5 ms·
No reasonable person would have been confused into thinking it was an official IKEA game; IANAL, but it seems unlikely to me that IKEA would have ultimately pre
by aidenn0 6d ago
No reasonable person would have been confused into thinking it was an official IKEA game; IANAL, but it seems unlikely to me that IKEA would have ultimately prevailed in court, though a simple change to the color of the logo would probably have been helpful to the devs of the game.
- t2r3121 6d agoIt's a direct ripoff of https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-3008 https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-3008, a popular sci-fi horror story set in an IKEA. At the time the game was also using IKEA's brand colors.
- crooked-v 6d agoThe game description on Steam even explicitly mentions "SCP Foundation", which the creator also doesn't have the rights to use unless the whole game is Creative Commons-licensed.
- setopt 6d agoIANAL either, but could this be a trademark issue? My understanding is that if you don’t defend your trademarks you risk legally losing them.
- jameshart 6d agoYou can only defend your trademark with respect to product categories that you actually market. Unless IKEA were in the business of selling parody video games, their trademark doesn't apply. Wait... is that why IKEA just put out a parody video game?
- majormajor 6d agoThe game featured a store and stuff in it, that's a product category IKEA markets. If the name of an unrelated game was IKEA as some clever acronym or such and it was unrelated to stores, that would be a different trademark convo.
- doginasuit 6d agoThe game is not itself a store or advertising a real store. It is an entirely different product category. Parody is still legal and allowed as fair use, the likeness is the point. This is hardly the most egregious example that I have seen. Ultimately, these matters would likely be decided in court. IANAL either but it seems like the game maker would have a strong case. Among the things IKEA would have to prove is actual harm and confusion, who would seriously argue that? That doesn't mean IKEA couldn't make it impossible to fight with their unlimited legal resources, I can understand not wanting to spend a chunk of your life on that. Two things can be true at once: this is the most creative marketing in recent memory and genuinely funny, and IKEA destroyed someone's work simply because they can.
- aidenn0 6d agoYou can also defend it against tarnishment. They can argue that IKEA appearing in a violent video game has negative associations with their trademarks.
- tothrowaway 6d agoUnethical IP lawyers spew that nonsense all the time. Failing to enforce your trademark against a tiny alleged infringer has no effect on your trademark rights at all.
- hackernud3s 6d agoThis is false, however this is not seem like a case where trademark is being infringed. If someone else opens a store called Ikea they obviously have to shut it down.
- saghm 6d agoYeah, that seems like the type of thing that should at least in theory be fair use.
- echelon 6d agoThat's not how trademark works. If you don't defend your mark, you lose it.
- saghm 5d agoFair use is not how trademarks work? Why does the International Trademark Association seem to think it is then? https://www.inta.org/fact-sheets/fair-use-of-trademarks-intended-for-a-non-legal-audience/ https://www.inta.org/fact-sheets/fair-use-of-trademarks-inte...
- basch 6d agoIKEA has a trademark on STYR?
- echelon 6d agoDid you look at the screenshots? IKEA has a trade dress and the game matches their color scheme and font exactly. The building is clearly an IKEA with the exact same branding, just different four letter name.