Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses Build Your Rights Online

Ikea Sends IkeaHackers Blog a C&D Order 207

Posted by samzenpus
from the stop-it dept.
An anonymous reader writes Ikea has sent the IkeaHackers blog a C&D order over the usage of the Ikea name. IkeaHackers hosts articles on how to hack Ikea furniture to make it more useful in daily life. From the article: "Speaking to the BBC, an Ikea representative said: 'We feel a great responsibility to our customers and that they always can trust Ikea... many people want to know what really is connected to Ikea - and what isn't. And we think that people should have that right. When other companies use the Ikea name for economic gain, it creates confusion and rights are lost.'
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ikea Sends IkeaHackers Blog a C&D Order

Comments Filter:
  • by Kenja (541830) on Monday June 16, 2014 @01:39PM (#47247481)
    Site uses the Ikea logo and colors and contains no disclaimer. I can see how people could mistake it for an "official" site.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 16, 2014 @01:52PM (#47247553)

      Site uses the Ikea logo and colors and contains no disclaimer. I can see how people could mistake it for an "official" site.

      There's a right way and a wrong way to do this. Sounds like they have chosen the wrong way.

      • by msauve (701917) on Monday June 16, 2014 @02:14PM (#47247759)
        In what way was it "wrong?" The C&D likely came from a legal firm hired to police their trademarks, without any prior knowledge of IKEA.

        When IKEA got involved, the site was allowed to keep the name, with a disclaimer and for non-commercial use. That means no ads - most of which seem to be for items made for use with IKEA offerings, and which IKEA might consider to be competitive.

        Seems perfectly reasonable to me. The site owner is complaining because he can't fund his site (or make a profit?) by selling ads.
        • by pixelpusher220 (529617) on Monday June 16, 2014 @02:22PM (#47247829)
          Yes, that's the wrong way. Allowing lawyers to run free and wild without any thought towards what it's going to look like when you're major fan base starts hating you.

          IKEA could simply require them to have big 'We aren't IKEA" banners thus avoiding the 'confusion' they claim.
          • by fahrbot-bot (874524) on Monday June 16, 2014 @05:03PM (#47249045)

            Allowing lawyers to run free and wild ...

            The site has instructions for building a hanging rat cage. [ikeahackers.net]

      • by jeffmeden (135043)

        Site uses the Ikea logo and colors and contains no disclaimer. I can see how people could mistake it for an "official" site.

        There's a right way and a wrong way to do this. Sounds like they have chosen the wrong way.

        Because a C&D is somehow damaging to the "IkeaHackers.net" brand beyond the obviously untenable position regarding their name? If IkeaHackers is serious about operating in good faith they will choose a similar but un-infringing name and go on with their lives. The wrong way would be a C&D followed the next day by a court order and the day after by a subpoena and lawsuit.

        • by jedidiah (1196)

          The problem with "Ikea Hackers" is it's simply descriptive. It's not a trademark really. Ikea is going draconian retard over something that's a simple description of what the relevant fan site is about.

          • Well, the first time I saw IkeaHackers, I really did think it was an official ikea site. So I've got to side with IKEA here.

            • IKEA Hackers should be bought by IKEA and made into an official sub-site. If I were IKEA CEO, the idea of selling 3 things instead of none, is my idea of brilliant. These people are building unexpected things, build enough of them, and then repackaging parts into a new kit seems obvious.

              This is not a problem, but opportunity in disguise.

    • by wisnoskij (1206448) on Monday June 16, 2014 @01:54PM (#47247569) Homepage

      So they are not allowed to do a professional job?

      What? I can share IKEA hacking techniques, but I must do it on a website plastered with Babylon 5 posters? and it must be called "The Swedish ready-to-assemble furniture company who must not be named Hacking".

      When referring to IKEA furniture you have to use their name, and an IKEA fan site will have an IKEA style, with IKEA colors.

      It is pretty obvious that such a site should just be placing the "we are unofficial" disclaimer somewhere up front.

      • by tepples (727027) <tepples&gmail,com> on Monday June 16, 2014 @01:57PM (#47247613) Homepage Journal
        The argument for nominative use of a trademark is much stronger if you use only the name "IKEA" in the same font as the rest of the logo, not the logo or trade dress. But then "FlatpackHackers" would have worked just as well, covering hacks to both IKEA and Sauder brands.
        • The argument for nominative use of a trademark is much stronger if you use only the name "IKEA" in the same font as the rest of the logo, not the logo or trade dress. But then "FlatpackHackers" would have worked just as well, covering hacks to both IKEA and Sauder brands.

          Hmm, you know, flatpackhacks.com does have a nice ring to it...

      • So they are not allowed to do a professional job?

        Not when it makes it look like they speak for the company. Presenting a professional image does not require using someone else's trademarks and copyrights. There is nothing prohibiting them from taking appropriate steps to make it clear they are in no way, shape or form associated with IKEA.

        That said, it sounds like IKEA decided to go the douchebag route instead of cooperating with these guys who are clearly superfans. Kind of a pity they couldn't be cooler about the whole thing.

        • by thaylin (555395)
          What was douchebag about it? Are they supposed let them use their brand and make money off it while advertising competing items? They let him keep the domain, the only thing was he needed to remove the advertising and put up a disclaimer, that seems pretty fine to me.
          • by sjbe (173966)

            What was douchebag about it?

            They could have worked with the guy to come to some sort of satisfactory middle ground. Hell, they could have even worked with the site owners. (heaven forbid) The site owner(s) obviously like(s) the Ikea products, at least from a certain perspective. But instead IKEA seems to have led off with a C&D letter which is universal the Not Nice way of doing things. Appropriate maybe but not nice.

            • by thaylin (555395) on Monday June 16, 2014 @02:39PM (#47247979)

              They did work with them to maintain a middle ground.. He wanted to keep the site as it was, they wanted the site dismantled. Middle ground, he gets to keep the site but must make a disclaimer and remove the advertising...I know most /.ers dont understand what a middle ground is, but that is one....

              It does not matter how much you like their products, you dont have a right to use their property without their prior permission, which he did not have.

              • Technically, yes, it is a middle ground. However, I believe the intended meaning was that both sides reached a reasonable agreement that they were both moderately happy about, not a minor ability to dictate terms of surrender.For reference, here is what not being an asshole looks like: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... [huffingtonpost.com]
                • by thaylin (555395)
                  So you dont want middle ground, you want them to give in, and even promote them.. That is not middle ground...
              • But if he doesn't make money from ads, they effectively shut him down.

      • "It is pretty obvious that such a site should just be placing the "we are unofficial" disclaimer somewhere up front."
        And they didn't; that was the problem. Now they do, and the problem is resolved.

    • Yes not all trademark lawsuits are based on complete evil money grabbing. But based on actually protecting their Trademark from confusing their brand with something else.

      Even if people realize that it isn't an "official" site but it could be confused with a sanctioned site. If any of those hacks produce something dangerous or poor quality, people may blame them for following the tricks off the site.

      • I find it ironic that someone who argues that everyone (even small children, and mentally incompetent and psychotic people) should have the right to own firearms, because freedom is infinitely more important than safety, would be defending trademark laws on the grounds of safety.
    • Site uses the Ikea logo and colors and contains no disclaimer. I can see how people could mistake it for an "official" site.

      Yes, but... I have to wonder about this "rights are lost" bit.

      I've seen this several times on Slashdot. It puzzles me, because it sounds like popular myth. I know of no law that says you "lose your rights" in any way if you don't enforce your copyrights.

      Perhaps this applies to trademarks, specifically. If anybody knows of a particular law saying you "lose" your rights under the law if you don't actively enforce them, I'd like to see it.

  • Confusion? Really? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by grahamsaa (1287732) on Monday June 16, 2014 @01:44PM (#47247503)
    It seems like Ikea Hackers actually adds value to the Ikea brand and probably encourages traffic to their stores. I don't think anyone who's ever visited the site could be confused about whether it's an official Ikea site or not. This was a boneheaded decision.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 16, 2014 @01:52PM (#47247557)

      Blame trademark law. They have to go after everybody or lose the mark.

      • It sounds like simple trademark stupidity, probably from an outside trademark protection co so they can say hey we paid these respected people to do it. It's really not that hard take down the trademark they can still say ikea etc just not use the logo or have it incorporated into the site name.

      • by Albanach (527650)

        They have to go after everybody or lose the mark.

        Or simply grant permission?

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          I think that due to the infernal nonsense that is the progression of case law in the USA, granting permission to one infringement of trademark before a court has assessed a penalty is grounds for all future trademark infringers to cite that case as precedent to justify their own use without disclaimers of permission.

          Yes, something like this seems like it should be resolved with a letter saying "add a disclaimer and write us a formal request to use our logo, we like your suggestions of how to get more utilit

        • by omnichad (1198475)

          Or licensing it for $1/yr.

          • Lawyers cost money and it will cost more than $1/year in order to have a lawyer even pay part-time attention to ikeahackers.net in order to maintain any agreement between the two. Typically, a company pays a firm to protect its trademarks, the upfront cost for a lawayer, who is a patent attorney, who will specialize in protecting an international "brand", will be quite expensive.

            The costs to have someone can be rougly broken down as so: their hourly rate, benefits (health/dental, retirment, education, et
            • by omnichad (1198475)

              They are already retaining that lawyer whether they license the trademark to that site or not. And if it costs them a few dollars, it's still relatively cheap advertising by a willing volunteer.

      • by BronsCon (927697) <social@bronstrup.com> on Monday June 16, 2014 @02:18PM (#47247801) Journal
        No, they have to act to protect their trademark; the list of protective actions also includes licensing.
      • by Charliemopps (1157495) on Monday June 16, 2014 @02:28PM (#47247873)

        Blame trademark law. They have to go after everybody or lose the mark.

        The right way:

        Dear Ikeahackers.com,
                    What a great site! We love what you're doing with our product! Keep it up. However, we've noticed that you're using our name and logo without license. That just wont work for various reasons it's not worth getting into. Nevertheless we need to address it to prevent future headaches. Please see the attached licensing agreement. It's for a period of 1 year with the condition that we can withdraw the agreement at anytime and it must be renewed yearly (this is just in case you sell the site to someone with less noble intentions, we'll be able to yank the license.) Please have a lawyer review the agreement, and if you agree, sign and mail it to the mailing address provided.

        Thanks and have a great day!
                  The Ikea team

        Now, how hard was that?

        • by Anonymous Coward

          Are you sure that a letter like that wasn't already sent and ignored?

        • Hard. And by hard, I mean expensive. That had to be custom written by lawyers.

          Custom notice: lets call that a days work, including the necissary research of the site to make sure there weren't any bad references to the products or company.

          8 hours labor.

          Cost ofr high powered lawyering $500 per hour.

          total $4500.

          Now most of that would be the labor of researching the site. So even if they didn't end up writing a friendly letter, thats nearly $4000. So Ikea can either sepend $4000 research on each infringment i

      • by MobyDisk (75490) on Monday June 16, 2014 @02:28PM (#47247879) Homepage

        A lawyer explained to me that that is not true. They have another option.

        They can send a letter to the site offering them a $0/yr license to use the mark.

        In my non-lawyer opinion, I think they could also send them a letter stating that Ikea decided not to sue them because are not infringing, and advise them how to use the mark appropriately to prevent future infringement. I remember talking to a lawyer about this and he didn't like that approach, but I believe lawyers are biased on this subject. Probably because it prevents their ability to sue in the future. But that's how lawyers think. If I explained copyleft to him his head probably would have exploded.

        • A lawyer explained to me that that is not true. They have another option.

          They can send a letter to the site offering them a $0/yr license to use the mark.

          In my non-lawyer opinion, I think they could also send them a letter stating that Ikea decided not to sue them because are not infringing,

          IANAL, but at that point IKEA would be saying the site is OK to continue as is because are not infringing on IKEA's trademark. Any request s after that would be superfluous since they are not infringing. At that point, the site might want to trademark their name to protect it from being grabbed by IKEA.

          and advise them how to use the mark appropriately to prevent future infringement. I remember talking to a lawyer about this and he didn't like that approach, but I believe lawyers are biased on this subject. Probably because it prevents their ability to sue in the future. But that's how lawyers think

          No, they actually like things to be laid out in a manner that clearly defines their position and what they want done. Unclear statements and random advice comes back to haunt the person who said them and the

      • by Anrego (830717) *

        I find it very strange that they are continuing to allow them to use the trademark/trade dress with the non-commercial condition.

        I don't understand trademark law, but I thought it didn't matter whether money was being made or not.

        • Why not? Now they can say they took steps to protect their trademark and they get free advertising from the guy. And they make their own lawyers happy by enforcing the non-commercial aspect. Other than the negative press they are getting at the moment for going after the "little guy" in the long term they make out OK.

      • by jedidiah (1196)

        > Blame trademark law. They have to go after everybody or lose the mark.

        Or they could have given explicit permission.

        Trademark law doesn't require that you be a jack*ss. The idea that it does is just the just Ayn Rand-ism talking.

      • by RobinH (124750)
        Really, though? Can't they just contact them and grant them a limited use right or something? Or can't they contact them and say, "please change your site to include this prominent text, or contact us to discuss"? Why is it that these legal types have to be such dicks?
      • by The Rizz (1319)

        Blame trademark law. They have to go after everybody or lose the mark.

        Incorrect. They have to stop people from using the mark in a generic way, such as using it to refer to all similar styles of products. You cannot lose a trademark because someone unassociated with you refers to your products by that name; that is specifically what trademarks are for - identifying the origination of a product.

      • Actually, there's not much of a reason for this to happen under trademark law. Ikea pretty much only has trademarks on their furniture. Just searched USPTO.gov for Ikea marks, and after skimming it saw no mention of websites or anything that describes the site. Therefore, there isn't actually a valid claim to the trademark in this case. I could start selling IKEA sandwiches and their lawyers couldn't do anything because it isn't in a class they have protected.

        So, I won't blame trademark law, but I wi
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Shinobi (19308)

      Adds traffic to the store? Riiiiiiight... Your geek-ego is overinflated... If it even does increase the traffic to IKEA, it's probably measured in something like 0.0001%

      • Your response is a little angry to a generic statement. That said, regardless of the percentage, or how small it is, that is still an additional sale.

        While I shop at ikea (okay so I am forced to by my wife) for some things, a move like this will actually make me think twice about it. Now they will have to generate stats on lost sales due to their handling of this situation.

        An example was the Lack series of products, conveniently 19 inches between the legs, perfect for a rack mount server (after beefing up

        • by omnichad (1198475)

          If you have 19 inches between the legs, you probably don't need to worry about a rack mount.

      • by unity (1740)
        I think you are greatly underestimating its effect. I have been sent many a link to it by my wife (non-geek) and have heard many of her girlfriends and female relatives discuss things they have seen on the site at social gatherings. It has definitely generated traffic to the store, as I don't think this is some isolated experience. I (a geek) wouldn't even know about the site if it wasn't for the nongeek women in my life.
    • by mythosaz (572040) on Monday June 16, 2014 @02:06PM (#47247687)

      I don't think anyone who's ever visited the site could be confused about whether it's an official Ikea site or not.

      At a glance, the site looks a lot like an official "Ikea" site - complete with blue and yellow theme, rotating images of Ikea products, etc. The Ikea cartoon figure guy who illustrates their instruction manual is plastered everywhere...

      That said, it seems the compromise they reached was fair.

      Keep using IkeaHackers.net (domain) if you don't do it for benefit (e.g. remove the ads).

    • by jo_ham (604554) <joham999&gmail,com> on Monday June 16, 2014 @02:10PM (#47247717)

      They spent eight years trying to convince the site to use something that didn't infringe IKEA's trademark, and only after all that did they finally decide to actually use the courts.

      So, maybe waiting 8 years and trying to work it out with these guys without suing them was the boneheaded move?

      • by Anrego (830717) *

        Where'd you get that from?

        I don't disbelieve it, and it would certainly make a lot more sense, but I don't see this mentioned in either article, and the blog post linked seems to imply that they went straight to C&D.

        • by jo_ham (604554)

          I read this on Ars earlier in the day. The site has been up for eight years, and the C&D came recently, since the owner didn't want to take down the Ikea-style branding or the ads (Ikea said that it would be fine without the advertising if the owner ran the site as a non-commercial entity).

          It's classic trademark/trade dress infringement, that has been either flying under the radar or simply hasn't been a concern to Ikea until recently - perhaps the ads being served alongside what could be confused for t

          • Got a link because the article

            http://arstechnica.com/tech-po... [arstechnica.com]

            Basically duplicates Slashdot (which of course duplicates itself often).

            • by jo_ham (604554)

              Yes, so I see after re-reading it. I could have sworn the original stated that they asked her to take the ads down before, but I guess not.

              Like a man in orthopaedic shoes, I stand corrected.

            • by thaylin (555395)
              duplicates or disputes?
          • by cbeaudry (706335)

            Actually, you did not answer the question.

            You are assuming they have been trying to convince him for 8 years.

            The truth (seems to be, as I am not associated and do not have first knowledge) seems to be that he has been operating for 8 years, under the radar as you said, and out of the blue, they sent him a C&D letter.

            • by jo_ham (604554)

              Yeah, I went back and re-read the article on Ars, which I seem to have misremembered - it pretty much says what the slashdot summary says.

              I had taken from the Ars piece that they had asked her previously to remove the adverts, but it seems I was incorrect. I read it during luck and I guess I didn't give it enough attention.

      • by thaylin (555395)

        Actually from Ars technica, the site you listed as a citation, they waited 8 years before doing anything, not that they spent 8 years trying to convince her to change it.

        IKEA waits 8 years, then shuts down IKEAhackers site with trademark claim [arstechnica.com]

        • by jo_ham (604554)

          You are correct - I read this earlier and had taken that Ikea asked her before to remove the ads, but I didm;t read it carefully enough it seems, since it was during lunch.

          I was incorrect.

    • by westlake (615356)

      It seems like Ikea Hackers actually adds value to the Ikea brand and probably encourages traffic to their stores.

      Until a project goes wrong in a really big way and IKEA takes the blame.

    • by fermion (181285)
      They can use a different logo. They can use different colors. They can add a big disclaimer. There is legitimate confusion here. I personally hate when this happens, when I am looking for a company website, and someone else has set up a nearly duplicate website. I am not say that these people are malicious, probably just clueless. But really one can create an respectful homage without creating a ripoff.
  • Ikea evil? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by just_another_sean (919159) on Monday June 16, 2014 @01:52PM (#47247555) Homepage Journal

    While it does seem like they were kind of thuggish about it I can sort of understand IKEA's position. He's using their trademarks and name without much mention of the fact it's not an official site and while it looks like it's a neat DIY type of site it is also covered in ads. The explanation offered in the article is reasonable but he calls himself naive for not seeing this coming so he does seem to understand what he's doing wrong.

    I see him having two options; 1) comply and take down all the advertising plus put up a clear disclaimer that he's not affiliated with IKEA or 2) radically change the site to remove all mention of IKEA and their trademarks.

    1 seems like a better option for his community while 2 would be better for him, if he can keep his community going despite downplaying IKEA as an important aspect of it, e.g. just make it about furniture in general.

    While I can respect IKEA's stance I wish they could have done more to work with him, seems to me he's providing free advertising and a fair bit of fan excitement about their products. If they could set some reasonable guidelines on what they expect from a fan site I'm sure he guy would have complied...

    • Re:Ikea evil? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by just_another_sean (919159) on Monday June 16, 2014 @01:57PM (#47247609) Homepage Journal

      Of course the above shows me forgetting that ikea is right in the domain name so maybe he doesn't have a lot of choices with regards to "re-branding" it...

      • by omnichad (1198475)

        For a few dollars, you buy a new domain and the old one redirects for 6 months before disappearing. I would be surprised if IKEA wasn't fine with that.

    • I'd go for 3, start talking with IKEA, point out how the suggestions to improve their furniture may well lead to increased sales due to people finding new uses for their furniture while at the same time offering to present relevant disclaimers that he's not in any way endorsed by IKEA.

      Corporations can be surprisingly approachable if it is in their own interest...

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by jo_ham (604554)

      "Thuggish" is trying to work it out with these guys for 8 years before finally taking them to court?

      Man, the thugs in your neighbourhood must be really polite.

    • by NoKaOi (1415755)

      I see him having two options; 1) comply and take down all the advertising plus put up a clear disclaimer that he's not affiliated with IKEA or 2) radically change the site to remove all mention of IKEA and their trademarks.

      It seems nuts that he should have to change the domain or remove advertising (not that I'm a fan of advertising, but it's not my site), when the whole point about this Trademark protection is brand confusion. The C&D letter is not a court order, the real problem is that this guy doesn't have a dedicated team of lawyers to fight it if it does go further. Or, can somebody with actual Trademark law knowledge explain to me what's different about this guy's site compared to other fan sites for other compan

  • stupid move (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Ironically thanks to this site I've actually bought Ikea furniture. Way to miss an opportunity, Ikea.

  • The owner of trademark has to "protect" it or they will lose the exclusive right to use it. It's described here [wikipedia.org]. Lawyers have to send C&D letters and sue for infringement because that's what the law says they have to do in order to keep the right to use their trademark.

    IkeaHackers does use IKEA's logo and it really can be mistaken for IKEA's trademark, so the lawyers had to act. It was routine, and it wasn't some evil corporate guy who just wanted to make that blogger's life miserable.
    • by Albanach (527650)

      If permission is granted there is no infringement. So it's incorrect to say the only response is to send a cease and desist. It would seem that they may be able send a letter saying "we grant you permission to use the ikea name and colors in exchange for a clear disclaimer on each page that you are unaffiliated." They could even state that permission is revokable at any time, in case they want some degree of protection should the site do something Ikea later dislikes.

    • They could have handled it better. Yes they have to protect their brand. No they do not have to use C&D and lawsuits to do it. The link you even posted specifies that legal action is not required.

      There are many ways to protect a brand. Ikea could have easily approached the site to add disclaimers, or offer to sponsor the site in exchange for removing advertising, or ask them to at least change the colors and fonts to be less Ikea like.

      Not saying they (Ikea) were wrong, even the sites operator realize

  • by dominux (731134) on Monday June 16, 2014 @02:07PM (#47247693) Homepage

    I see a ton of adverts for beds and sofas and flat pack stuff from other furniture stores, I can totally see why IKEA told them to C&D. It seems IKEA have said they can turn off the adverts and carry on, which is very nice of them.
    Nothing to see here, move along please.

  • is hackoverpricedswedishflatpackfurniture.com already taken?
    • by EvilSS (557649)

      is hackoverpricedswedishflatpackfurniture.com already taken?

      If it is maybe IkeaGoFuckYourself.com is available....

      • is hackoverpricedswedishflatpackfurniture.com already taken?

        If it is maybe IkeaGoFuckYourself.com is available....

        Whois Server Version 2.0 Domain names in the .com and .net domains can now be registered with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net/ [internic.net] for detailed information. No match for "IKEAGOFUCKYOURSELF.COM". >>> Last update of whois database: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 21:23:27 UTC

        Yep, go buy it if you think you can do something constructive with it.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 16, 2014 @02:41PM (#47248011)

    I like to think that the C & D form you get from Ikea comes flat packed in a cardboard box and has basic illustrations of what happens to you if you don't comply.

  • by clovis (4684) on Monday June 16, 2014 @03:10PM (#47248193)

    It may have more to do with IKEA's tax-avoidance corporate structure.
    As near as I can tell, what you think of as the Swedish IKEA stores are owned by the non-profit corporations Ingka Holding and the Ingka Foundation.
    They lease the IKEA trademarked name from a Dutch firm "Inter IKEA Systems". That's its only product: the IKEA trademarked name.
    The Dutch firm is how the money is taken out, and the full corporate structure is kind of shadowy. I don't believe anyone outside the family knows how it's all put together.

    My guess is that any threat to the trademarked name "IKEA" is a threat to their tax avoidance structure, so it's a big deal.

    • by pz (113803)

      Tax avoidance makes more sense than any other speculation in this discussion.

      Were IKEA organized as a normal for-profit venture, then anyone with half a brain at IKEA would see the utility of IkeaHackers and do one of a handful of things:

      1. Buy them outright.
      2. Obtain favorable advertising terms in exchange for licensing (eg, ikeahackers gets to keep running ads, but 50% of the spots must be filled with IKEA adverts, and sales-active links to the official items mentioned in each article must be included).
      3.

  • by jpellino (202698) on Monday June 16, 2014 @04:32PM (#47248753)
    Keep the adverts, redirect until everyone forgets what it used to be called.
  • Let's say that Ikea did license the logo to them, what control they have if the site decides to start posting derogatory things about Ikea? No, Ikea CANNOT trust the good will of the site. They have to get them to un-brand, or shut them down. It would be stupid to handle this any other way.

  • And we think that people should have that right. When other companies use the Ikea name for economic gain, it creates confusion and rights are lost.'

    If they hadn't said "for economic gain", I'd consider their sincerity. But when you add that, it changes the last part to "it creates concern and money is lost". This is more a case of "someone's making money off our name and we didn't get a cut". It has nothing to do with the consumer.

  • Any ten-year-old, and any honest judge, knows that "Ikea Hackers" are not Ikea.

    • by mark-t (151149)
      What any reasonable person could know is entirely irrelevant because it is most definitely *not* reasonable for them to be using Ikea trademarks without permission (the logo, in particular). If anything, they should have a disclaimer.

Put no trust in cryptic comments.

Working...