Ikea bullies Ikeahackers with bogus trademark claim

boing
61

IANAL but as unpleasant as this is I can see IKEA’s point here (I don’t even like IKEA either). It looks a bit like an IKEA site, or like it could be affiliated. For instance, could one imagine a corporate run site where creative but legally vetted uses for products were shared by the company? If yes, then this is how I could see it being confusing. Brand look and feel is a big thing too. Does the site get close to that? I think it probably does. Advertising, I’m not sure it’s only about money. Does IKEA approve the advertisers? No, so they may not want the association with their name/image and whatever advertisers are on the site. Imagine, for instance, the unaffiliated site were using all porn ads for revenue. Now see the issue the brand might have? People write companies all the time to drop advertising interaction with other companies that have policies the company’s customers don’t approve of. IKEA can’t control what ads are appearing alongside the brand name, or even the look and feel of the site.

So I can actually see a lot of ways they would be pursuing this as opposed to a general DIY site that happened to feature IKEA products a lot.

Sadly, that would mean the site wouldn’t have its niche.

1 Like
62

I very plainly stated what I thought, your reinterpretation allows you to “lead” me into a false conclusion.
The only people confused here are the Ikea lawyers, so they’re going to want a jury to decide?

Whoa, back up there.

You expect, a reasonable person to believe that the Ikea lawyers actually want to go to trial? Whatever legal recourse can be drummed up by Ikea Lawyers is quite separate from the way they understand that a site that is trying to cover its own expenses with ads cannot possibly afford a trial.
That you completely gloss over this point only makes me distrust your opinion. You would have to know this too, any rhetoric about how a trial would be the fairest thing for all is not disingenuous since by your admission of knowledge of the law you must know better. Here playing coy = smarmy.

2 Likes
63

It’s honestly not plain to me. You’ve said that your opinion is that " no one really believes that both can be confused." What’s the plain meaning of that? It could be that you don’t see (or notice) any similarities at all, or that you see the similarities but despite them don’t think anyone will be confused. I’m simply asking for clarification. If you don’t like my reinterpretation, feel free to clarify in your own words.

Well, the comment directly above yours also saw some confusion and potential tarnishing, so it’s not all on Ikea’s lawyers here. And if the only people who could possibly be confused are Ikea’s lawyers, and no reasonable person could be confused, the case would be dismissed through summary judgment before the actual trial began.

No, I expect that what Ikea lawyers want is for Jules’s site to stop using Ikea trademarks: after all, that is what they demanded in their C&D letter. And I’m saying that if Jules doesn’t want to do that, or she wants to say no one could possibly be confused, she can litigate and actually test her no-one-could-be-confused theory on actual jurors to see if anyone could be confused. I would have the same opinion if Jules could collect legal fees if she won, which would eliminate (or at least reduce) the resources argument.

And note that I didn’t say I thought this would be “the fairest thing for all,” as you have reinterpreted me as saying. I said that if she wants to actually test whether there is confusion or not, the process by which we do that is a trial.When facts are disputed (here, whether or not there is confusion, dilution, or tarnishing), we resolve these factual disputes through trials.That’s the system we have, fair or not.

And yes, this may sound harsh. But it’s harsh because I do see the similarities between the Ikea trademarks and Jules’s site. The colours, typefaces, and art are similar, and go beyond simple facts about Ikea. Had her site had the colour scheme, typefaces, and layout of Boing Boing, for example, I would be much more sympathetic… but if this were the case then Ikea almost certainly would not have written a C&D or would have backed down once her lawyer got involved.

I didn’t gloss over it: I earlier acknowledged the high cost of trial could well explain her lawyer’s advice, even if he believed she was correct on the merits. And in my response to you I didn’t gloss over it because it was never raised.

On the other hand, should I say that glossing over why you think there is no confusion makes me distrust your opinion and/or think you disingenuous?

64

The combination, however, they do.

65

So if Ikeahackers were to change their colour scheme and call themselves AEKI with the description “Hacking Ikea furniture since 2006”; would that solve all of the trademark issues? If Ikea’s intention was actually to destroy Ikeahackers, could they still do it on the basis of the content alone?

66

Because its use is ‘factual’, Ikea could actually be held liable for any injury due to misuse. By not defending their trademark could imply silent agreement that they allow their name to be used. Also previously mentioned, if they did give licence, they would definitely be held liable by specifically permitting their trademark to be associated.
Now, there’s probably a legal means to licence while maintaining separation, but it probably isn’t worth it since ikeahackers isn’t a really popular site, not enough to drive sales based on viewership or advertising. It’s much easier to C&D because ikeahackers doesn’t have enough money to legally pursue it. While completely unfair and lame, it has enough claim as to not be bogus.
I’m a fan of ikeahackers, so hopefully they can rename in a creative way to keep things going. We should give a creative hand. Like:

swedishfurniturehacks.com
allenwrenchhacks.com
eyekeyahackers.com
vikinghackers.com

Eh, mine are probably lame, any thoughts?

1 Like
67

Like I said: ‘flathackers’.

4 Likes
68

I ran into something similar w/ LEGO around a decade and a half ago. I owned several domains w/ “LEGO” in them and ran fan sites on a subset; the others were more out of shock that LEGO didn’t squat on them before I did. At the time I was a massive LEGO fan having entered AFOLdom after a brief period of bricklessness during high school. I would spend several $K/yr easy on the stuff. Then I got that C&D and it really broke the spell again. I registered “brick” versions of some of the domains but switched the sites off for the most part. The domains that expired were picked up by evil spammers vs. my nice fan sites that they’d previously housed. I got over it after maybe a decade or less, and Everything Is once again Awesome, but, just wanted to share another story of how large corps seem to attack their biggest fans w/ C&D vs. handling more delicately.

3 Likes
69

While I am glad that this was resolved “peacefully” I wish it had gone to court, to expose the BS that it really is. I don’t know of any other websites that agree to not have any advertising. If only there was money for fighting this in court…

(quick, name three modern, active trademarks that have been genericized through a lack of policing)

Coke, Kleenex, Vasoline. Bonus: Asprin

70

[quote=“drew_millecchia, post:64, topic:34481, full:true”]
The combination, however, they do.[/quote]
Sure. Ikea certainly own their trademark. However, some posters have suggested that the site is infringing by virtue of its font and its color scheme. If the site emerges in a new form without the trademark but with the Swedish flag color scheme and Verdana font, that alone surely wouldn’t be an infringement.

71

Ok, I just read everything on IkeaHackers, of which it seems that most haven’t and are just jumping to conclusions.
The C&D is just for the domain name IKEAhackers.net, which they wanted him to voluntary transfer to them. He had a lawyer negotiate with them and he is able to keep the name as long as he doesn’t have any advertisements. This seems to be a fair albeit inconvenient settlement.
Maybe he can set up some means of donation to replace the adds, he could even set up a completely separate, non-Ikea hacker site that has advertisements to support all the ‘non-commercial’ projects he ‘personally’ has.

72

Hi Drew, I also read it all. (Way before all that stuff up there, back before I first posted.)

They only pursued Jules once she got some advertising dollars. So, they served the C&D. Then they signed off on “allowing” her to continue use considering she not have any ads.

She’s already decided that she will be moving domain names. (That’s on her site.)

IKEA never once tried for a real shut down, just control. They have zero concern about product liability, and don’t care about the content of the site. They only want to control their name. They well know that Verdana and the Swedish flag aren’t their property. They aren’t being misrepresented, and never made that claim. There’s already discussion on the site about voting for a domain name, and a link to support the move by being contacted with the new name.

I’ve tried to explain this, but people just aren’t listening.
This is my final post on this thread.

73

Nobody knows exactly what Ikea claimed and what they care about, as we’re only hearing one side of the story and the C&D letter hasn’t been made public. The font and the flag may not be Ikea’s property, but the combination of them is—especially when applied to the name “IKEA,” which certainly is theirs—to the extent that it can be mistaken for their trademark. Hey, Apple doesn’t own any colour, and this non-proprietary font lets me type this character: . I guess this means I can use the Apple logo without infringing on Apple’s trademark?

74

I know you are, but what I am?

75

FlatPackHack(ers)

76

Update from IKEAHackers:

In a statement they issued (published by Jennifer on Yahoo! Homes) they said “We want to clarify that we deeply regret the situation at hand with IKEAhackers. It has of course never been our ambition to stop their webpage. On the contrary, we very much appreciate the interest in our products and the fact that there are people around the world that love our products as much as we do. We are now evaluating the situation, with the intention to try to find a solution that is good for all involved.”

1 Like
77

flatpackhackr

78

Below is Ikea’s Customer Service response to my email:

Michelle: Ikea’s decision to issue a cease and desist for the IkeaHackers blog was very disappointing news. I hope that senior management will consider the feedback of its customers and rectify this public relations nightmare.

Ikea Response:

Hello Ms Q,

Thank you for contacting IKEA Canada. We deeply regret the situation at hand with IKEA Hackers. It has of course never been our intention to stop their webpage. On the contrary, we very much appreciate the interest in our products and the fact that there are people around the world that love our products as much as we do.

At the same time, we have a great responsibility to our customers, they should always be able to trust the IKEA brand. High quality and good service are essential elements of this. Another important aspect is that the many people want to know what really is connected to IKEA – and what is not. For that reason the IKEA name and brand must be used correctly.

When other companies use the IKEA name for economic gain, it creates confusion and rights are lost.

We are now evaluating the situation, with the intention to try to find a solution that is good for all involved.

We thank you for reaching out to us on this subject.

Warm regards,
Emma
IKEA Canada Customer Service

79

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.