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

[-Dragmire-]

"Bad faith" has specific meaning under the laws that govern things like domain names and such. The corporation that controls that is held accountable under those laws. Bad faith means if you take a website for the express purpose of infringing on a trademark, for example... say you were taking a company's registered trademark, and using the domain to link to competing products.

Doesn't this law change depending on the rules in the country the owner lives in?

See, the thing is, whoever owns the domain name aside, Activision owns the 'modernwarfare3' part of it, and unless the buyer of the domain can prove fair use (which linking to a competitor is NOT, by the way), then they can get screwed under trademark law.

Does this apply if the person bought the domain before modern warfare 3 existed?

Also, hypothetically, if I were to buy the domain name modernwarfarecomplaints.com that Activision could charge me for creating a site that criticizes them just for having 'modernwarfare' in the title?

Before the redirect took effect last week, the site featured links to anti-Call of Duty videos, along with a rant calling Modern Warfare 3 a "copy and paste sequel" to the "lackluster" Modern Warfare 2.

Or is it just because it now redirects to the Battlefront website?

edit: above and beyond all of this how is "modern warfare" trademarkable? Seems as generic as "Shredded Wheat"

Trademark of the term "shredded wheat"

"In the United States Supreme Court case Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co. (1938), National Biscuit Co. sued Kellogg, attempting to enjoin Kellogg from using shredded wheat as a trade name and from manufacturing the cereal in its pillow-shaped form. The Supreme Court ruled that shredded wheat was generic and not trademarkable..."

 

[Ickorus]

If you ask me Activision shouldn't be allowed to take that website off of the person who owns it, I can understand them having the people who own the website not being allowed to redirect to Battlefield 3 but just taking the website from the owner is pretty much legalised theft.

 

[DracoSuave]

"Bad faith" has specific meaning under the laws that govern things like domain names and such. The corporation that controls that is held accountable under those laws. Bad faith means if you take a website for the express purpose of infringing on a trademark, for example... say you were taking a company's registered trademark, and using the domain to link to competing products.

Doesn't this law change depending on the rules in the country the owner lives in?

Domains by Proxy is an american company. Activision is an American company. The internet registrar is an american company.

What's the problem here?

See, the thing is, whoever owns the domain name aside, Activision owns the 'modernwarfare3' part of it, and unless the buyer of the domain can prove fair use (which linking to a competitor is NOT, by the way), then they can get screwed under trademark law.

Does this apply if the person bought the domain before modern warfare 3 existed?

The existance of the product itself is not the issue, it's the ownership of the trademark.

Yeah, pretty sure Activision owns the Modern Warfare trademark as relates to video games.

Also, hypothetically, if I were to buy the domain name modernwarfarecomplaints.com that Activision could charge me for creating a site that criticizes them just for having 'modernwarfare' in the title?

Nope, because that's a fair use of their trademark. Using it to critique is perfectly legitimate. You're not misrepresenting their trademark for some other product.

Before the redirect took effect last week, the site featured links to anti-Call of Duty videos, along with a rant calling Modern Warfare 3 a "copy and paste sequel" to the "lackluster" Modern Warfare 2.

Or is it just because it now redirects to the Battlefront website?

[/quote]

Yes, believe it or not, doing a different thing with it means you're doing something different. If I use a gun for hunting, and then use a gun to shoot people, I don't get to say 'I didn't do anything illegal with it, cause before I was shooting people, I was using it for hunting!' Bullocks. It's used to violate trademarks NOW. What was done before doesn't do a fucking thing to change that. And that does put Activision in a position where they -must- act.

Regardless, the domain name isn't 'modernwarfaresucks' or anything like that.

 

[BloodSquirrel]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark

Since apparently some people have no friggin' clue as to what it is or how it works.

Key point:

Trademark law is designed to fulfill the public policy objective of consumer protection, by preventing the public from being misled as to the origin or quality of a product or service. By identifying the commercial source of products and services, trademarks facilitate identification of products and services which meet the expectations of consumers as to quality and other characteristics.

 

[Richard Allen]

If the web address was made before Activision made the Modern Warfare 3 copyright, then they have no right to try and shut that site down, if you ask me.

They own the tm to "Modern Warfare" not Modern Warfare 1/2/3. What you think I can go out and make windows 10 cause ms doesn't' have a tm on 10? This is a troll, it's funny, and activision has every right to have it taken down. That's how IP works.

 

[Richard Allen]

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.

There is a difference between teaching someone lies as an organization(see pretty much all religion, politicians, .incs, etc. and cyber squatting on someones domain. It's illigal here and many other countries.

It's a funny troll but this will be taken down, as it should. As I said before they don't own modern warfare x then own the tm to modern warfare, and this could clearly cause brand damage if left up which is described in IP law. He will not get anything except for legal fees if he is foolish enough to try to keep it up.

 

[Frostbite3789]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark

Since apparently some people have no friggin' clue as to what it is or how it works.

Key point:

Trademark law is designed to fulfill the public policy objective of consumer protection, by preventing the public from being misled as to the origin or quality of a product or service. By identifying the commercial source of products and services, trademarks facilitate identification of products and services which meet the expectations of consumers as to quality and other characteristics.

And so we can conclude that the public is being misled, due to the fact that a site called 'modernwarfare3.com' leads you to seeing footage of a far better looking game. If I bought MW3 and got the same copy and pasted stuff from the last two, I'd be shocked!

 

[Richard Allen]

If they win, it really goes go to show just how much power corporations have in america. They do whatever they want, always get there way and fair and just mean nothing compared to the bottom line.

Sometimes my head hurts in here. Read the two posts above you by me, I can't deal with it.

This is pretty established and fair IP law which is standard around the world if you don't like it go out and try to change it. I'm sure you will have little support since most people use common sense in there thought process.

 

[Negatempest]

"Bad faith" has specific meaning under the laws that govern things like domain names and such. The corporation that controls that is held accountable under those laws. Bad faith means if you take a website for the express purpose of infringing on a trademark, for example... say you were taking a company's registered trademark, and using the domain to link to competing products.

Doesn't this law change depending on the rules in the country the owner lives in?

See, the thing is, whoever owns the domain name aside, Activision owns the 'modernwarfare3' part of it, and unless the buyer of the domain can prove fair use (which linking to a competitor is NOT, by the way), then they can get screwed under trademark law.

Does this apply if the person bought the domain before modern warfare 3 existed?

Also, hypothetically, if I were to buy the domain name modernwarfarecomplaints.com that Activision could charge me for creating a site that criticizes them just for having 'modernwarfare' in the title?

Before the redirect took effect last week, the site featured links to anti-Call of Duty videos, along with a rant calling Modern Warfare 3 a "copy and paste sequel" to the "lackluster" Modern Warfare 2.

Or is it just because it now redirects to the Battlefront website?

edit: above and beyond all of this how is "modern warfare" trademarkable? Seems as generic as "Shredded Wheat"

Trademark of the term "shredded wheat"

"In the United States Supreme Court case Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co. (1938), National Biscuit Co. sued Kellogg, attempting to enjoin Kellogg from using shredded wheat as a trade name and from manufacturing the cereal in its pillow-shaped form. The Supreme Court ruled that shredded wheat was generic and not trademarkable..."

Don't forget to add that porn sites work in an extremely similar fashion. how often have we "misspelled" a single web address to to be taken to a completely different site with a different product to sell?

 

[Ralphfromdk]

I don't see how the owner plans to stay alive much longer. I mean, they are messing with Activition. Next step in closing the site will be an assassin from Kotick.


.........What?

Oh don't give me that look, we all know it's true.

 

[JackWestJr]

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????

 

[Richard Allen]

Looks like Activision didn't even try to think about buying the domain ahead of time and now someone's beaten them to it they act like spoilt childish brats demanding they obtain the domain simply out of the term "bad faith" instead of i don't know buying the domain of ther person who already owns it? you know instead of acting like high class dicks bullying smeone into giving them what they want and also they are totally mad bro because their game is already shit compared to BF3 so they lose THEY GET NOTHING.

On a side note i hope they (Activision) lose and get driven to the ground one day for the childish dicks that they are along with Bobby aka the Devil.

Because domain squatting is illegal. Yes god forbid the company relies on one of our own established laws for protection. Grow up, they have shareholders and a responsibility to protect their ip or lose it. It would be illegal for them to do anything otherwise.

 

[Killertje]

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

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

Probably because CoD fanboys are having trouble tying their shoelaces, let alone creating a website...

OK I'LL STOP TROLLING NOW. SORRY!

 

[saxxon.de]

DAMN IT, why did I click the red button?!

OT: I think the guy should keep his domain. It's likely Activision hasn't made the decision to produce MW3 in the last 3 Months or so. Therefore, it's their own fault.

 

[Shadow-Phoenix]

Looks like Activision didn't even try to think about buying the domain ahead of time and now someone's beaten them to it they act like spoilt childish brats demanding they obtain the domain simply out of the term "bad faith" instead of i don't know buying the domain of ther person who already owns it? you know instead of acting like high class dicks bullying smeone into giving them what they want and also they are totally mad bro because their game is already shit compared to BF3 so they lose THEY GET NOTHING.

On a side note i hope they (Activision) lose and get driven to the ground one day for the childish dicks that they are along with Bobby aka the Devil.

Because domain squatting is illegal. Yes god forbid the company relies on one of our own established laws for protection. Grow up, they have shareholders and a responsibility to protect their ip or lose it. It would be illegal for them to do anything otherwise.

I wouldn't try telling someone to grow up, trust me it isn't worth the time.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Do you know what this is Activision?

 

[Thyunda]

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????

The same people that still use Internet Explorer - The parents that'll be paying for their kids' games.

For the first part, as has been mentioned several times, Activision can't ignore this, because trademark law states that you have to defend your trademarks, otherwise you lose them.

For my own opinion - they're well within their legal and moral rights to take action over this. The domain owner is clearly attempting to mislead visitors to the webpage, and with a URL like 'modernwarfare3', it's not even a suspicious looking address, so many people would probably have been suckered in come MW3's release.

And why are people justifying this by saying "Battlefield 3 will be better"? That is actually totally irrelevant. It's like shooting somebody for being Jewish. Yes, okay, it's true that he was Jewish, but it's fairly illegal to shoot him, regardless of your motivation or the truthfulness of your excuse.

 

[TsunamiWombat]

Que Trollololol song. Activision will win hands down and they're in the right here but it's an amusing little prank.

 

[Accountfailed]

the website has changed by the way, now its just an independent site, railing against MW3 and talking about how BF3 will be so much better ^^ (which is true!) :3

I also believe because of this change the website is now protected by fair use laws, can any law-nerds confirm?

 

[redisforever]

Ah, now they'll be registering things like modernwarfare45937.com, this far in advance.