Humvee Maker Sues Activision over “Call of Duty”

thesmokingman said:
There is plenty of precedence on this from racing games to sports games, cycling games etc etc. I see all these ppl with beef with this because everyone needs to argue a side lol. Some NBA games are missing certain players because those players haven't signed a license with the NBA Players Union. Some cars are missing from Assetto Corsa because a deal was never struck for licensing until players demanded it enough to make it worthwhile for them to pay the fee.

The only question seems to be if the IP in question is trademarked or not. Yall seem to think it's not and yet AM thinks they are. It should be squared away easily...

http://www.assettocorsa.net/forum/index.php?threads/assetto-corsa-welcomes-porsche.33544/

https://www.engadget.com/2011/05/23...ar-licensing-agreements-with-2k-and-ea-sport/

https://attackofthefanboy.com/news/porsche-and-ea-vs-ferrari-and-microsoft/

For ex. in Pro Cycling Manager, even race routes are changed not to mention the complete absence of real rider names due to licensing.

https://www.gamingnexus.com/Article/4458/Pro-Cycling-Manager-2014/
Click to expand...

I understand your reasoning, but did the games ever mention AM General? The question will come down to whether the Humvee is a piece of military equipment (like an M1 tank or an Apache helicopter) or is it a brand of vehicle.

We obviously disagree on this. It will be interesting to see what happens with this.
 
Hmm. Interesting. Squad just had to pull the HMMWVs out of the game in the last update due to "licensing issues". Interesting timing for sure. Whole thing is stupid.
 
People at Humvee need bigger shoes. They are obviously too small.
 
I'm all for them suing... The question I have though, is, why'd they wait so long?
 
NeoNemesis said:
I understand your reasoning, but did the games ever mention AM General? The question will come down to whether the Humvee is a piece of military equipment (like an M1 tank or an Apache helicopter) or is it a brand of vehicle.

We obviously disagree on this. It will be interesting to see what happens with this.
Click to expand...

Except, I'm not wrong and its not an opinion.

[21CW]killerofall said:
Actually it is. They have a legitimate right to sue. https://trademarks.justia.com/783/35/hmmwv-78335791.html
Click to expand...

^^ end thread

For ex.

Converge said:
Hmm. Interesting. Squad just had to pull the HMMWVs out of the game in the last update due to "licensing issues". Interesting timing for sure. Whole thing is stupid.
Click to expand...

https://joinsquad.com/readArticle?articleId=218

Removed all M1151 variants due to licensing issues and replaced them with MAT-V variants.
Click to expand...

^^ Designation or name, doesn't matter.
 
thesmokingman said:
Except, I'm not wrong and its not an opinion.
Click to expand...

From the article: AM General will need to prove this to be successful in their case:

But AM General said that success came “only at the expense of AM General and consumers who are deceived into believing that AM General licenses the games or is somehow connected with or involved in the creation of the games.”

As I said previously, I'm interested to see how the courts rule in this instance. Unlike you, I believe it's far from an open and shut case or Activision likely wouldn't have let it get this far.

Will also be interesting to see if AM General even exists 5 years from not given that they lost the JLTV contract.
 
NeoNemesis said:
Logic seems to dictate that this falls under fair use. Could you imagine how impossibly expensive it would be to make a military game if you had to pay royalties for every piece of military hardware?
Click to expand...

can military hardware even fall under trademark since its paid for entirely by tax dollars?
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
See, I understand this if you are making a model specific sim, and name it something to do with the plane...

But if you are just depicting a battle scene, and there happen to be Humvee's in it, that seems kind of ridiculous.

If this were enforced across the board, you couldn't make any movie or any game without paying licenses to the maker of any product that happens to fall into view in the scene. Even the clothes actors wear could require a license. It's quite frankly bull. If you manufacture and put a product on the market, it should be a free-for-all to use its image to depict realistic scenes in which it might occur.
Click to expand...

I agree entirely. Also Hummers were never a big part of Call of Duty. To insist it was a selling point or key feature of the game is ludicrous.
 
guys, it doesnt even make a legal difference whether or not you think its arbitrary, or right on principle, or anything else for that matter. fair use doesnt cover this by a long shot. thats not how trademarks work. thats not how branding works.

not mentioning the manufacturer by name doesnt matter when the product is reproduced & represented exactly as it exists irl. by the letter of the law theres very strong precedent to pursue this. if you played a game & stumbled upon a kitchen full of crunch bars reproduced in pixel perfect packaging, nestle could sue & would have legal reason to do so. whether or not other games, films, or media have avoided legal claims in the past doesnt mean anything except the company holding the trademark didnt know or care to make it an issue in the courts.

that doesnt mean that theyll win the case. it doesnt even mean that they should win, or that their claim that their vehicle contributed significantly to the games success by its utility & recognition is entirely accurate. but it certainly does mean they have legal reason to bring suit. the letter of the law might be overly lengthy, but its quite clear. its why trademarks, branding, & intellectual property exist apart from mechanical/chemical patents.

as an aside, it seems obvious to me that they arent looking to win the case & get a licensing agreement, although that would certainly be lucrative. instead, they seem to expect a settlement from activision.
 
Last edited:
If the Humvee was strictly military/government, and a civilian/public version hadn't been released, then EA could probably have gotten away with it.
 
[21CW]killerofall said:
Actually it is. They have a legitimate right to sue. https://trademarks.justia.com/783/35/hmmwv-78335791.html
Click to expand...

Except this doesn't apply to the military. AM General cannot dispute the military's use of the term, and the military often uses the terms 'Hummer' and 'Humvee' as specific names when talking about those vehicles to the public.

Using an explanation offered by 4TradeMark.com:

When people say "you need to Trademark," they generally mean you need to file a Trademark application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). While mere use of the word or logo without registration is enough to create common law trademark ownership rights, those rights only extend to the geographical area where the mark is being used. A Federal Trademark registration is much stronger protection because it provides national protection.
​
AM General didn't create the term HMMWV, Humvee, or 'Hummer', those were all terms used by the military in an official or unofficial capacity. In 1984 AM General didn't want people to use the term 'Hummer'. But eventually AM General trademarked those terms to protect their overseas and civilian markets. The US military has prior usage of all of those terms, granting them 'common law trademark ownership,' at least in the 'geographical area' that the military uses those terms, which would be .... in the US military, if you follow that argument. If they wanted to (and if congress would let them), the US military could sue AM General and deny AM General the right of those trademarks, although I suspect that the language of the procurement contract gave AM General a lot of rights for overseas marketing, civilian marketing, etc.

As a piece of trivia, the term 'personal computer' and 'PC' were both used by Apple in print advertisements before IBM copyrighted them.

Stepping away from the legality or morality of AM General's suit, I still really wonder about the timing. A lot of things have been happening in Army vehicle procurement in the last 10 years. The Stryker entered service, and although it is a good vehicle, it didn't live up to the ideals of how effective it would be in the theater. The emergency procurement of MRAPs for the Iraq / Afghanistan wars resulted in the military's decision to permanently replace the Humvee as a frontline vehicle, and the JLTV program was born. In earlier parts of this thread people mentioned that the Oshkosh MATV was removed from a video game, but at the time that happened AM General, Oshkosh and Lockheed were all competing for the JLTV contract. Now Oshkosh has won that contract, and with the drawdown happening in the desert AM General doesn't have a lot of business. The manufacture of the Humvee hasn't stopped - The Oshkosh L-ATV can't replace the Humvee for all purposes, especially since it's too big to be loaded into a lot of our transport systems. But, with the manufacture the L-ATV starting, and the drawdown from Iraq / Afghanistan almost completed, that means there are a lot of Humvees going to the boneyard. The Army is much better at refurbishing, rebuilding and recycling vehicles and vehicle parts than they were 20 years ago, so I doubt AM General has much business. It makes me think that AM General might need some cash, and that they might have overspent their budget on the JLTV competition.


Screw legality, to me it is a right/wrong question, and most people seem to be as disgusted with the money grab AM General is making against EA as they are with the game industry developing so much of its income from microtransactions. So where does this end? Does this mean that General Dynamics Electric Boat division going to decide to sue EA for 688 Attack Sub?
 
This reminded me when Call of Duty: World at War was released, several politicians in this tiny island wanted to secure some monetary rights because W@W was using Palau islands, it's history, and likeness, to generate money (and therefore, we must have our hands in the jar as well). It never got anywhere of course.
 
[21CW]killerofall said:
That is not relevant to the case as the US Federal Government isn't involved. If you don't defend the use of your trademarks, you could loose them. This is at lease one reason why AM General is suing.
Click to expand...

The US Federal Government is not a party of the suit, but they are a central figure in the suit. And failure to defend a trademark can lead to a generic status, but continued use is still a yardstick for maintenance. AM General will never win a court case declaring that the military can no longer use the term 'Hummer' or Humvee', nor will they win a court case by declaring that any depiction of military personnel using terms like 'Hummer' or Humvee' is a violation of trademark because the military is not allowed to use those terms.
 
seanreisk said:
The US Federal Government is not a party of the suit, but they are a central figure in the suit. And failure to defend a trademark can lead to a generic status, but continued use is still a yardstick for maintenance. AM General will never win a court case declaring that the military can no longer use the term 'Hummer' or Humvee', nor will they win a court case by declaring that any depiction of military personnel using terms like 'Hummer' or Humvee' is a violation of trademark because the military is not allowed to use those terms.
Click to expand...
This is still irrelevant to the case. It doesn't mater what the US military does or does not use. It maters what was used in the game. Just because the US military is used in the game doesn't mean that it has bearing on the case. They could have easily used different cars in the game but chose to use unlicensed trademarked cars instead. Who or what are the charters in the game that are using them is irrelevant. It is also irrelevant as to who else has rights to use the trademarks as those parties aren't involved in this case.
 
seanreisk said:
Screw legality, to me it is a right/wrong question, and most people seem to be as disgusted with the money grab AM General is making against EA as they are with the game industry developing so much of its income from microtransactions. So where does this end? Does this mean that General Dynamics Electric Boat division going to decide to sue EA for 688 Attack Sub?
Click to expand...

The only thing disgusting here is using another's trademarked IP for your own commercial gain, and those that defend EA lol of all companies.
 
Chebsy said:
What a crock of shit !! How exactly are Humvee out of pocket by having a digital copy of their vehicle in a computer game ?? Are all other vehicle manufacturers going to follow suit where their vehicles have been depicted in games ?? It smacks of greed to me.
Click to expand...
Actually, all vehicle manufacturers have to give permission for their vehicles to be featured in games. That's why there were no Porshes and Ferraris in Gran Turismo for the longest time, because they couldn't agree on licensing.
In earlier days there were many conflicts between car mfgs and game publishers between licensing, especially when visible damage to cars started to become a thing in games. There was a huge pushback from manufacturers. If I remember correctly there were even some games in which some cars couldn't be visibly damaged while others could.

Also there was Screamer 4x4, where they had to disable damage modeling because licensors wouldn't allow it, even though it was fully implemented in the game. (But thankfully you could unlock it by some ini editing)
 
seanreisk said:
Except this doesn't apply to the military. AM General cannot dispute the military's use of the term, and the military often uses the terms 'Hummer' and 'Humvee' as specific names when talking about those vehicles to the public.

Using an explanation offered by 4TradeMark.com:

When people say "you need to Trademark," they generally mean you need to file a Trademark application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). While mere use of the word or logo without registration is enough to create common law trademark ownership rights, those rights only extend to the geographical area where the mark is being used. A Federal Trademark registration is much stronger protection because it provides national protection.
​
AM General didn't create the term HMMWV, Humvee, or 'Hummer', those were all terms used by the military in an official or unofficial capacity. In 1984 AM General didn't want people to use the term 'Hummer'. But eventually AM General trademarked those terms to protect their overseas and civilian markets. The US military has prior usage of all of those terms, granting them 'common law trademark ownership,' at least in the 'geographical area' that the military uses those terms, which would be .... in the US military, if you follow that argument. If they wanted to (and if congress would let them), the US military could sue AM General and deny AM General the right of those trademarks, although I suspect that the language of the procurement contract gave AM General a lot of rights for overseas marketing, civilian marketing, etc.

As a piece of trivia, the term 'personal computer' and 'PC' were both used by Apple in print advertisements before IBM copyrighted them.

Stepping away from the legality or morality of AM General's suit, I still really wonder about the timing. A lot of things have been happening in Army vehicle procurement in the last 10 years. The Stryker entered service, and although it is a good vehicle, it didn't live up to the ideals of how effective it would be in the theater. The emergency procurement of MRAPs for the Iraq / Afghanistan wars resulted in the military's decision to permanently replace the Humvee as a frontline vehicle, and the JLTV program was born. In earlier parts of this thread people mentioned that the Oshkosh MATV was removed from a video game, but at the time that happened AM General, Oshkosh and Lockheed were all competing for the JLTV contract. Now Oshkosh has won that contract, and with the drawdown happening in the desert AM General doesn't have a lot of business. The manufacture of the Humvee hasn't stopped - The Oshkosh L-ATV can't replace the Humvee for all purposes, especially since it's too big to be loaded into a lot of our transport systems. But, with the manufacture the L-ATV starting, and the drawdown from Iraq / Afghanistan almost completed, that means there are a lot of Humvees going to the boneyard. The Army is much better at refurbishing, rebuilding and recycling vehicles and vehicle parts than they were 20 years ago, so I doubt AM General has much business. It makes me think that AM General might need some cash, and that they might have overspent their budget on the JLTV competition.


Screw legality, to me it is a right/wrong question, and most people seem to be as disgusted with the money grab AM General is making against EA as they are with the game industry developing so much of its income from microtransactions. So where does this end? Does this mean that General Dynamics Electric Boat division going to decide to sue EA for 688 Attack Sub?
Click to expand...

In my opinion, which doesn't mean anything, there should not be a problem unless:

1) Work of fiction that actively tries to make a product seem inferior, which can hurt sales.
2) Along similar lines, a product that does not try to shame a brand/product intentionally.

Deathroned said:
They no longer pay gun royalties, its is free advertising for gun makers. EA used to pay them but they stopped doing it.
Click to expand...

Depends on the brand. Some manufactures will try and sue you. HK is a good example. But that is largely due to their political climate. For example, if a video game used an HK product in a negative light,, lets say CoD MW2's "No Russian" mission, and the media catches onto it HK will accused of glorifying massacres of civilians, and the government will probably pass restrictions/fees onto them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top