If the charity would rather sue Blizzard for running another charity drive for their own benefit, then Blizzard should not bother running another charity drive with them. That said, due to its continued demand, instead of holding Pink Mercy hostage for all time, Blizzard should just turn it into a standard skin and either drop it into the ordinary loot box pool, or give it its own recurring limited skin event. I don’t see how BCRF could possibly have ownership of the skin itself, nor do I see any of their logos featured on the model or any of the sprays. I also see no moral obligation behind needing to keep it locked up. As a digital product, Blizzard only sold access to it, but they still own the skin itself and set their own rules for how they want to provide access to it, and they have changed their stance and their own rules on skin availability more than once in the past for other one-time, and paid-for skins before. We original purchasers of Pink Mercy did our part donating and can forever feel good about ourselves. It won’t kill us to share the skin with other players.
Then Komen has no case. No court is going to take them seriously if they were to try claiming that merely using pink colored characters to drive funding for a different cancer research charity infringes their own trademarks.
People will make drama over anything, including paying for something without reading the fine print and understanding what they are throwing their money at.
That’s just how companies work, they never answer any questions too definitively, but there’s a pattern to their choice of wording, and generally speaking; “We have no plans” is the PR-Friendly version of; “It isn’t happening, so stop asking.”
Could the Pink Mercy Skin return someday? Possibly, but it isn’t likely, and it definitely isn’t going to happen anytime soon, and evidently these weekly threads begging for its return which have been going on for the past 4 years have done nothing to encourage Blizzard to bring it back.
It was a one-and-done promotion, otherwise it hould have returned annually once per year since it was released.
Furthermore, why would the BCRF want to partner up with a company which has since been tied up in a Sexual Harassment lawsuit with the state of California?