Judge slams law team for not playing Call of Duty in lead-up to Activision lawsuit

Emma Hill
Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare screenshot with title
Activision

A lawyer who lost a plagiarism lawsuit case against Activision was sanctioned by the proceeding judge who found their lack of Call of Duty knowledge led to a “factually baseless complaint.”

Various big-name game developers and publishers have found themselves in the midst of a heated dispute over plagiarism accusations. Some individuals use social media to voice their claims of their work being ‘stolen’ by huge companies. Whereas, others go one step further and take it to court.

Brooks Entertainment, Inc. sued Activision for supposedly ripping off its Stock Picker and Save One Bank games for its “main character” in Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare.

However, the case was quickly dismissed after the judge found that no such plagiarism had taken place and a quick play of the CoD title would have resolved the issue very easily.

Judge dismisses Brooks Entertainment vs. Activision lawsuit

According to legal news site JD Supra, the main issue was around the Infinite Warfare character Sergeant Sean Brooks. Brooks Entertainment claimed that the SATO Marine bore a striking resemblance to its character Shon Brooks.

It alleged: “Shon Brooks and Sean Brooks both had unlimited resources and missiles; they bring thieves to justice; they traveled to Mars, and both games had scripted game battle scenes take place in a high fashion couture shopping center mall.”

However, anyone who is a fan of the game would instantly recognise that the main character of Infinite Warfare is Brooks’ squad member Commander Nick Reyes.

Sean Brooks in Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare
Activision
The complaint mistakenly identified Sean Brooks as the “main character” in Infinite Warfare rather than Nick Reyes.

However, Activision’s lawyer quashed any such similarities after having played the game themselves. They claimed “that many (if not virtually all) of the factual allegations in the Complaint were not accurate” and contained a series of mistakes.

The court judge agreed and dismissed the case, but not without blasting the plaintiff’s lawyers for their supposed lack of prior research launching the case.

“Plaintiff’s counsel could have easily verified these facts prior to filing the factually baseless Complaint,” the judge stated. “Just as the Court easily verified them within the first hour and a half of playing the game.”

As if being slammed for not playing enough CoD wasn’t enough, the law team also had to foot the bill for Activision’s legal fees and other case costs.

loading...