There are other factors determining which party should get the trademark. For one thing, it has to be determined whether or not Ficker’s “Warzone” is likely to be confused with “Call of Duty: Warzone,” which could theoretically impact Activision’s profits.?
After filing his counterclaim for the trademark, Ficker’s attorney sent Activision a cease-and-desist and asked for 0.25% of “Call of Duty: Warzone” profits, and Activison countered that with an offer of $10,000. While Activison does not specify exactly how much money “Call of Duty: Warzone” makes, it is safe to assume $10,000 is significantly less than 0.25% of profits. Ficker rejected the counter-offer.
“I felt their offer was completely unreasonable,” Ficker told the Washington Post. “It was a tiny fraction of what I already spent on lawyers and the warzone.com domain name.”
Activision gave a statement to the Washington Post:?”The defendant named in this suit has baselessly threatened the company. We do not infringe upon his intellectual property. We are filing this action so the court can reject his frivolous and irresponsible claims.”
And the company did just that. On April 8, 2021, Activison filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court, asking the court to declare that Activision should get the trademark, arguing that “Call of Duty: Warzone” doesn’t infringe on Ficker’s trademark, and requesting that Ficker be prevented from bringing further claims against the company. Activision has also asked that Ficker to pay its resulting court fees.