The Battle for Battlez: Game Company Sues EA for Trademark Infringement
Gaming company Illektron LLC alleges that Electronic Arts Inc. gained substantial profits from unfair competition and the infringement of the company's “BATTLEZ” trademark.
June 24, 2019 at 07:26 PM
2 minute read
Illektron LLC has challenged gaming giant Electronic Arts Inc. to a match in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on claims of trademark infringement.
Palm Springs, California-based Illektron asserts that EA used Illektron's “BATTLEZ” trademark to label a feature in its “Plants vs. Zombies” video game, according to a complaint filed Monday. The term was first applied to Illektron's collectible card game that launched in 2003, which the company developed into a digital game five years later.
“Electronics Arts Inc. is the Godzilla of what they are,” said Fritz Clapp, Illektron's attorney practicing in Beverly Hills. “We sent them a notice of infringement, and got a nice response that said, 'Your mark is weak.' So, we're going to take it to the next step.”
Representatives from Redwood City-based EA did not immediately respond to a request for comment at the time of publication.
The complaint alleges that Illektron has boosted the name recognition of the BATTLEZ brand through Instagram and other social media engagement with fans. “Since the mark is famous, at least within the market, it triggers the anti-dilution provision,” Clapp said.
Illektron's extensive metrics—such as the number of game installs and real-time user data—might help Clapp plead the case. “If we need to demonstrate that it's a popular game, we have the numbers to pony up,” he said.
Seeking preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, the complaint claims that EA's trademark infringement has caused irreparable harm, for which money damages and other remedies are inadequate.
Illektron also argues that EA engaged in unfair competitive activities, which have likely caused public confusion, mistakes or deception in the market.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllQuantum Computing Company to Part With General Counsel
'Innovation Over Regulation': Tech Litigators and Experts Share Insights on the Future of AI, Data Privacy and Cybersecurity Under Trump
FTC Receiver Eyes Fraudulent Messages Ecommerce Company's Clients
How Dana Rao Built a 'Yes' Culture at Adobe and Why He Walked Away
Trending Stories
- 1HSF and Kramer Levin Leaders Set Out Merger Timeline, Structure
- 2'Don't Be Afraid to Dumb It Down': Top Fed Magistrate Judge Gives Tips on Explaining Complex Discovery Disputes
- 3Doctrine of ‘Practical Location,’ Breach of a Commercial Lease: This Week in Scott Mollen’s Realty Law Digest
- 4Supreme Court Asked to Review Issues of Secondary Liability for Copyright Infringement
- 5Defense Verdict: Alston & Bird Beat Back $35M Claim Against Nokia
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250