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?"
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.
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.
Ironically thanks to this site I've actually bought Ikea furniture. Way to miss an opportunity, Ikea.
Could "have" dammit!
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%
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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
If you have 19 inches between the legs, you probably don't need to worry about a rack mount.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.