A court refused Lawsuit against Activision Blizzard and Rockstar Games for alleged trademark infringement Call of Duty: Infinite Warfarearguing that plaintiff’s attorney clearly did not play enough Call of Duty.
In November 2021, a company, Brooks Entertainment Activision filed a lawsuit against Blizzard and Rockstar Games, claiming that the two companies copied the likeness of Brooks Entertainment CEO Shon Brooks for the Sean Brooks character in Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare.
The lawsuit is filed by Brooks Entertainment” Interviews with Blizzard, Activision and Rockstar Games“Reportedly, there would be “lots of meetings and emails” with people like Rockstar President Sam Houser, Activision Blizzard Mobile creative chief Gordon Hall (missing last year), and former Rockstar HR executive Sarah Shafer.
Brooks would submit bids to Activision Blizzard and Rockstar for two different games. One of them, Save One Bank, features a fictionalized version of Shon Brooks that “contains missiles”, “has unlimited resources”, “wanders around exotic, action-packed locations” and “sets scripted battle scenes”. fashion mall”. According to the lawsuit, Activision and Rockstar would copy these ideas for Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare and its “main character” Sean Brooks.
In reality, as you know, Rockstar has no affiliation with Call of Duty because the series is only broadcast by Activision Blizzard. Sean Brooks is not the protagonist of the game either. Finally, yes, there is a war in a mall but it doesn’t look like the description in the case. Simply put, the lawsuit makes no sense.
In a motion submitted in March 2022, Activision Legal “It is immediately clear that plaintiff’s attorney could not have played Infinite Warfare (or any other Call of Duty game for that matter) and also filed a complaint in good faith.” Activision has concluded that the litigation in the Federal Civil Procedure Code of Civil Procedure Code of Conduct Proceedings of the Civil Procedure Code of Conduct He argued that the Code of Civil Procedure Code of Civil Procedure was so frivolous that it required penalties requiring “factual claims to be based on evidence”.
Brooks challenged these sanctions, saying that Article 11 did not require the attorney to play all six hours of the Call of Duty campaign. But the judge in the case disagreed, noting that Brooks’ attorney “could easily verify these facts before filing a groundless complaint, just as the Court easily confirmed in the first half game.” Ordered to reimburse Activision Blizzard’s legal fees and court costs.
Source: Multiplayer
