Call of Duty wins in court: Judge says the other side should have played more

A court has dismissed a lawsuit against Activision Blizzard and Rockstar Games for alleged trademark infringement in Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare, arguing that the plaintiff’s attorney clearly didn’t play Call of Duty enough.

In November 2021, a company called Brooks Entertainment filed Lawsuit against Activision Blizzard and Rockstar GamesTwo companies are alleged to have copied the image of Brooks Entertainment CEO Sean Brooks for the character Sean Brooks in Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare.

Brooks Entertainment “was in talks with Blizzard, Activision and Rockstar Games to develop the game,” the lawsuit said. There were “a lot of meetings and emails” with people like Rockstar president Sam Houser, as well as Activision Blizzard Mobile creative chief Gordon Hall (who died last year) and former Rockstar HR chief Sarah Schaeffer.

Brooks reportedly presented Activision Blizzard and Rockstar with proposals for two different games. One, called Save One Bank, features a fictional version of Sean Brooks that “features rockets”, “has unlimited resources”, “navigates exotic, action-packed locations” and has “scripted fight scenes” and “shopping combat”. center”. according to the process Activision and Rockstar would copy these ideas For Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare and its “protagonist”, Sean Brooks.

In fact, as you know, Rockstar is not affiliated with Call of Duty, because the series is only published by Activision Blizzard. Sean Brooks is also not the main character of the game. And finally, yes, there is a fight at the mall, but it doesn’t look like the description in the lawsuit. simply put, The process makes no sense.

In a motion filed in March 2022, Activision’s attorney argued that “it is readily apparent that plaintiff’s counsel I couldn’t play Infinite Warfare (or any other Call of Duty game, for that matter) and filed a lawsuit in good faith at the same time. Activision argued that the lawsuit was frivolous enough to require penalties — that is, a penalty against the attorney who filed it — under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Section 11, which requires “substantiation of factual allegations by evidence.”

Brooks contested the sanctions, arguing that Article 11 does not require a lawyer to play the Call of Duty campaign for six hours. However, the trial judge disagreed, stating that Brooks’ attorney “could have easily verified these facts before filing the frivolous complaint, just as the court could have easily verified them.” The first hour and a half of the game“. They were ordered to reimburse Activision Blizzard for legal fees and court costs.

source

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.