Blizzard Entertainment is suing Chinese company Sina Games, creator of the free-to-play mobile title Glorious Saga, for allegedly containing similar content to Blizzard’s World of Warcraft franchise. In lawsuit filed on August 16, Blizzard argued that Glorious Saga is “almost entirely copied from the Warcraft games and related products” and aims to stop the alleged infringement and seeks maximum damages for the “serious and irreparable harm to Blizzard and its business” via court order. Blizzard believes “$150,000 per infringed work” in addition to attorneys’ fees are “just and appropriate.”
Sina Games is owned by Chinese software and tech company Sina Corp. Glorious Saga is currently available in China and other countries, including the U.S., where it’s available on the Google Play Store under the name Glorious World and a different developer. However, screenshots of the game on its Google Play Store page show the title Glorious Saga. The game’s description defines the game as a “real time strategy game for building an empire.”
Blizzard believes Sina Games has “profited handsomely” and attracted “thousands of consumers” through Glorious Saga, according to their lawyers. Blizzard also alleges that “many” of the company’s games are very similar to other popular franchises aside from Warcraft, such as Naruto and Yu-Gi-Oh!.
The suit includes a variety of different items Blizzard believes Sina Games allegedly copied from Warcraft, such as the use of names like “Jaina Proudmoore” and “Gul’dan”, and “every monster, creature, animal, and vehicle…weapons, amulets…audio cues and sound effects.” Blizzard alleges that Sina Games’ choice to use Warcraft material was “willful and intentional.”
Overall, five companies and two individuals are named in the lawsuit, including Glorious Saga developer InstantFuns and the two people responsible for running what Blizzard calls “an overarching scheme to deceive Blizzard or members of the public.” The defendants are all based outside of the U.S., but Blizzard filed the suit in the Central California U.S. District Court because the parties involved each conducted its business through companies based in the U.S. and California, such as Google Play and Facebook.