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.
Could "have" dammit!
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).
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?
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.
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.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
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.
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.