethatburns]

If they win, it really goes go to show just how much power corporations have in america. They do whatever they want, always get there way and fair and just mean nothing compared to the bottom line.

Pretty much this. Having read the somewhat more complete Gamespot article yesterday, the domain was bought in 2009 which was before Modern Warfare 3 was announced. Yes, you could have predicted MW3 was coming but that also strikes me as being part of the dangerous part of this. If a corporation can make the argument "Well, they should have predicted that we would one day want this domain name" (and they will), then the power will be quickly expanded for any and all cases where a corporation wants a domain name. If Activision wins this, it will set a precedent regarding website ownership equivalent to Kelos vs. London.

Still, in American judicial cases involving the expansion of corporate powers vs individual rights, always bet on the corporation. Activision has probably got this one.

 

[koroem]

This whole thing amuses me greatly. A marvelously simple troll of Activision with delicious use of thier own foolishness.

This. I hope Activision's complaint gets ignored and this website is allowed to stay as is. It should teach them a good lesson.

EDIT WTF is the site down now?

 

[Quillan]

what if someone were to patent Mw4s name? what would happen then?

OFFT:I have a litle experiment that I need to work out I probabely will be banned for this but Hopefully I won't

come on press it for science I want to see if it works it probabley won't though

YOU, dear Sir, are the devil o0

I second that.

Is there a way to get rid of it?

 

[omega 616]

And in similar news they also snapped up the sites "modern warfare 4-99". Lets face it, there's going to be plenty more of them coming.

Well done who ever did it though, EA should give you a free game.

My (annoying as fuck) captcha is: "mother approved" that's how good this is!

 

[Atmos Duality]

Unless Activision sues for damages, this was a (small) victory for EA.
Simply put, the cost of registering those domains will pale in comparison to the legal costs of acquiring those names.

 

[Spartanmk1]

anyone else notice that the domain is now down. You can no longer access "Modernwarfare3.com"

This is a hilarious turn of events. Oh god, I love the internet.

 

[opiwankenobi]

I second that.

Is there a way to get rid of it?

Just wait 24 agonizing hours.

 

[opiwankenobi]

Is there a way to get rid of it?

Just wait 24 agonizing hours.

 

[shrekfan246]

Ah Activision, when will you start acting like grown ups? I'm starting to think that it's Activison employees we hear online screaming racist/homophobic slurs whenever anybody mentions another game.

Actually, that IS the grown up way of dealing with it. They are required, by trademark law, to defend their trademarks or have them nullified. They cannot 'let it go' like some people think.

The grownup thing to do is to protect their trademarks rather than lose 'modern warfare' and prevent further use of it by the company.

The childish way of doing it would be to ignore it and think it'd go away.

Snip-3: The Last Snip

This isn't a case like where the WWE had to change their name because it had the same abbreviation as the World Wildlife Fund. This is a case where a trademark owned by Activision was used to link to a competitor's product. This isn't 'iffy.' As much as you can hate Activision, they're not the villains in this. It's a funny prank... but it's a funny prank with very serious repercussions. Activision's not going after the company that owns the domain, which IS the high road here. They have every right to.

I wish more people understood this as well as you do. And

Is Battlefield 3 not a game set in modern times with warfare involved? is it not the third installment (sort of) in its series?

Anyway Activision can do whatever the hell they want, I'm still not buying anymore of those steaming piles they try shovel out for the subhuman morons and those poor souls misled into thinking this one might just be a return to the old days of CoD.

Yes, because Battlefield is the antithesis of CoD, with its high-browed, classy shooters for people who have servants bring them food and drink all day because they can't be bothered to leave their plush, comfy couches where they are being fanned by scantily clad females; It just is so eclectic and most certainly not a brown game rendered in every color of the "Grit" spectrum, complete with never changing "Here comes another guy, shoot him!" action broken up only by -gasp!- frequent vehicle sections!

And they definitely haven't released Battlefield with the primary intent of focusing on multiplayer first, or released almost nineteen Battlefield games/expansions in the course of 8 years.

[sub]That was sarcasm, by the way. I have never played a Battlefield game, but then I'm assuming that most people who hate CoD have never played it either or have only played the multiplayer. The single-player games, while not being anything near "subtle", are still far from being "badly made" and I find it hard to believe Battlefield as a whole is any less "generic" than CoD apparently is. EDIT: Though lately they have had criminally short campaigns.[/sub]

Edits for grammar, dammit.

 

[Worr Monger]

OFFT:I have a litle experiment that I need to work out I probabely will be banned for this but Hopefully I won't

come on press it for science I want to see if it works it probabley won't though

Damn you! Now Justin Bieber is EVERYWHERE...

 

[JET1971]

Legally, Activision has a case on this. You can deny it all you want, the law will give them that domain.

They would have a case if the website in question was CallOfDutyModernwarfare3.com because Call of Duty is the trademarked name and Modern warfare cannot be trademarked by itself because it is too generic a name. any game can have modern warfare as part of the title. if it was a case that they could trademark "modern warfare" then I can sue them for stealing Black Ops from me and my mod team, as well as another mod team for Battlefield 2 can sue me for using it because they titled a mod that 2 years before my mod team made ours wich was 2 years before activision made COD BLOPS.

Anyway if it was a clear trademark violation then they wouldnt be petitioning ICANN but taking the owner of the domain to court instead.

 

[THEoriginalBRIEN]

U mad, Activision?
Then you should've like responsible corporation and bought the domain before you even thought about producing MW3.

 

[THEoriginalBRIEN]

Site is down btw.

 

[Gasaraki]

come on press it for science I want to see if it works it probabley won't though

OH GOD, WHAT HAVE YOU DONE? WHAT HAVE YOU DOOOOOOOOOOONE

 

[Tanfastic]

Sounds like somebodies a little worried that their throne will be taken

I said "haha!" to this and enjoy every second that I type in the words "modernwarfare3.com" and it pops up Battlefield.

 

[duchaked]

oh LOL get owned

I mean I'm not particularly rooting for either game (altho admittedly I'm not a fan of Kotick-Activision), but still. that's some pretty intense trolling. no doubt the site will be taken down or whatever for legal reasons, but that is indeed very funny.

 

[Sovereignty]

Perhaps I'm rusty on trademark law, but doesn't it mainly pertain to the exact name of the registered title?

IE Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3?

I'm pretty sure someone intelligent could challenge the dispute with a claim of, "The site is a parody of a commonly known title."

I'd be pretty pissed if Activision could cry and get this site turned over to them.