featured image

of the flip back dept

It’s always frustrating when you come across an intellectual property lawsuit that is so laughably frivolous. On the other hand, it’s nice when a court does things so well that the frivolous filer gets a big blow for his effort. In late 2021, Activision Blizzard was sued by a company called Brooks Entertainment, which alleged that the video game Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare contained several instances of trademark and copyright infringement.

According to a report by a litigation officer at the law firm of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati (who tipped off Kotaku), Activision Blizzard was sued in November 2021 by Brooks Entertainment, Inc., a California-based company specializing in film and TV production. and other forms of entertainment. However, Kotaku could not find an official website for the company. Brooks Entertainment and its CEO, Shon Brooks, who describes himself as an inventor, claim they own the trademarks for the financial mobile games Save One Bank and Stock Picker. It should be noted that Kotaku was also unable to verify the existence of these games. Regardless, all three of these entities, in addition to 2016’s Activision Blizzard and Infinite Warfare, were at the center of the lawsuit.

It involved various aspects of the game that Brooks claims infringed the trademark and copyrights of these other games and the Brooks Entertainment company itself. How? Well, there were in-game references to financial institutions and apps in the game that were similar in name to the trademarks mentioned above. In addition, Brooks claimed that there were characters and storylines that were “scams” from Brooks’ games and, oddly enough, the CEO.

Brooks Entertainment alleged that Activision defrauded intellectual property belonging to both Save One Bank and Stock Picker, as well as the identity of the owner, in Infinite Warfare. To be more specific, the complaint claimed that the “main character” for the 2016 first-person shooter, Sean Brooks, was based on the company’s CEO and that all three games had “scripted fight scenes that take place in a high fashion couture scene.” -mall mall.” There were other similarities, but these allegations were at the heart of the complaint.

As Kotaku points out, pretty much everything about these claims is either stupid or downright wrong, which is why Brooks lost the case. For example, the trademark claims were based on the similarity of the names, but the court pointed out that the CODFISH play is an expressive work. An eponymous character in an artistic expression protected by the First Amendment takes the Rogers test rather than a similarity test, and no one gets confused about the origin of a good just because there is a Sean Brooks character in a CODFISH game.

As for the copyright claims, well…

The similarities alleged in this case, e.g. a video game played ‘offshore’, the use of ‘exotic locations’ and travel to other planets, are so broad and universally applicable to the video game industry that they cannot be copyrighted , even if the claimant could have submitted proof of access and resemblance. Further, and much more disturbingly, other allegations are patently false. For example, COD is a first-person shooter, not first- and third-person as claimed,9 and Sean Brooks isn’t doing a scripted fight scene in a high fashion couture mall.

Plaintiff’s counsel could have easily verified these facts before filing the factually unfounded complaint, just as the court could easily verify them within the first hour and a half of playing the game. Finally, there is no indication that either defendant ever received the copyrighted material. In fact, it appears from the documents that Plaintiff’s counsel relied on and shared with the court that the emails containing the material were only sent to Sarah Schafer, former Rockstar HR executive, and never received a response. have received.

By now you’re probably wondering what Rockstar has to do with this, as the company has nothing to do with the… CODFISH franchisee. You might be wondering, “Hey, wait, did Brooks Entertainment sue the wrong company as part of all of this?” Well, it’s more complicated than that, involving an employee who may or may not have gone back and forth between his tenure at Rockstar and Activision… but yeah, pretty much. Anyway, it’s kind of fun to see a judge essentially say, “Hey, did you guys even play the game? Because I did and all this is just wrong.”

As for Brooks’ claim that the game appropriated its “likeness” because of the homophonically similar names, the court had to write out these words, which I somehow imagined, rubbing his temples in frustration.

According to the language of Section 3344, Defendants have not used Plaintiff’s “name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness in any way.” Cal. civ. Code § 3344 (emphasis added). Shon Brooks is an African-American financial advisor from New Jersey, while (the re-spelled) “Sean Brooks” is a white, Solar Associated Treaty Organization Marine, from Ireland, voiced by an Irish actor.

If you delve into the embedded ruling, you may have noticed that this is not only a trial ruling, but also a ruling for Rule 11 Sanctions. Those are the ones who get the bullshit plaintiff, who can’t even get his own facts right, pay out to the defendant for wasting his time and money. And the result of this needless and confused fight Brooks Entertainment chose with Activision (and others) is that: they will pay the defendant instead of the other way around.

And so we now await the parties to express their views on what “reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs” were incurred by Activision in this lawsuit. Maybe Brooks Entertainment should stick with the entertainment next time, as it’s obviously pretty bad at lawsuits.

Filed Under: duty, copyright, frivolous lawsuits, never-ending warfare, publicity rights, rule 11, rule 11 penalties, shon brooks, trademark

Companies: activision blizzard, brooks entertainment