Market wars are always messy, but it seems to me that the most recent case is no different.

The latest in a long line of conflicts between arbitrators and game developers is the one between two video game companies: one that sells and one that makes, and that is suing each other over the rights to the name “Warframe” in the title of its next title.

This lawsuit is a war on consumer choice, and, frankly, a war that would have been better fought by a jury.

The two companies have spent years in court trying to settle their differences, but in the end, a judge dismissed their case, declaring that, despite the company’s claims that they are in the business of licensing their game, they are not in the game business.

“We can’t make a game based on our game, or we will be bankrupted,” the judge said in an opinion released last week.

The company also said that it would be unlikely to appeal the ruling, and so the case is now before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

“This decision is disappointing for the industry, for consumers, and for all of us,” Warframe creator Hideo Kojima told Kotaku last week in an interview.

“Warframes, we all love them, we have a lot of friends who play them, but we don’t have a license to them.

So this is really a case where we are trying to put our feet down and fight back.”

This is not the first time that a company has attempted to make a claim that a game is infringing on a trademark.

Last year, the US government filed a lawsuit against the makers of an online game called “Battle of the Fittest,” which allowed players to compete against each other in a contest of “fittest” strength.

The US government wanted to prevent the game from being sold because of the similarity between the game and the “fitness” and “fattiness” descriptions that accompany the trademark.

The game is a clone of the “Warcraft” video game, which the government said is also “infringes” on the trademark because it is similar to the “Battle” trademark.

In both cases, the trademark owners argued that there was no way to determine who owns what trademark, and therefore, there was a fair market for a game that is similar enough that a person would be able to determine which “favor” the user is claiming.

The trademark owners also pointed to a 2009 case in which an online games retailer claimed to own the term “Battleborn,” which is also related to the same trademark.

Both games are popular, and both are popular in the US.

But in this case, the games were not actually infringing on the “battleborn” trademark because the trademark owner did not actually own the name, but rather a fictional character named “Lord British” in a video game.

“If we can’t say the name of the game, we can not claim to be the creator of the name,” the game’s creator, Warframe producer Dan Jurgens, said in a statement.

“The lawsuit is the latest in the long line that have tried to make these games illegal in the United States.”

The judge in the case ruled in favor of the trademark holder, but the US Supreme Court later ruled that the case should be dismissed because the company failed to show that its game was infringing on any trademark.

If you would like to comment on this story or anything else you have seen on BBC Capital, head over to our Facebook page or message us on Twitter.