Slashdot Mirror
Ikea Sends IkeaHackers Blog a C&D Order
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.'
Site uses the Ikea logo and colors and contains no disclaimer. I can see how people could mistake it for an "official" site.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
their customer service was as shoddy as their furniture. Get more use from the box it came in than the actual furniture. Box is higher quality too.
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.
Facts have a liberal bias.
Here's your new domain...
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...
Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
Blame trademark law. They have to go after everybody or lose the mark.
Could of easily offered an affiliate ad solution. Each hacked product with a ad link to buy the product. Win win. Driving sales and getting involved with what appears a large dedicated community.
Ironically thanks to this site I've actually bought Ikea furniture. Way to miss an opportunity, Ikea.
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%
IKEA has sued the country of Sweden for using yellow and blue in its flag.
The owner of trademark has to "protect" it or they will lose the exclusive right to use it. It's described here. 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.
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).
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.
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.
No sir I dont like it.
I see your point, and unless the logo is trademarked good luck fighting that battle in court. If it is over the trademarked logo that's one thing but the name itself has been longed used, and in fact I would sue Ikea for using the name without permission.
I am just throwing things out there if Ikea is going to be anal over a name. And to your point the site is "IkeaHacking" how could that mislead you into thinking it was Ikea's official site? And if you read the contents within the IkeaHacking site that too would cause you to realize it isn't the official site as well.
Blame trademark law. They have to go after everybody or lose the mark.
They could have worked with him, like Valve worked with the Black Mesa: Source people to rename their project, simply, Black Mesa.
Or, they could have sponsored him. I guarantee that the revenue that ikeahackers brought to IKEA in terms of sales is much greater than the cost of the site's bandwidth.
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?
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.
Or simply grant permission?
Trademark and name use aside. The people who read this site are going to be customers buying their stuff to make stuff. Ikea would be smart from a marketing point of view to work with them rather than to attack them with a C&D. This is a niche market for their products with people who are fans of Ikea products. Telling their fans to stop collaborating via this site is a losing deal for them. They could take the interest in their products and run with it and expand with them into creating more interest in their products. It might even mean they will find more products they can sell to the general population that where created by hackers. Who knows what might happen?
I could see how someone who hardly ever uses computers might. But I feel like this late in the game it should be expected that people will realize that any url that isn't the company name probably isn't from the company.
No, they have to act to protect their trademark; the list of protective actions also includes licensing.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Why not pay him a dollar plus whatever advertising revenue "Ikea" can rack up through the site, to create an IkeaHackers.net web site for them? On the same web address, with the same content. If he were their employee, presumably there's no trademark issue.
The could even include in the contract that the content of the website belongs to him - his payment is for the public presentation that is useful to them.
is hackoverpricedswedishflatpackfurniture.com already taken?
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 utility from our products," but that is the kind of resolution a rational mind comes up with, so it has no bearing on the courts of law.
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 the legs a little). Had it not been for that hack, I would never have even considered purchasing that series of item.
I came, I conquered, I coredumped
C'mon IKEA ! I think you could resolve this more to the mutual benefit of all parties concerned by, after all every recipe on ikeahackers starts with buying an IKEA product. ikeahackers is obviously not adversarial, it's not ideasucks and even in the face of the take-down order they are being good-natured about it.
How about advising ikeahackers which bits explicitly should change to sufficiently avoid confusion? Clearly the site as is has too much cloned trademarks and that sort of thing, but it can't be that hard to make it clear it is Not an offical IKEA site.
IKEA should be supporting these creative folks, even if unofficially if they need to avoid any liabilities due to something in one of the hacked designs.
How very stupid of you to repeat this idiotic troll comment yet again. Moron.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
The main problem is not the use of IKEA in the domain name. The problem is using it as an adjective, e.g., "IKEA Hackers."
Legally safe alternatives:
www.hackers-of-ikea-products.net
www.hackers-of-ikea-furniture.net
www.hacking-ikea-products.net
etc....
Additionally, the site should stop using the IKEA logo (or continue to use if it granted permission), and should have a disclaimer at the top of the page reading: "This is an independent fan-created site that is neither sponsored nor endorsed by IKEA Systems B.V.
Disclaimer: IANAL
Citation needed on IKEA having spent eight years trying to come to an agreement.
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 their branding changed, or maybe a new guy is in charge of legal over there now?
Who knows.
Ikea sent them a letter threatening legal action. It's not an order. Orders come from judges.
This is important.
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.
Citation needed on IKEA having spent eight years trying to come to an agreement.
Error 404: citation not found. User not logged in. Please try again without the "post anonymously" box checked.
Look, I get you're having issues, but please stop turning on Beta. Twice in the last two days you've decided to switch it on for me, which becomes obvious after I've loaded up several tabs. I can't use beta, and can't turn it off from the tabs I've loaded (doing so drops you to the front page). I just get fed up, close the window, and go to soylentnews (which sometimes is ahead, and sometimes behind on stories).
Please. In the name of what we've had, just stop. I turned off beta like 8 hours ago. I want it off for a reason. Practically everyone does.
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.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
... using a trademark you don't own in your domain name and then serving ads is just asking for trouble. I'm surprised they didn't jump on it sooner.
flatpackhackers.com perhaps?
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.
Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
Quick, IKEA, sue the flag of Sweden.
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
When you cant win, ad hominem.
They did work with her. They have agreed to let her keep the domain. She simply can't profit from it so the ads have to go. She posted on the site she is looking for a new domain to transition to over time since she does need the revenue the ads bring to keep the site viable. It sucks but at least they are working with her and maybe they will realize the benefit she is to them and help her out.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
Or licensing it for $1/yr.
Got a link because the article
http://arstechnica.com/tech-po...
Basically duplicates Slashdot (which of course duplicates itself often).
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
If you have 19 inches between the legs, you probably don't need to worry about a rack mount.
You don't have a citation, and you resort to ad hominem when called out for it. "jo_ham" is about as anonymous as it gets. Faggot.
Error 404: logical fallacy not found. Ad hominem attack not detected. Please log in and try again.
Using IKEA's logo probably is a trademark violation.
But look at all the free advertizing it got you.
Without using the logo, the name IkeaHackers seems descriptive and not confusing.
Unless Ikea wants to start an IkeaHackers page, it might be trademark ok.
Hopefully once Ikea figures that out, they will let it stand.
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.
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.
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.
Butthead Furniture Maker Hackers
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.
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.
nuff said.
Are you sure that a letter like that wasn't already sent and ignored?
The Swedish government is not in the furniture business. Trademark is by area of operation. The main test is the probability of causing confusion, as to ownership, in consumers. Since the Ikea Hackers site looks very much like the Ikea site and they bot deal with furniture it is reasonable to believe that they both are owned by the same entity. It is not reasonable to associate a national flag and a private furniture manufacturer.
duplicates or disputes?
When you cant win, ad hominem.
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 lil ego avoid that.
If I explained copyleft to him his head probably would have exploded.
Why? You confuse someone who is trained to use specific language with someone who is incapable of understanding broad concepts.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
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?
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
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.
Adding value is not really the issue, the issue is whether or not customers can be fooled into thinking ikeahackers.net is owned, a part of, or in any way connected with ikea the company. ikeahackers.net may be benevolent now, but how does ikea know they will always stay that way? Regardless, nobody wants to have their name associated with something out of their control.
I don't want anyone using my company's name on anything I don't own. People will get the idea I endorse it. The site admins are idiots for using a trademarked name in their domain name. This was the only possible outcome. Unfortunately, TEH EVUL CORPORASHUNS meme is so ingrained in some people that they can't possibly think that a company would ever be in the right.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
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, etc), mandated yearly compliance training (if any), administation fees (HR, mangment), office space (if they are not located at the customer site), IT and telco services, and finally, profit.
As you can see, that is way more than $1/year. You simply can not make money if you do stuff for free. You have to charge in order to make ends meet and retain talent.
An agreement to use Ikea or its likeness (which is what this is about) might be percieved as the allowed use of Ikea products in the manner which they have not designed to be used as such (which is probably another issue at hand).
When I say designed, I mean in terms of safety and expected useful life, etc. All you need is that "one guy" who modifies a table or chair and their is a catasrophic failure that results in personal injury.
The cost of drawing up such an agreement that is valid across all Ikea sectors and all locations throughout the world is going to be very very expensive. I work at a multi-national company and there is a whole lot of work involved on any multi-national activity. It costs a lot of time and money. Way more than what IkeaHackers.net is making in ad revenue.
Keep the adverts, redirect until everyone forgets what it used to be called.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Yes. This. Exactly!
A C&D is ok by the letter of the law, not so cool by the spirit.
A politely worded e-mail from the executive management team , legal cced. Goes a long way, would of never even been mentioned on the blog. Protects the brand, everyone wins.
With the C&D, all they've done is piss off the core customer base (college age, young/first time homeowners). Exactly the demographic that looks at *hack* sites for cool ideas and money saving tips etc.
Streisand effect is coming.
I don't think you understand what 'work with her' means. Minor concessions is not working with someone, at least not in the sense intended by the parent post.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
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 it finds, or just send a preapproved scary warning letter.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
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 will blame armchair lawyer interpretations of trademark law for misrepresenting what the law actually says.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
It's quite common to have $1 licence agreements with "cool" buisniess...
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.
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
It's more like telling to you stop versus saying, like, the more neutral why are you using our trademark?
No a C&D is threatening you with being sued for large amounts of money and is written to be as threatening as possible in order to get you to back down. In civilized society when making a request of someone you do not normally start by immediately threatening them with the consequences of not complying. This generally tends to be counterproductive because it antagonizes people who will then either do the minimum possible to comply with your demand and/or figure out a way around your demand which causes the maximum inconvenience for you while complying with the letter of what is required by law. In addition a company which relies of customers wanting to shop there is not going to gain business by antagonizing its customers. We all understand that a company has to protect its trademarks but it does not have to be (or hire) a jerk to do so.
Just call yourself something along the lines of "Swedish dickhead furniture recompilers".
No they don't. Stop repeating this same bullshit over and over. They're not going to lose their trademark because some random dude sets up a website.
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.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
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.
They have been negotiating for 8 years...They don't have to let her keep the domain but they are going to. We don't know all the facts so I am holding judgement. She obviously likes IKEA and I am hoping IKEA will ultimately reach out to her in a more official capacity.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
Any ten-year-old, and any honest judge, knows that "Ikea Hackers" are not Ikea.
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
That would work if the hacks actually linked to the Ikea furniture they used, or if the "My Mini Store" button took them to Ikea's website, rather than her affiliated Amazon store (the button is no longer working).
Unless you've visited the Ikea website recently, visiting a website that has "Ikea" on the header, with no obvious parody (like Ryanair sucks) or disclaimer (on the about page isn't obvious), and uses similar colours, then yes it *could* be confusing. And the people who are likely to be confused *may* (I'm not a psychologist) be more likely to click the "My Mini Store" button or use the adverts to try buying stuff, which as you might guess take you to Ikea's competitors.
Darn. I was hoping you had a link to another arstechnica article that had the info.
Ah well.
It seems pretty clear to me-- using Ikea's trademark to sell advertising.
The problem is- with bandwidth expense- I really think advertising only to cover bandwidth costs should be allowed. Difference between "non-profit" (just enough advertising to cover costs) and making a profit off ikea products (esp if it is enough to live on- much less live well on.)
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
The blog itself says that he received the letter months ago.
FlatPackHack - There I fixed it for them.
[citation needed]
I see the site has been around for 8 years, but no indication that there have been any communication with IKEA until recently.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
What IKEA should do is hire the guys.
There are two separate issues here and people seem to be arguing past each other.
1) Is Ikea right? Yes, they probably do have a case and could win in court.
2) Is Ikea acting like a bunch of assholes. Yes. The right way to do this would be to send IkeaHackers an email opening negotiations without an explicit legal threat. "Hey, we like what you're doing but you're using our trademark and it could be confusing to customers. Please add a trademark disclaimer and more links directly to our site. Here's a suggested disclaimer for use:..."
In playground terms, a C&D is like saying, i'm going to punch you in the face if you don't get off that swing right now.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Hmm well to my knowledge the IKEA name and logo is owned by a family trust registered as a not-for-profit in the Netherlands. this "non-profit" licenses the name and logo to the chain of stores and thereby shifting profits from the stores in the country they operate in to the low tax rate of the not-for-profit. Family members are paid a generous amount for serving on the board of this not-for-profit.
So screw them for gaming the system and for clogging our landfills with glued cardboard crap.
By "head exploding" I don't mean I would confuse them. I mean that it would go against what they tend to use law for. Using the law to create something open and shareable is the opposite of what they usually do. I won't go into detail here, but I've had experiences with layers that have made me realize they are not trained to think like normal conscionable people.
By "head exploding" I don't mean I would confuse them. I mean that it would go against what they tend to use law for. Using the law to create something open and shareable is the opposite of what they usually do. I won't go into detail here, but I've had experiences with layers that have made me realize they are not trained to think like normal conscionable people.
You are correct that lawyers are trained to think in very specific ways relative to the law. That doesn't mean that cannot think like normal conscionable people; however when they are asked to provide a legal opinion or draft a legal document they will ensure it is written to accomplish specific legal goals, which often requires very precise and specific language. Th eons I worked with certainly could step out of that mode but when we asked for legal opinions that went back to their legal training and experience. If you want some thing to be open and shareable they would write a document that accomplishes that and ensures it stays open and shareable; which requires ensuring the item couldn't be incorporated in something without sharing the results if that is what you want when you say "open and shareable."
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
In most jurisdictions, if you are granted a Trademark, you must defend it against anyone who infringes on the name, to keep it from becoming generic. Failed examples of that approach include aspirin, kerosene and even thermos. Therefore Ikea has a duty to keep people from infringing, and they appear to have done a much more gentle job of it than many companies.
Trademarks are expensive to maintain, and nearly impossible to keep if they become generic. A few decades ago, Styrofoam would often send a letter to journalists and publications objecting to the use of the word styrofoam. They pointed out it is a specific brand of that type of foam, and it must be spelled Styrofoam, and by the way, put the little TM for trademark at the end of it.
If Ikea wants to solve the problem and keep it manageable, they should approach the owner of the site, and ask her to come work for Ikea, which would take over the site by buying it from her and ask her to forward the hacks she likes to an engineering and design team who would look at the practicality, safety, etc. of the hack and then a monetary or gift certificate award would be given to the inventor. Ikea could have a special catalog page for the hacks, or even have point of sale posters showing a new use for a specific product.
Ikea would keep control, the originator of the idea would be compensated, and she would be able to continue her enjoyment of Ikea hacks and it would be one of those "feel good" stories that play fairly well in the media.
Plus, Ikea would get a LOT more ideas.
If your only tool is a hammer, you'll approach every problem as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
This makes no sense. In order for anyone to make use to the materials on the ikeahackers site, you need to buy said IKEA materials. If anything this is a promotional or advertising site that bolsters interest in the very principals that make IKEA successful: Do it yourself.
You seem to have missed the entire point of my post, which was essentially "they don't have to stop this guy from using their trademark, they can simply license it to him under specific terms" which is actually what they tried to do. Also, here's my citation (PDF alert); where's yours?
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.