Well, the guy that bought that site to redirect, is actually guilty of breaking the
Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act. This was clearly done with intent, and if he tries to fight it, no court would rule in his favor and Infinityward/Activision would just win the domain name. If it ever got that far.
link
The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, passed in November of 1999, made it easier for individuals and companies to take over domain names that are confusingly similar to their names or trademarks. But because trademark infringement cases were long, drawn out, and prohibitively expensive, few cases ever made it all the way to trial. As a result, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) decided to streamline the process by creating the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). In theory, the UDRP was a big improvement, since it made domain name disputes faster and cheaper, and also created a single three-prong rule for all domain name trademark disputes. In a UDRP case, the party seeking control of the domain need only prove three things:
The trademark owner owns the trademark,
The party that registered the domain name has no legitimate right or interest in the name, and
The domain name was registered and used in bad faith.
While the three prong rule is succinct on paper, in practice, it is far from straightforward. In particular, there is no clear definition of “no legitimate interest” nor “bad faith.” Blatant cybersquatting or typosquatting is clearly illegal under the three part test; such as buying “
www.Gooogle.com” and sending Google an email saying that you’re going to put up porn on the site if they don’t buy it from you for $10,000,000. But for less clear cases, such as whether holding “
www.Googles.eu” is a violation of Google’s trademark, the UDRP three-prong test provides little guidance.
It’s also important to keep in mind that just because a trademark isn’t formally registered doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Trademarks can arise both through registration and through use. Trademarks that arise through use can equally be enforced in the US and in most countries (though not China) against people trying to cash in by using a confusingly similar name.
In the end, they'll probably threaten him, he'll go to a lawyer and his lawyer will tell him how much it would cost, what he could lose and that'll be that. He probably wouldn't get any money from them. He's just lose ownership of the name and site.