the judge tells the lawyer that he should have played more – Nerd4.life

A court rejected one lawsuit against Activision Blizzard and Rockstar Games for alleged trademark infringement in Call of Duty: Infinite Warfarearguing that the plaintiff’s attorney evidently didn’t play Call of Duty enough.

In November 2021, a company called Brooks Entertainment has filed a lawsuit against Activision Blizzard and Rockstar Games, claiming that the two companies copied the likeness of Brooks Entertainment CEO – Shon Brooks – for the character of Sean Brooks in Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare.

The lawsuit claims that Brooks Entertainment “was in negotiations with Blizzard, Activision and Rockstar GamesInc. to create a game. “Reportedly, there would have been many” many meetings and emails “with people like Rockstar President Sam Houser, as well as Activision Blizzard Mobile creative chief Gordon Hall (missing last year) and former Rockstar HR manager Sarah Shafer.

Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare

Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare

Brooks would have presented to Activision Blizzard and Rockstar proposals for two different games. One of these, titled Save One Bank, features a fictionalized version of Shon Brooks that “features missiles”, “has unlimited resources”, “navigates exotic, action-packed locations” and has “scripted battle scenes taking place.” in a high fashion shopping center “. According to the lawsuit, Activision and Rockstar would have copied these ideas for Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare and its “main character”, Sean Brooks.

In reality, as you well know, Rockstar has no connection with Call of Duty as the series is only published by Activision Blizzard. Sean Brooks is also not the protagonist of the game. Finally, yes, there is a battle in a shopping mall, but it doesn’t look like the description contained in the lawsuit. Simply put, the lawsuit doesn’t make any sense.

In a motion filed in March 2022, the Activision Legal argued that it is “immediately apparent that the plaintiff’s lawyer cannot have played Infinite Warfare (or any other Call of Duty game, for that matter) and at the same time filed the complaint in good faith.” Activision argued that the lawsuit was frivolous to the point of requiring penalties – that is, fines against the attorney who filed it – under Section 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires that “factual claims have support. evidential “.

Brooks opposed these sanctions by saying that Article 11 does not require the lawyer to play all six hours of the Call of Duty campaign. The judge in the case, however, disagreed, stating that Brooks’ attorney “could easily have verified these facts before filing an unsubstantiated complaint, just as the Court easily verified them in the first hour and half game “. They were ordered to reimburse Activision Blizzard’s legal fees and court costs.

Source link

About Alex Marcell

He likes dogs, pizza and popcorn. Already a fanboy of Nintendo and Sony, but today throws anything. He has collaborated on sites and magazines such as GameBlast, Nintendo World, Hero and Portal Pop, but today is dedicated exclusively to Spark Chronicles.

Check Also

MediaWorld launches the real, true, true, but really true Black Friday (continued)

In 2022, MediaWorld is focusing on irony when it comes to Black Friday promotions. In …

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *