Activision Files Complaint Over ModernWarfare3.com

It's a Modern Warfare 3 joke site littered with pro-Battlefield 3 propaganda, trolling fans of the former first-individual shooter or anyone sensitive enough to take the bait, and now Activision wants IT shut fallen—so much thus that it's filed a domain gens challenge with the Nationalistic Arbitration Forum. The NAF describes itself as a litigation alternative, and specializes in demesne name dispute resolution.

The complaint was filed after the proprietor of the locate—registered in Marching music 2009—began mechanically redirecting visitors to EA's Battlefield 3 internet site (the site has since returned to simply disrespectful Modern Warfare 3).

"Warning: this site is low-level siege," declares the website in klaxon-red lettering at the top of the page, while auto-loading a Life of Brian clip (the Michael Palin "Biggest Dickus" sequence, take out with "Late Warfare" and "Redbrick Warfare 3" overdubbed for the joke make). If you're reasonably thick-skinned, it's rather clever and mildly amusing.

"Modern Warfare is back," the site continues. "On November 8, 2011, the most over-hyped commencement-person action serial of all-time returns with the copy and paste subsequence to the lacklustre Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2."

The page presently has nearly 17,000 Facebook "Likes."

Fusible.com noticed Activision's ill last Friday, the Sami day it was filed. You tail view a transcript of the document here.

According to the ailment, Activision post-free $2,600 to have the dispute reviewed by three NAF panelists, and describes its "premier" franchise (Modern Warfare) as having "generated gross gross in excess of $1 1000000000 retail," admitting spending "in excess of $24 million" on advert to day of the month. The ailment's remainder claims the site is essentially lateen to elevat Battlefield 3 and "misleadingly divert consumers or stain [Activision's] trademark or help mark."

"In summary," writes Activision, "the Respondent is not known by a name consisting in whole or in depart of the wording Advanced Warfare 3 or its substantial equivalent; the domain Name contains and displays Complainant's Mark in its totality; and the websites to which the Domain Name has been orientated are antagonistic to Plaintiff's games and openly supportive of a capital competitor's products, all to the detriment and disruption of Complainant's business organisatio."

Are Activision's claims legitimate? I'm non an expert in domain name dispute resolution, so I North Korean won't waste your clock time guessing, though I know enough nearly prior instances to realize these things hind end swing either way. The threshold for Activision is fairly high, but the company does seem to follow making a sane case under the ICANN's "Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy." For example, information technology can usher that "the domain name is identical Beaver State bewilderingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights."

The tougher points include proving that "the registrant does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name" (the registrant claims that ModernWarfare3.com is a "fan site") and that "the registrant documented the orbit figure and is using it in hard faith'." (Activision's notes about URL redirection and beta registration whitethorn hold weight down here.)

Interact with Biz On: Twitter – Facebook – Get in touch

Source: https://www.pcworld.com/article/481099/activision_files_complaint_over_modern_warfare_3.html

Posted by: norrisrues1974.blogspot.com