Lawyer To Pay Activision For Not Playing Call Of Duty, Judge Decrees

This Marine sits in a chair and stares off-screen at someone in the middle of a conversation.

uh, now what?

A lawsuit against Activision Blizzard was dismissed last month because the plaintiffs did not play enough, according to a judge in the Southern California District Court where the complaint was filed. Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare to file an informed case against the maligned publisher. For once in Activision Blizzard’s many controversial legal battles, things ended smoothly.

According to a report by a litigant at the law firm Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati (who tipped) Kotaku out), Activision Blizzard was sued in November 2021 by Brooks Entertainment, Inc., a California-based company specializing in film and TV production and other forms of entertainment. However, Kotaku could not find an official website for the company. Brooks Entertainment and its CEO, Shon Brooks, who describes himself as an inventor, claim they own the trademarks for the financial mobile games Save one couch and Stock selector. it should be noted that Kotaku couldn’t verify the existence of these games either. carelessaAll three of these entities, in addition to Activision Blizzard and 2016’s Infinite Warfarewere central to the lawsuit.

read more

In November 2021, Brooks Entertainment alleged that Activision defrauded intellectual property of both Save one couch and Stock selectoras well as the identity of the owner, in Infinite Warfare. To be more specific, the complaint claimed that the “main character” for the 2016 first-person shooter, Sean Brooks, was based on the company’s CEO, and that all three games had “scripted fight scenes that take place in a high fashion couture scene.” -mall mall.” There were other similarities, but these allegations were at the heart of the complaint.

But if you’ve only played for an hour or so Infinite Warfare, you would know this is all wrong. First off, the main character isn’t Corporal Sean Brooks at all, but rather his teammate Commander Nick Reyes, a space marine who becomes the captain of the game’s primary militia. Plus, while there’s a scripted battle scene in a shopping mall, it takes place in far-future Geneva, one of several in-game locations, and Sean Brooks isn’t in it. You play as Reyes all the time.

In January 2022, Activision’s counsel wrote to Brooks Entertainment’s counsel that the complaint “contains”[ed] serious factual misrepresentation and errors, and that the allegations set forth therein are both factually and legally insignificant.” If the company did not drop the lawsuit, Activision would file penalties under Rule 11, penalties requiring the plaintiff to pay a fine for making questionable or inappropriate arguments without substantial — or, for that matter, accurate — evidentiary support. And that’s exactly what happened in March 2022, when Activision filed its motions for sanctions against Brooks Entertainment, saying the plaintiffs weren’t playing. Infinite Warfare and inaccurate returns.

The Southern California court accepted Activision’s claims on July 12, dismissed Brook Entertainment’s lawsuit with bias (meaning the claim cannot be resubmitted in that court), and ordered plaintiff’s counsel to sue the troubled publisher. compensate for the money and time it wasted. In its conclusion, the court said that the plaintiff had failed to make a thorough and reasonable investigation of the relevant facts about the game before filing the charges.

“Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare” is a first-person shooter game, not first- and third-person as claimed, and Sean Brooks is not performing a scripted fight scene in a high fashion couture mall,” the court said in a ruling in favor of Activision. “The plaintiff’s counsel could have easily verified these facts before filing the factually unfounded complaint, just as the court could have easily verified them within the first hour and a half of playing the game.”

Kotaku contacted Activision Blizzard for comment.

Richard Hoeg, a lawyer specializing in digital and video game law, said: Kotaku that unprotectable concepts such as people’s names used in fictional entertainment are quite difficult to copyright and claim infringement.

“It’s hard to say why the suit was brought forward,” Hoeg said. “Certainly if a suit is thrown out *with sanctions*, it wasn’t very good in the first place. It could just be hubris or it could have been legal counsel encouraging a lawsuit against a party with many resources. The suit itself says: [Brooks Entertainment] pitched a game for Activision between 2010 [and] 2015. That said, the infringement process is horrendous, as it breaches such unprotected concepts as, ‘Shon Brooks navigates both exotic and action-packed locations and Sean Brooks navigates both exotic and action-packed locations.’”

Hoeg went on to say it’s hard to “get actual sanctions imposed on you” because that would be a level of bad lawsuit that goes way beyond a simple dismissal.

“The court actually finds the whole argument crazy,” concluded Hoeg. Brooks Entertainment even included Rockstar Games for no reason (which didn’t help their case in court). So the sanctions here are Brooks Entertainment [has] to pay Activision’s legal fees and expenses.”

While things may have turned out well for Activision this time around, the maligned publisher is still causing a legal headache. The company was just blasted by diablo developers for breaking unions. Again. Ugh.

Leave a Comment