Humvee manufacturer suing Activision over Call of Duty warcars

The manufacturers of Humvees are suing Activision over Call of Duty games featuring vehicles which, they say, look an awful lot like their own warcars. AM General claim that these Humvee-lookin’ vehicles violate their trademark and Activision don’t have permission, so they want CoD to knock it off and pay them damages. Their case pivots on several Call of Duty games, including Modern Warfare and Ghosts, featuring warcars which allegedly look close enough to Humvees to fall under their ‘trade dress’ — a type of intellectual property covering what a product looks like — and are sometimes called Humvees by name.

Humvees, I’ll explain for people without an encyclopedic knowledge of military hardware, are military vehicles that have been used by the US Army and others for 30-odd years. If you’ve seen modern-day US soldiers driving a truck on TV, it’s probably a Humvee. Wide, flat things. Like a wheeled tortoise wearing clunky spectacles. Here’s a picture from Army Recognition:

As well as owning the name Humvee, AM General have trademarked what a Humvee physically is. Their ‘trade dress’ covers the overall shape of the vehicle as well as specifics such as X designs (sometimes) on doors, where mirrors are mounted, where special headlights sit, and where wipers wipers are attached – bits that, combined, broadly capture what a Humvee looks like.

AM General have licensed the Humvee name and trade dress to games before, including Homefront, but not to Call of Duty. AM claim that a number of CoD games include vehicles which look close enough to Humvees to violate the trade dress, and point out that several characters distinctly call them Humvees. AM are not best pleased with that.

They don’t like the warcars appearing in licensed Call of Duty toys either. And they’re not best pleased with actual real-world Humvees having been dressed in CoD livery during marketing events. Nor do they like strategy guides including screenshots of those vehicles while using the name Humvee. They also dislike games’ EULAs claiming intellectual property rights to the game’s contents, including those warcars AM think fall under their trade dress. And they’re miffed about such vehicles appearing in marketing materials, including at the start of Modern Warfare 2’s launch trailer:

All this amounts to “clear and unmistakable intent to infringe AM General’s marks”, they claim.

AM General say their lawmen found out about Call of Duty using Humvee-lookin’ warcars in May 2016 and sent a cease-and-desist letter to Activision in June 2016. AM and Activision have had a little back-and-forth since then without resolution, so AM have called upon The Man to sort this out. They’re seeking a jury trial, hoping Activision will be told to knock it off and pay damages.

Reuters reported this first but, if you’re curious, Jalopnik have a copy of the full complaint.


  1. Zorgulon says:

    The suing seems a bit absurd, but they do look a lot like Humvees. It’s an odd choice, and seems a bit anachronistic. But then maybe this article would have been about the makers of the Jeep suing Activision if they’d gone for that…

    • Zorgulon says:

      Oh right, this isn’t about CoD WW2. My mistake. Carry on, everyone…

    • Emu says:

      I am not a lawyer but there is the estoppel by laches defence which Activision could probably use. Estoppel by laches is an equitable doctrine by which some courts deny relief to a claimant who has unreasonably delayed or been negligent in asserting a claim.
      CoD 4: Modern Warfare came out 10 years ago. If AM General really cared about their trade dress then they really ought to have done something about it 10 years ago instead of waiting until now…

  2. Maritz says:

    It took them until 2016 to notice this?

    • Premium User Badge

      phuzz says:

      It took them (or their lawyers rather) until now to work out how much money they could make.

    • wengart says:

      They’ve recently gone after Squad too. The suspicion currently is that this spate of legal attacks is a result of AM General losing contracts with the U.S. military and getting fees from media represent a way to recoup some of those losses.

  3. Michael Fogg says:

    Military-industrial complex vs games publishing behemoth. No one to really root for, much like in actual WW2.

    • rochrist says:

      Right. Because nobody rooted against Hitler.

      • Michael Fogg says:

        case of lesser evil, if you count who actually beat Hitler. It was not the Big Red 1 or the Screaming Eagles.

        • HothMonster says:

          Are you saying Hitler killed himself for funzies and it had nothing to do with the Allies moving into the neighborhood?

          • Michael Fogg says:

            I am saying that it was Stalin’s Red Army that did the bulk of the fighting, which doesn’t fit the simplistic good vs evil narrative of the new CoD. That’s why they failed to include a Russian portion of the campaign, which was prestent in CoD1 & 2 & World at War.

          • HothMonster says:

            Ohhh I get your jive now. I thought the Big Red 1 was a reference to Russia and knew the Screaming Eagles were an American outfit so I was a bit lost as to what you were getting at.

        • crueldwarf says:

          Sorry, dude, but Red Army was objectively good in that case. No ‘lesser evil’ thingies because post-war politics have very little to do with what happened during the war itself.

          • Michael Fogg says:

            Tell it to the folks sent to the Gulags or executed as enemies of the people. It had nothing to do with post war politics either.

          • Lord Byte says:

            Tell that to the Japanese folks sent into the internment camps in the US… The Gulags were there in the time of the Tsars too, in fact they’re still there, there are still prison camps with forced labour in Siberia. Just like there are cotton-plucking forced labour camps in the US right now. Where the predominantly black people are forced to work for cents per day.
            The amount of people that died there are peanuts compared to those that died in bombardments on civilian populations by the Western Allies (Dresden, Hiroshima,…) Yes the purges were horrible for those involved, but the numbers that get bandied about… were purely based on the words of Antonov-Ovseyenko, a Trotskyist and opponent of Stalin, and were uniformly accepted without research by the West because it fit their narrative. A number that was so ridiculously large while later research on population (and thus actual total deaths) showed it was impossible… there was barely a noticeable surge in total deaths of natural causes in the 30’s to 40’s, even including the Russo-Finish war. There may have been several hundred thousands purged (which is still awful), but not the ridiculous 19 million. It would have showed up in the 180 million of the Soviet population, it couldn’t have with the population numbers as they were.
            Yes totalitarian governments are bad, in pure innocent people killed we aren’t that far behind… on the contrary. (Indian Famine by the British, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden,… The deaths in Japan and Germany after the capitulation due to insufficient aid…)

          • Janichsan says:

            Tell that the deported, raped, and murdered civilians in the areas the Red Army conquered.

          • Michael Fogg says:

            @LordByte you are right, that’s why I said WWII stories should avoid a simplistic good guys vs evil empire type of narrative in favour of some sort of individual-The System story, for instance

          • hausser0815 says:

            *A few* people in Poland might disagree with your statement though

          • Neutrino says:

            There’s no such thing as ‘objectively good’. Good, by definition means, that which some subject finds to be likeable or to its advantage.

            Carry on.

          • Parovoz_NFF says:

            >Gulags were there in the time of the Tsars too

            Are you retarded?
            Do you think that if Alcatraz is a prison then it is safe to say that Le Masque De Fer was in Alcatraz?

    • Creeping Death says:

      Fuck me, that’s some revisionism.

  4. Antongranis says:

    To be honest, i would have thougt what an humve looks like to be common knowledge…

    • Ergates_Antius says:

      What a Ferrari looks like is common knowledge. Doesn’t mean you can include one in your game without paying a fee to Ferrari.

      • Tripkebab says:

        You mean without Ferrari paying a fee to the game publisher to have their logo displayed in the game ;)

  5. BockoPower says:

    Anyone remember Command & Conquer: Generals ? The Humvees in the game are exactly the same 1 on 1 copy of the military Humvee in reality.

    I thought these cars weren’t copyrighted or probably C&C:G was released in that time when not everyone was suing for even the slightest similarity.

    • Someoldguy says:

      If there is a defence here, I would imagine this will form part of it. Authors are obliged to defend their intellectual property promptly or risk losing control of it (or so they have said, I’m no expert.) Not bothering to object to humvee-like cars in games for 20 years or so may mean these companies can just say they were using an industry-standard look.

      • benkc says:

        Oft-repeated, but (at least according to stuff I read from EFF), no actual basis.

        And think of it this way: say a small business has a trademark. If they don’t actively patrol the entirety of human creative output for anything similar, they lose it? Nonsense.

        • buzzmong says:

          Tell that to Rickenbacker guitars.
          They were actively pursuing not just people who were trading 70’s/80’s copies of their guitars, but even DIY builders.

          The exact reason they gave was that under US laws, if they’re not seen to be making effort to protect it, they lose their trademarks.

          Same concept applies here, but AM will have a very hard time of it if they’ve done nothing for 20+ years of video games.

          • benkc says:

            People saying “oh but I have to do it!” as a defense of why they are bringing unscrupulous lawsuits absolutely does not demonstrate that doing so is necessary. Circular reasoning.

        • Asami says:

          They don’t have to catch every little use in every form of media, I believe the law states that they have to show some initiative and make an effort to protect the trademark lest it fall into the category of being basically a public example of something. E.g. In this day and age Adobe and Google would probably lose in court if they tried to take someone in for using the terms “Photoshopped” and “Google” since they have both become basically colloquialisms for image editing and internet searches, respectively. Though if I remember right Adobe did have some buried page on their website (not sure if they still do) saying you shouldn’t call it “Photoshopping.”

          There are probably better examples but those two came to mind first. Anyway the law is worded this way specifically to protect the public from being hung out to dry for simply doing what everyone does.

      • MrUnimport says:

        That’s a myth that IP lawyers are happy to promulgate.

    • brucethemoose says:

      Generals was too small to even register on AM General’s lawyer radar, but that doesn’t invalidate your point either.

      The modding community is still active too. If they do bring up Generals in court, it might make modders think twice before adding more humvee variants.

    • Ergates_Antius says:

      Or they licenced it.

    • agentghost says:

      I think you are missing the point. Humvee can appear in video game, if the developer paid for the license. Apparently Activision overlord did NOT. Hence the law suit!

      • Snowy007 says:

        Not entirely true. They don’t necessarily have to pay anything, they just need permission. If they ask permission and they say “go ahead and use it”, they won’t have to pay. If however they say “no, only for a price” then yea, they need to pay.

      • Regicider 12.4% says:

        It used to have more courteous inclusion of properties in the 00’s. Either not caring because It’s Just Toy Nintendos, doing cross-promotion deals, publishers’ lazy marketing deals or just trading goodwill handjobs.
        Then Electronic Video Toys became MegaBusiness some time in the sixth/seventh console iteration when Microsoft stepped in (the mentality of cut-throat corporate facelessness, mass marketing etc).
        The Weapons industry licensing debacle, Jack Thompson attention whoring, wallstreet money moths swarming into the profit flames and putting Coca Cola people in charge of industrializing creative endeavour.
        Now every bridge troll wants their toll.

  6. wislander says:

    IANAL, but I did a 5 minute Google so it’s basically the same thing.

    It doesn’t seem like GM has a good case here. I don’t remember CoD implying any sort of fault of either Humvees or their manufacturer. It would appear, from my amateur reading of trademark law, that Activision was well within its rights to include trademarked items in its game, so long as they didn’t smear them.

    • Noc says:

      IANALE, but I don’t think that’s correct, since this is a trademark thing and not a copyright thing? Trademark is about product identity: if you’re putting a “Wisland Brand” label on your stuff, then I’m not allowed to put a “Wisland” label on my stuff, because that would confuse people into thinking that our respective products are made by the same people, which they aren’t.

      (Which makes perfect sense itself and is important from a consumer protection standpoint, but does run into weird and sketchy territory when companies e.g. trademark common words then try to sue anyone who uses the word “edge” or “scrolls.”)

      So the issue here isn’t that Activision isn’t allowed to show an image of a Humvee, but that by using Humvees prominently in their game, trailers, and marketing materials they’re hijacking the “Humvee” brand, and giving people the impression that AM General has a relationship with and approves of the game, which they don’t.

      Like, if every character in COD were prominently drinking Pepsi Zero, and if their trailers lingered in images of Pepsi Zero cans moodily lit by guttering fires in a warzone, we’d assume that Pepsi was paying for product placement. And if they weren’t, Pepsi could reasonably sue them and be like “why is our logo all over your marketing materials? We have nothing to do with you!” AM General is asserting that the specific appearance of a Humvee is pretty much like a logo, and that it’s being used in the same way, without permission.

      • hyzhenhok says:

        You’re right, there are two elements: 1) did they violate the trademark? And 2) are consumers likely to confuse the source of the good because of it?

        I don’t think there is a strong likelihood-of-confusion argument here, though. That relies on factors like the similarity of the products (cars vs video games), whether they’re sold in the same forum, whether there’s evidence anyone was actually confused, etc. Most of these weigh in favor of Activision.

        • agentghost says:

          Holy hell, there are actually ppl in this world defending Activision corporate overlords for this blatant copyright infringement? The copyright holder has explicitly stated that they didn’t give permission and the Activision overlord knew about this lack of permission. There are many good causes to whiteknight but this is not it.

          • lucidrenegade says:

            Except it’s not copyright infringement. RTFA

          • hyzhenhok says:

            It’s obviously not copyright infringement, because there is no copyright. Useful articles (like cars) are expressly excluded from being copyrightable.

            Which is why this is a trademark action–and unfortunately for the Humvee makers, trademark gives you much more limited protection.

          • Dewal says:

            agentghost, Activision taking a lot of debatable decisions has nothing to do about them being right or wrong here. Please don’t put your personnal opinions in the way of a very interesting debate on law and trademarks.

            Moreover, I don’t see how the direction of Activision would have anything to do about the game showing Humvees. It’s probably more a mistake from the dev/art team that was overlooked than a conscious decision. So even though I wouldn’t mind if this company were to disappear, in this case I’m pretty sure the people that could suffer the most from this story are the “low” workers that made a mistake.

        • MrUnimport says:

          It’s frankly absurd. Humvees exist, they’re out there in the public consciousness. How can a company assert IP rights to the likeness of a real military vehicle being used in real military conflicts? There’s a pretty strong case to be made out, IMO, on free speech grounds. How does one make a video game about the military without being able to use guns, vehicles, helmets?

          • Zelos says:

            Realistically, you use knockoffs.

            Most modern-era shooters do this; fudging gun and vehicle names and designs to be similar but not identical to the real deal.

          • hyzhenhok says:

            No, absurdity is what you suggest, which would result in creators wrongfully depriving us the cultural fruit of new art and creations that feature their things. If your rule was the rule, McDonalds could sue for infringement if you painted a landscape scene of a picnic where on person was eating an identifiable Big Mac. It’s ludicrous to suggest that’s what the law should be.

            You don’t get IP rights unless there’s a specific public policy behind the IP right. Copyright is a temporary monopoly to encourage artistic creation that ultimately will benefit society. Patent is a temporary monopoly to encourage invention for the same reason. Trademark is a permanent monopoly on using a MARK or TRADE DRESS so customers can understand who is manufacturing what product.

            There’s no public policy that says the makers of Humvee get to enjoin popular art that wishes to depict the Humvee because of the role the Humvee plays in the popular conscious. That’s basically opposite of all the public policy that IP law does seek to promote.

          • MrUnimport says:

            I don’t think we’re in disagreement. I think the claim that AM General is trying to assert would set a dangerous and unpleasant precedent if upheld.

  7. Fade2Gray says:

    So, what’s the difference between using an art asset that looks generally like a specific real world thing in a game vs a film maker using the actual thing in their film with all of the identifiable markings hidden? This just seems like an odd line to draw.

    • Lukasz says:

      Permission and agreements.

      Military is happy to lend their equipment to movies and TV shows.

      Here Activision recreated something which does not belong to them.

      I think humvee guys have a pretty much a win here as long as their trademark is valid. Activision will probably settle and pay them some big money

      • hyzhenhok says:

        No, in trademark law you have to show consumers would actually mix up the sellers of the goods to have trademark liability. No one is going to think the manufacturer of the car featured in the game produced the video game.

        • Sirius1 says:

          That’s trademarks, as in a dispute about similarities of logo. This is about trade dress – distinguishing features of your product being used by someone else. Think of the infamous dispute about ’rounded corners’ on smartphones between Apple and Samsung, and you’re a bit closer to the issue here.

          • hyzhenhok says:

            Trade dress is just a type of trademark. The likelihood of confusion test still applies.

            The Samsung/Apple thing is a great example of how completely different this is. Two direct competitors selling directly competitive products–that’s a much stronger case for likelihood of confusion.

            Trade dress just has an added layer where one side might argue it’s not trade dress because a practical design feature of a product can’t be protected by trademark (that would be stepping on the toes of patent). It only seems different because that’s where the fight was; there’s no real argument as to likelihood of confusion after it’s decided that the rounded corners are indeed trade dress.

        • Nogo says:

          Your understanding of consumer confusion is almost entirely lacking. It’s about the association.

          And even if your bizarre interpretation was right, what about the other things mentioned in the article like toys, supplementary material that explicitly calls them humvees, or using the vehicles themselves for promotional purposes? What do you think would happen if I started selling toys that looked exactly like certain Ferraris and I called them such?

    • Ergates_Antius says:

      One is using a physical object that you own (or rented) one is *copying* that object in electronic format.

    • Snowy007 says:

      Its not just the game that they have a problem with though, but also merchandise that they are selling. Like the toy Humvee cars.

      How would you like it if you designed a new car, and someone else starts selling toys that look exactly like your design, but without your logo on it?

      Yea, sure you could look at it positively that it might create more awareness of your own product, but so will suing them if the media picks up on it. And then you could still sell your own toys. :)

      As someone else already mentioned. It’s all about permission. Either for free, or pay for permission.

  8. Yellow Devil says:

    GM is like what, five CoD games behind the curve?

    Maybe they are worried that future games will only show MRAPs or the next gen vehicles instead, so it was best to cash in now.

    • Martel says:

      I assume it’s because they didn’t find out about it until recently, like the article says.
      “AM General say their lawmen found out about Call of Duty using Humvee-lookin’ warcars in May 2016 and sent a cease-and-desist letter to Activision in June 2016.”

      • MrUnimport says:

        What it really means is that they didn’t find out other companies were charging money for it. And now they want the extra revenue stream without having to do any particular work.

    • Poor People says:

      Like the M151 jeep it was designed to replace, interest towards the Humvee is expected to plummet with the adoption of the Oshkosh L-ATV/M-ATV and various other MRAPs, and their civilian Hummer line is long dead. It’s a better time than ever to capitalize on the milking the rights dry.

  9. Ergates_Antius says:

    I’d say they have a pretty strong case – pretty much anyone looking at the screenshot above is going to think “Humvee”. It’s not until you put them side by side that you start to see *any* differences.

  10. Premium User Badge

    phuzz says:

    Can’t see a humvee without thinking of Generation Kill.

  11. buzzmong says:

    Be interesting if they can actually claim to have copyright/tm on the design. From the very little I’ve read, I was under the impression that stuff created for the US military is sort of in public domain.

    • Zenicetus says:

      I’ve heard of WW2 and later air combat games having to either avoid using certain planes, or pay licenses for use of iconic military planes where the manufacturers are still around. So I’m not sure it’s as simple as “taxpayers paid for it, so all rights are public.”

      IANAL though, maybe someone else knows more about this.

      • DEspresso says:

        I vaguely recall developers using the military designations instead of the manufacturers name in this context but the specifics are blurred. Where is Tim Stone?

    • Poor People says:

      The chief difference was that AM General did repurpose the Humvee as the H1. That was the point when it went from military equipment to copyrighted consumer product.

  12. racccoon says:

    This is mental..
    Its a friggin computer game for god sake!
    which I might add has probably increased your HUMVEEEEEEEE!! SALES!!! you ****** ass’s

    • Shadow says:

      It’s a computer game franchise which has moved hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars throughout its lifetime. There’s money to be made from this kind of moves, especially if interest in these vehicles is waning.

  13. Blad the impaler says:

    Whenever I see something like this, I wonder what Aristotle would have to say about it.

    • MrUnimport says:

      “Holy shit a chariot that moves on its own!”

    • Dewal says:

      Aristotle was a self important asshole that ruined science for generations. Please use another historical conscience.

  14. wengart says:

    Recently Squad received a threat from AM General and had to remove all the of the HMMVWs from the game.

    The suspicion I’ve seen is that AM General has decided to attempt to milk money out of video games that use the likeness due to the U.S. military moving away from the HMMVWs and replacing them with MAT-Vs and other up-armored vehicles. So this is an attempt to get more money from a product that is winding down.

    Wikipedia has an entry with some outbound links that give more context to the reduction. A key problem with the M1151 is their use outside of their intended role and the heavy losses sustained fighting insurgents.

    Very bottom of these patchnotes. “Removed all M1151 variants due to licensing issues and replaced them with MAT-V variants.

  15. mariandavid says:

    Half the lawyers in the world are in the US – I guess they have to do something.

  16. Alphus says:

    This has worrying implications, say you want to make a game featuring the US military, featuring all their equipment. If GM win and you need to get the rights from the manufacturer to us the product in your game you are going to need to get approval from (* means was in the COD series off the top of my head) this list is not complete:
    Colt: M4*, M16*, M1911*, M203*
    NAMMO Talley: M72*, SMAW*
    Beretta: M9*
    SIG Sauer: M11, M17*, M18*
    Heckler & Koch: M27*, HK417*, MP5*, MP7*
    FN Herstal: Scar*, M249*, M240*
    Sage International: M39*
    Mossberg: M500*, M590*
    Saab Bofors Dynamics: AT4*
    Milkor (Pty) Ltd: M32*
    Mohawk Electrical Systems, Inc.: M18 Claymore*
    Springfield Armory: M21*
    Accuracy International: AWM*
    Remington Arms: Mk21
    Barrett: M82*, M107*
    General Dynamics: M2, GAU-19, M61, GAU-12, GAU-22, M1 Abrams*, F16, Stryker
    Raytheon: FIM-92*, FGM-148*, BGM-71 TOW*
    Watervliet Arsenal: M252
    BAE Systems: M777, M2A3 Bradley*, M113, AAV
    Oshkosh Corporation: M-ATV
    AM General: Humvee*
    Textron Marine & Land Systems: M1117
    Lockheed Martin: M270 MLRS, THAAD, AC130*, F22, F35
    Fairchild Republic: A10*
    McDonnell Douglas: F15
    Bell: UH-1*, V22*
    General Atomics: MQ-1 Predator*
    Boeing: AH-64*, MH-47*
    MD Helicopter: UH-6*, AH-6*

  17. LennyLeonardo says:

    Do game publishers have to pay fees for all the weapons, gear and vehicles they recreate/ approximate as a matter of course, or is AM General being unusually ‘particular’ here?

    • MrUnimport says:

      It’s common practice. Whether it ought to be or not is a different matter.

      link to

    • Shadow says:

      They can risk not paying and hope the manufacturer doesn’t notice. And I suppose sometimes they get away with it, like Activision apparently has with Humvees for years.

  18. Core says:

    >”We’re telling a story and we have a point of view,” EA’s President of Labels Frank Gibeau, who leads product development of EA’s biggest franchises, said in an interview. “A book doesn’t pay for saying the word ‘Colt,’ for example.”

    >Put another way, EA is asserting a constitutional free speech right to use trademarks without permission in its ever-more-realistic games.

    link to

    Remember this? Activision will win this case if it ever goes to court.

  19. Machinedrum says:

    I think EA stopped paying gunmakers for the trademark of their guns, but I still think it happens no?
    Be carefull what you buy you might be supporting the weapons industry.

    link to

    link to

    • AyeBraine says:

      The Eurogamer feature is a superb, well-written and well-researched article. But it’s surprisingly one-sided. It really puzzles me every time when good, smart publications which pride themselves on their journalistic integrity suddenly take such a partisan, stonewalling position when it comes to gun ownership.

      The author never bothered to ask even one actual adult gun owner, user, enthusiast or collector why they are the way they are. Not to mention there are tons of actual people who grew up on games (or, conversely, didn’t) and are adult or even middle-aged gun owners now – whereas gamers and gun nuts were two separate demographics not so long ago, in the Columbine days. The sole gamer that is quoted is a child, his lines chosen for the shock value of his naive harping on his love for Call of Duty.

      From a purely professional (writing) standpoint, I somehow suspect that the same writer wouldn’t use such categorical tone, overdramatic characterization, and sound-bitey quotes in an article about most other topics – it would be considered quaint, heavy-handed, manipulative. But in many articles I’ve read on journalists discovering something about guns it’s this tone I encounter – flat appeals to moral imperative, resorts to completely unironically used cliches, and ramping up the scares toward the end. Even though the publication and the format hint at a quality long-form analytical article.

      I realize it’s my own ruffled feathers speaking, of course: I have been a gamer for 20 years and a gun enthusiast for at least 10 (even though in Russia, it’s quite a hassle to pursue this hobby). But I also work with texts for a living, got a journalist’s degree at some point, and am probably what you’d call a bleeding heart liberal. And I really notice this shift, from “our problem is we don’t really hear each other” to “zero tolerance, ban and shame”.

  20. StoneE4 says:

    The High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle has been used by the U.S. military for over 30 years now and people still don’t know how to spell its acronym correctly? They are HMMWVs, not Humvees.

    • Premium User Badge

      Phasma Felis says:

      link to

      “AM General is best known for developing the iconic High Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV or Humvee®).”

      • StoneE4 says:

        The AM General page you linked to only mentions the word “Humvee” twice. Both times designated as a trademark, and one of those instances is in fine print at the bottom of the page. The other nine times that page refers to the vehicle, it’s spelled correctly as HMMWV. Additionally, If you peruse the other pages on their site, they always refer to the vehicle as a HMMWV. I’d say that’s a pretty clear indication of the proper spelling of the acronym (as if knowing what the acronym stands for wasn’t enough).
        AM General may have trademarked the phonetic pronunciation “Humvee”, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s a High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle spelled as HMMWV. Spelling HMMWV as “Humvee” is as ridiculous as spelling MRAP as “Emmrap”, HEMTT as “Hemmit”, SINCGARS as “Singaars”, RADAR as “Rayydar”, or SCUBA as “Scooba”.

        • Premium User Badge

          Phasma Felis says:

          I get that you think it’s a dumb nickname (or at least a dumb way to spell the nickname). That’s perfectly reasonable. But at this point it is absolutely a broadly-accepted nickname both by manufacturers and users (soldiers). You don’t have to like it, but the ship has sailed. It’s part of the language now.

  21. fightknightHERO says:

    Americans and their retarded suing system
    no way in hell this will work, unless of course they bribe the judges

  22. Ham Solo says:

    BAHAHAHAHAHA this pleases me.