1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

News Activision files complaint against modernwarfare3.com

Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by arcticstoat, 19 Jul 2011.

  1. [ZiiP] NaloaC

    [ZiiP] NaloaC Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    9 May 2008
    Posts:
    4,628
    Likes Received:
    261
    Fiyero likes this.
  2. Sloth

    Sloth #yolo #swag

    Joined:
    29 Nov 2006
    Posts:
    5,634
    Likes Received:
    208
    Actually, if you take the time to read over ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution policy it's not ludicrous at all. You can find it here.

    Paragraph 4(a)(i) seems like it's the easiest for Activision to argue. It doesn't take a particularly skilled lawyer to show that "modernwarfare3.com" is identical or confusingly similar to Activision's trademarks (depending on what exact trademarks Activision has).

    Paragraph 4(a)(ii) they'll probably bring up just because they can. The current owner will have a hard time proving a legitimate interest in the domain name, something tells me that the sole purpose of bashing on MW3 won't stand in court. Paragraph 4(c) details what exactly constitutes legitimate use. 4(c)(iii) in particular looks bright for Activision: "without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue" it seems pretty obvious that the current owner is trying to tarnish the trademark.

    Paragraph 4(a)(iii) again will spell trouble for the current owner, as detailed in Paragraph 4(b). If the current owner has offered to sell the domain at a premium price their fate is sealed under Paragraph 4(b)(i). Paragraph 4(b)(ii) is more hot water, the owner may have a leg to stand on if they can prove the domain was registered before the game was announced, but Activision will likely still argue that with titles such as Modern Warfare and Modern Warfare 2 it was only logical that Modern Warfare 3 would eventually follow and that the domain was registered under this assumption. Paragraph 4(b)(iii) Activision will certainly argue, but since the current owner isn't a direct competitior they likely won't get far. Paragraph 4(b)(iv) is again a tricky lawyer battle, it'll be interesting to see if Activision's lawyer fleet can convince the court that even though the owner isn't a direct competitor they have been promoting a direct competitor's product by purposefully misleading people searching for Modern Warfare 3.


    Cut out all of the prejudice and it's plain to see whoever owns the domain has left themselves open to almost every reason for complaint. The only thing they didn't do was use the domain for commercial profit. If the complaining party was anyone else (except for maybe Apple) this would be a cut and dry case.
     
    dark_avenger and Elton like this.
  3. Elton

    Elton Officially a Whisky Nerd

    Joined:
    23 Jan 2009
    Posts:
    8,575
    Likes Received:
    189
    It would all boil down to if there was a commercial profit. This technically isn't misleading if there is no product being offered. And if the person had rightfully bought the domain they should be free to do whatever they desire to do with it.

    Admittedly the law will probably end up ruling in favor of Activision, and as long as they prove it was registered prior to MW3 they should be able to fend it off.

    Damn laws! :D But in all seriousness this was a good joke, it probably would've been much more clever for Activision to have come up with a wittier reply than a fleet of lawyers.

    Regardless though +rep Sloth for bringing the real law into reality, can't argue with that as it's pretty sound logic. The owner probably won't win just based off of the misleading name clause. The rest is irrelevant as you don't need a preponderance of evidence if there are multiple offenses.
     
  4. faceplant

    faceplant New Member

    Joined:
    25 Mar 2011
    Posts:
    34
    Likes Received:
    0
    20 million copies of MW2 x £38 (average) = £1.500,000,000 1.5 Billion

    Current black ops sales £1.300,000,000 1.3 Billion

    ACTIVISION...get over yourselves. Go buy a domain for what £8.99 a year.
     
  5. faceplant

    faceplant New Member

    Joined:
    25 Mar 2011
    Posts:
    34
    Likes Received:
    0
    correction...39 million copies.
     
  6. Sloth

    Sloth #yolo #swag

    Joined:
    29 Nov 2006
    Posts:
    5,634
    Likes Received:
    208
    It was a pretty hilarious prank, just not one they were ever likely to get away with. The real fun now is waiting to see if EA makes a comment about all of this. :D
     
  7. The_Beast

    The_Beast I like wood ಠ_ಠ

    Joined:
    21 Apr 2007
    Posts:
    7,379
    Likes Received:
    164
    [​IMG]


    He'll wait, settle for large sums of money (or hold out if he's a real BF fan) and Actiwhatever will make another game fit for 12 year old
     
  8. mclean007

    mclean007 Officious Bystander

    Joined:
    22 May 2003
    Posts:
    2,035
    Likes Received:
    15
    Um, I agree that Activision were stupid not to register the domain ages ago, but 20m * GBP 38 is GBP 760m not GBP 1.5bn.
     
  9. Niftyrat

    Niftyrat Dremel overpriced like EA games

    Joined:
    15 Aug 2010
    Posts:
    95
    Likes Received:
    1
    at the end of the day offer him 10k for it and he will go away. yes it is more costly then registering it but probably cheaper then taking it to icann
     
  10. leveller

    leveller Yeti Sports 2 - 2011 Champion!

    Joined:
    1 Dec 2009
    Posts:
    1,107
    Likes Received:
    24
    I'd rather they use that 10k for a day in court with a couple of city lawyers and bankrupt him for being the vulture he is. I'm fed up of seeing holding pages on domain names requesting extortionate sums of money to transfer control.
     
  11. Stewb

    Stewb New Member

    Joined:
    16 Dec 2009
    Posts:
    600
    Likes Received:
    17
    I know you're just a troll but even so this deserves a reply...

    So. Freaking. What? What does it matter if he is asking for a load of money? He owns the domain. Now read the previous sentence again, just to make sure you understood that. Good, ready to carry on? Now go to whois and you'll find that moderwarfare3.com was registered on the 26th March 2009, about a month after MW2 was announced, well before MW3 was announced. If IW/Activision are stupid enough not to register domains for IPs they own then that is their fault. They can't (or shouldn't be able to) go up to someone and force it off them just because they didn't have any foresight. It is the property of the owner.

    Now, unfortunately the world will probably start to work like that, or already does...
     
  12. Fizzban

    Fizzban Man of Many Typos

    Joined:
    10 Mar 2010
    Posts:
    3,356
    Likes Received:
    122
    Oh I didn't see this coming...NOT!
     
  13. leveller

    leveller Yeti Sports 2 - 2011 Champion!

    Joined:
    1 Dec 2009
    Posts:
    1,107
    Likes Received:
    24
    I'm a troll because you disagree with my view?

    Ok sweetheart.
     
  14. Fiyero

    Fiyero Vindaloovian

    Joined:
    20 Sep 2009
    Posts:
    173
    Likes Received:
    3
    Since most people ignored/overlooked i'll rep you for jumping in the frying pan there :p haha.

    I personally don't think they should be able to force the owner to hand over the site. But there's plenty of legal garbage to force the issue.

    On the plus side, Modern Warfare 5 is still free for people to hijack in time for November 2013.
     
  15. Stewb

    Stewb New Member

    Joined:
    16 Dec 2009
    Posts:
    600
    Likes Received:
    17
    So you're only going to reply to the first line and not the vast majority of the post? As I said, troll, just trying to provoke a response from me. In this post it's even clearer.

    And no, I don't think you are a troll because I disagree with you, I think you are a troll because I think you are deliberately taking a point of view that is unreasonable in order to provoke a response.
     
  16. GeorgeStorm

    GeorgeStorm Aggressive PC Builder

    Joined:
    16 Dec 2008
    Posts:
    6,249
    Likes Received:
    288
    It's his to own and do what he wants, it's not like he's posting underage porn or hosting illegal files.
    So why should they have the right to take it from him?
    If a company want to build a new office space where someones house was, then they can't just demand they move and not expect the owner to want something in return.
    Good on him.
     
  17. leveller

    leveller Yeti Sports 2 - 2011 Champion!

    Joined:
    1 Dec 2009
    Posts:
    1,107
    Likes Received:
    24
    Why shouldn't I just reply to you calling me a troll? Don't just call me a troll because I think the guy needs to hand over the domain name and stop squatting - that is ridiculous. No, Activision don't own that name by right, but it is clear that they deserve it more than him - if you check the rules over domain name squatting I think that is covered. Maybe even mentioned in this thread already.

    Right, 1) most people who shout "TROLL!" are usually by definition trolls themselves who can't think of anything better to verbalise as a form of argument. They also love to rattle cages themselves, thereby reinforcing the compliance with being a troll by definition once again. I voiced my point of view, you called me a troll. You are in the wrong, I'm not calling you names? No. 2) I stand by my view, the guy, while it is funny that Activision are daft enough to let this happen, is squatting knowing that the domain will be Activisions in the long run. And with good reason. Just because he was quick enough to jump on the name, for fun or money, whichever, either he gives it back or maybe they will take him to the cleaners. I doubt very much they will offer him money. He won't be able to afford the legal fees for a day or two ... of course if he can afford it I'd love to see him try to hold on to the domain ... but I doubt he can.

    added: I dunno ... maybe if you had taken the time to read the thread instead of looking for a fight you'd have seen me previously say that I don't like domain squatters due to their greed over the names and the fact they never use them for anything other than squeezing companies for money. The names are so cheap they can sit on them permanently, thereby rendering them dead to the world. I compare domain squatting to patent trolls - greed.
     
  18. SighMoan

    SighMoan Member

    Joined:
    29 Mar 2011
    Posts:
    67
    Likes Received:
    0
    QFT
     
  19. B1GBUD

    B1GBUD ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Accidentally Funny

    Joined:
    29 May 2008
    Posts:
    3,346
    Likes Received:
    417
    @ Leveller, you started trolling on Post #7, which I'll quote again for the purpose of any lack or memory on your part.

    As for the rest of your argument, get over it. Domain squatting has become part and parcel of the Internet, I'm all for the underdog taking on the might of the multi-billion pound companies by exploiting them in much the same way they exploit their followers/loyal customers with the re-hashing of old tired games such as CoD.

    I'm one post away from pure evil, don't let it be directed at you :nono:
     
  20. leveller

    leveller Yeti Sports 2 - 2011 Champion!

    Joined:
    1 Dec 2009
    Posts:
    1,107
    Likes Received:
    24
    Read my little post. Now YOU get over it. I absolutely despair of idiots using the word troll on the internet. Got something to debate, go for it. Otherwise back off.
     
Tags: Add Tags

Share This Page