Video games are never much help in courtrooms, but during a recent lawsuit involving Activision, opposing counsel should have had a little more experience with the company’s flagship Call of Duty franchise. The case was raised in California last year by entertainment company Brooks Entertainment, which specializes in film and television production.
The company alleges that Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare infringed its intellectual property for its mobile games, Save One Bank and Stock Picker. Additionally, Brooks accused Activision Blizzard, which was recently the subject of a landmark takeover by Microsoft, of basing the character of Sean Brooks, whom the company calls ” main character from Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare, about CEO Shon Brooks.
Also read: Sony Worries Players Will Skip PS5 if Call of Duty Becomes Xbox and PC Exclusive
Lawyer never played Call of Duty and loses case
Brooks Entertainment also stated in its complaint that, although Stock Picker and Save One Bank are ” designed to empower young people they had similarities to Call of Duty. Shon Brooks and Sean Brooks both have resources and unlimited missilesthey bring thieves to justicethey travel to Marsand both games featured ” scripted fight scenes set in a mall “.
Faced with this surprising complaint, Activision was quick to point out that several of the claims regarding the likeness of the characters were false. After playing the Infinite Warfare campaign, Activision’s attorney quickly said, ” it immediately occurred to me that many (if not almost all) of the factual allegations in the complaint were not accurate “.
In effect, Sean Brooks is not the main character of Infinite Warfare as claimed by Brooks Entertainment, and they share no physical similarities. Additionally, Sean Brooks does not take part in a scripted fight scene in a mall, as the plaintiffs suggest.
The judge finally agreed with Activision and dismissed the complaint. The judge also ordered plaintiff’s attorney to reimburse Activision for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in connection with the litigation “, because it ultimately never played Call of Duty Infinite Warfare, on which the trial was based. If he had played there, he could have checked the facts before filing a complaint ” unfounded “. The judge and the Court were able to quickly see the reality of the facts after only an hour and a half of play.
Source: wsgr