Maker Humvee vehicles Sues Activision for Call of Duty games
Click here to post a comment for Maker Humvee vehicles Sues Activision for Call of Duty games on our message forum
mbk1969
Very easy from dilettante point of view : pay that company and/or remove emblems from all vehicles in game.
Do we ever give a f@ck to emblems on vehicle models in FPS game?
whackjob73
All that free advertising for AM general and they still sue. And how many consumers do you think were "deceived" into believeing that AM Gen had anything to do with the creation of COD? What a crock. I say remove all Humvees from future installments of COD. I'm pretty sure some other manufacturer would love the free exposure COD would give them.
airbud7
That's what I'm thinking to^....never bite the hand that helps feed you.
TheDeeGee
What about the other 9485039485 War Games using Humvees?
BarryB
So how many Humvees did the COD franchise actually help sell then?
CalculuS
I think the payment they get in sueing is more than they make from advertising. Don't imagine little kids are the main audience for military vehicles.
0blivious
I don't understand you people talking about free advertising. No one is buying an HMMWV because of a video game. It's a military spec vehicle, not a Corolla.
Kaarme
Hmm... I had commented on this article, but I guess somebody sued Guru3D, forcing them to remove my comment.
In any case I said I reckon Arma 3 chose to switch to a fictional near future setting in order to avoid these kinds of troubles. So, they have weapons and vehicles that are novel or might somewhat resemble real ones, but they are legally safe nonetheless. Modders of course could and did add whatever they wanted into the game.
tsunami231
I not sure if I should laugh or cry, actual if started to laugh i probably wind up crying. Can I sue the world for turning the world in to cesspool of idiots? that money would get me out the stupid BS I cant get away of due to no money or means to get away from it.
airbud7
if the loser was forced to pay all court cost/attorney fees this crap would Stop.
There is presently little downside to someone who files a lawsuit...
sykozis
It's all about the money..... They're hoping to sustain themselves off the proceeds from this lawsuit after the US military declined to renew their contract with AM General....
Actually, if Activision/Blizzard wins, AM General can be forced to incur any and all legal costs associated with the lawsuit. It's the "frivolous lawsuit" clause....
airbud7
would they do that though?...most likely not with big money.
sykozis
It's not always left to the Defendant to make that determination. There are cases where Judges have ordered Plaintiffs to pay legal expenses without a request or counter-suit from the Defendant. Just depends on the Judge and what the Plaintiff deems as "evidence". Usually that's left out of the published final ruling. I wouldn't expect it in this case though. When large corporations are involved, it's usually quite difficult to prove a suit to be "frivolous" since the proof requirements are much higher, usually requiring proof that all claims are factually incorrect to the point of being nearly entirely fabricated. (such as the lawsuit against Microsoft by Apple concerning the GUI, which Xerox actually held a valid Patent on that Apple openly admitted to violating.)
airbud7
Settlements are reached on the majority of cases because every case, no matter how irrational or illogical, has a settlement value equal to the cost of successfully defending the claim. Moreover, every defendant knows that even the most illogical lawsuit has a chance of succeeding in front of 12 jurors who know nothing of the issues in the case and may not be able to comprehend them.
dan83
Activision doesn’t have anything to worry about because logo infringement is federal but statue of limitations to file is determined by the state after discovery. Call of duty is an old game and very popular advertised everyone seen and Humvee manufacture are fully aware of there logos used in call of duty games for years and I’m sure statue of limitations state timeframe has long been passed. Humvee manufactures are wasting there time and money to file logo infidgement 5+ years later and judge throw out case due to statue of limitations.
0blivious
What is irrational about this case? This is cut and dry. Activision is using the name without consent. That's illegal. There is nothing frivolous about their basis for bringing a suit.
Having lawyers extrapolate how the damages add up isn't too hard. Billions sounds pretty ridiculous but the suit is anything but and Activision will settle or lose. You will not see the brand name in the game again.
BTW - They have been using the "MODELS" for years, not the name, big difference.
airbud7
I think jeep could sue Ubisoft
https://steamuserimages-a.akamaihd.net/ugc/1082266365196676498/891127DB667B27C9C05D32E3D9755DAFCDCEB3F2/
Texter
Except you don't know if Far Cry and its successors weren't made without consent from car manufacturers for design similarities. Crysis 2 (EA) was stuffed with yellow cabs that were obviously Mercedes W221 S-class to a degree that looks more like product placement. Ubisoft and CryTek may have gotten free reign to copy any DaimlerChrysler model way back when.
mbk1969
An`t they have to prove that using the name of vehicle actually gained anything for the game?
sykozis
I wouldn't say the majority of cases. Just the majority of cases we actually hear about. We hear more about patent infringement cases than we do trademark infringement.
Activision has been using the vehicle model in CoD for 14 years. That time frame may be enough to cost AM General the case in court, since they've already failed to defend their "trademark" for that 14 years. There is a limit as to how long a company has to bring suit for trademark infringement. AM General also has to prove that Activision's use of the model damaged their reputation or sales, which will be hard to do seeing as how the vehicle isn't sold to the general public and the military doesn't care about video games when choosing vehicles.
