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

[Monsterfurby]

Honestly, yeah, it's a dirty trick, but ICANN should not have authority to redistribute URLs at will. They should deny the request if they have any integrity, as granting it would open up doors to unspeakable amounts of new disputes over domain names. The best way to prevent these is to keep it simple: first come, first serve, let Activision buy the domain name or find another agreement with the current registrar. That's how it works in business, that's how it works in trade, that's how it works in real life. Deal with it and everyone will be all the happier for it.

 

[Canid117]

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.

Since when has filing a legal complaint against a legitimate trademark infringement been childish? I think you are letting your hatred of Bobby Kotick to get the better of you.

 

[evilneko]

Honestly, yeah, it's a dirty trick, but ICANN should not have authority to redistribute URLs at will. They should deny the request if they have any integrity, as granting it would open up doors to unspeakable amounts of new disputes over domain names. The best way to prevent these is to keep it simple: first come, first serve, let Activision buy the domain name or find another agreement with the current registrar. That's how it works in business, that's how it works in trade, that's how it works in real life. Deal with it and everyone will be all the happier for it.

In "real life" one business can sue another if they infringe on a trademark. This is no different.

 

[Monsterfurby]

Honestly, yeah, it's a dirty trick, but ICANN should not have authority to redistribute URLs at will. They should deny the request if they have any integrity, as granting it would open up doors to unspeakable amounts of new disputes over domain names. The best way to prevent these is to keep it simple: first come, first serve, let Activision buy the domain name or find another agreement with the current registrar. That's how it works in business, that's how it works in trade, that's how it works in real life. Deal with it and everyone will be all the happier for it.

In "real life" one business can sue another if they infringe on a trademark. This is no different.

Indeed, but the "Modern Warfare" trademark does not apply to webpage URLs. It only applies (quoting trademark entry) to:

IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: Computer game software and related instruction manuals sold together as a unit; computer game software; computer game cartridges; computer game discs; interactive multimedia computer game programs; downloadable software for use in connection with computer games. FIRST USE: 20071105. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20071105

Of course, I am no copyright lawyer, so there might be some precedent that implies webpages as part of the whole.

PS: [never mind this, I see it's not my avatar getting swapped, it's everyone's. If you feel for it too, I sympathize.]

PPS: Other websites DO note the online nature of their enterprise in the trademark description, so considering that this is not a commercial infringement (i.e. selling a comparable product under the same name), and I don't think the US has "Authors' rights" legislation like, say Germany has. So if you didn't file for it, you're essentially screwed. The only way they could go is to claim willing and malignant intent to damage their business, for which they would have a pretty decent case, considering the website was registered in '09, two years after the Modern Warfare trademark (and possibly after the announcement of MW3).

PPPS: Disclaimer, again: not a lawyer, even less an expert on common law legislature, so my legal knowledge is somewhat limited to some experience I have had in a business environment a few years ago.

 

[Laxman9292]

Oh, god this is funny. Activision could just ignore this, but no, they are giving it more publicity then would have been gotten otherwise.

It IS still piontless (< on purpose) though; what kind of barbareic people are we? Who in their right mind is going to type in the URL instead of a quick Google search then click the top answer????

Yeah, they could ignore it. But Activision doesn't feel like forfeiting the rights to the tm "modern warfare". IP law forces you to defend your properties or you lose them, as has been said already. Just because you people hate Activision (with good reason, I do too) doesn't mean that sometimes, just sometimes, they can be right.

 

[Sizzle Montyjing]

Well to me this seems like to big corporate arseholes having a *****-fight.
Complete with name-calling, hair-pulling and lots of hyphons.
But to quote

I had no idea Battlefield 3 fanboys were such... fanboys.

You don't see CoD fans making mock sites of Battlefield 3, do you?

I mean, both fansites are full of arseholes, but at least COD arseholes are lazy aswell!
oh well...
But to be fair Activision are in the right here, no matter how much you hate activision.

 

[Awexsome]

Man it's times like these where you can fully realize just how knee-jerk this whole community is when it comes to Activision.

 

[fanklok]

Quickly someone buy the domain names for sequels to every major game ever, and have them get redirected to bad dragon. For the hilarity of it, not because I think people need dragon dildos.

 

[SilverKyo]

In regards to the people saying just the name "Modern Warfare" cannot be trade marked because it's too generic: ...and is the term "Battlefield" somehow less generic? At least one implies a general time period.

Don't get me wrong, I prefer Battlefield over MW3 myself and am going to get it and not MW3, but come on, this is just pathetic. You make yourselves look just as bad as some CoD fanboy talking bad about battlefield. Your arguments have now left reality and is now steeped with hypocrisy and bullshit.

Ideally, I want to see whoever has the web site "www.modernwarfare4.com" registered (because even if by some miracle MW3 does tank, Activision would still pump out another one before firing all the developers involved. For reference, see Tony Hawk or Guitar Hero) use that domain to advertise some sort of real life laser-tag 4v4 competitive arena thing they were working on setting up, because then Activision would have 0 claim to it at all, and I mean none. Unlike with the current website (which has gone offline), as long as they never linked it to direct market competition, they can use that domain for anything they want really. I think the ultimate troll, although it might cost them the domain considering how the justice system likes to give corporations power, would be to advertise the combat of this laser-tag as: "Something we work to improve constantly and not deliver the same experience every single time to get free cash" or "No kids allowed" or "Teamwork emphasized" or "No teabagging or unnecessary swearing" or "Realistic physics and gameplay, so it feels like you're holding a gun in your hand and not a toy laser." All of those work as legitimate ways to advertise this fictional business while also sending a slight towards Activision. As long as it said somewhere on the website that your still trying to "gain funding and land", there is absolutely nothing Activision could do to take that domain.

 

[Foxbat Flyer]

Awesome for the guy who got this domain! but it wont take much for Activision to get it back, itll be a walk in, give evidence to judge, judge rules Activison wins, THE END

 

[Azmael Silverlance]

Yeah i can see how they learned this lesson the hard way.
Now we gona have like modernwarfare4,5,6,7,8,9 and 10.com just in case

 

[Racecarlock]

Someone needs to call the United Matriarchal Athiest Denmothers Barking Right Off association.

 

[rapidoud]

This situation only proves my theory.

My theory that the Battlefield fans are all a bunch of whinging mentally-young 20 somethings. 'Lawl cod is for 12 yoz' umm I'm pretty sure the average age is above 20, and all this whining and butthurt is coming from the BF side.

It's pretty pathetic, if you don't think so then you obviously think trolling is funny and cool as well as retorting with nonsensical attacks that show your age.

 

[Radelaide]

Can't they just bribe the guys who own the site with free copies of Battlefield 3, rather than paying all the legal fees involved?

Or with Steak. People like Steak.

... I want Steak...

So do I >:

 

[Sylocat]

Why did they wait until now to try and register the domain? EA registered the Battlefield 4, 5 and 6 domains years ago. Did Activision honestly not think there was going to be an MW3?

 

[ecoho]

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.

They'll probably win, even though they shouldn't. Plenty of other people use misleading names: Like the Australian Vaccine Network - you'd think such a site would be about giving honest information about vaccines and where people can get them. In fact, the site is nothing more than a sewer of pseudo-science, anti-vaccine hysteria and misleading facts and quotes taken out of context. But since it has an "official" sounding name, many members of the public have been suckered in by the misleading claims.

If they can still use names to trick people, I think they should let this guy keep his website. He registered it first, and he's not using an illegitimate images. At the very least, Activision should be forced to pay a bit of money to the guy for the website.

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.

actually if (as it seems) the domain was purchased before the game was made activision must buy it from the one who owns the domain name. it is not covered under copyright laws since it does not include call of duty in the title so yeah activision's screwed if the guy who bought it wont sell.(its also not protected by trademark law as activision had yet to register the name at the time the site was made.)

 

[DracoSuave]

actually if (as it seems) the domain was purchased before the game was made activision must buy it from the one who owns the domain name.

Activision owns the Modern Warfare registered trademark, bro. Has since well before MW2 came out. Before the domain was registered. Nice try.

it is not covered under copyright laws since it does not include call of duty in the title so yeah activision's screwed if the guy who bought it wont sell.

The fact you're bringing up copyright law means you're not knowing what you're talking about.

(its also not protected by trademark law as activision had yet to register the name at the time the site was made.)

Registering a trademark is not relevant to it, they've claimed the trademark long ago. Perchasing a domain is irrelevant to this.

There's only two possibilities: Either Activision owns the trademark, or the website does. The website did not challenge Activision for the trademark, which means that it loses the right to claim it.

See how that works? IF you want to say you have a trademark, you HAVE to fight for it. That's the most important part of it under the law, not the registering bit.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

I can see why they're doing this, but I think they'd get better PR from laughing it off as the joke it is.