5 ms·

IKEA bullied the developer of the indie game The Store is Closed into gutting the whole game. [0] It’s a shame how people can even acknowledge, let alone appla

IKEA bullied the developer of the indie game The Store is Closed into gutting the whole game. [0] It’s a shame how people can even acknowledge, let alone applaud IKEA’s “funny” gaming-related ad after their successful meddling with SCP folklore, not to speak of the chilling effect their actions may have had on indie gaming. [0]: https://www.escapistmagazine.com/the-store-is-closed-indie-survival-horror-game-ikea-law-copyright-trademark/ https://www.escapistmagazine.com/the-store-is-closed-indie-s...

post-it 21d ago
I don't believe in intellectual property, but to the extent that we live in a world where IP exists, the original game as described is pretty clearly using IKEA's trade dress.
- SXX 21d ago
  It's still bad when mega-corporations attack small guy. Its certainly worth to shame companies for doing this kind of stuff. And almost as comical as Nintendo buying rights to a porn movie to prevent their distribution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Hornio_Brothers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Hornio_Brothers
  - post-it 21d ago
    Eh, I kinda get it. For a brief time, the Mario pipes were more associated with Flappy Bird than with Mario itself. That was fine, and the game died out quickly, but if the pipes became associated with Mario's cock, or if the IKEA layout became associated with a bloodbath pvp game, those associations could easily overtake the original meanings in popular culture, and the original brands would never be the same. I think that would be a fair price to pay for freeing our society from the shackles of pretending you can own an idea, but I get where these executives are coming from.
    - fendy3002 21d ago
      people underestimated the effect of jokes / stigma of media to a brand. There is non-zero chance that adults will associate the game with ikea brand and harm the brand image.
      - deleted 21d ago
        [deleted]
      - account42 19d ago
        And bullying the little guys also harms their brand image, or at least should.
  - acheron 21d ago
    > It's still bad when mega-corporations attack small guy. No, actually, we decide things based on the law, not based on which side you like more.
    - account42 19d ago
      No, the way we as a society react informs what laws should exist, not the other way around.
- throwaway219450 21d ago
  ALDI/Lidl copy every big brand under the sun. They've been litigated against, but they get away with it way more often than they lose. Many cases fail to prove that consumers were misled, and (I find this incredible) one of the strongest defenses is that store has a strong reputation for brand imitation, so there is in fact no confusion. People go to Lidl to buy Neos, knowing full well they're not Oreos. It's also surprising that other supermarkets get away with it when they sell the copycat product next to the original. If you could afford lawyers, you could definitely get away with that game, but it's easier for IKEA to stomp you.
- zugi 21d ago
  I too am skeptical of government-granted intellectual monopolies, as Richard Stallman correctly names them. Trademarks are the least offensive of them because they expire relatively quickly and are designed to prevent genuine consumer confusion. Trade dress rules help prevent consumers from unwittingly buying products from Company A while thinking it's Company B. This video game creates zero risk that a consumer will buy furniture from the wrong store, so trade dress should be inapplicable. IKEA would likely even lose in court. But as the article points out: legal proceedings ... get really expensive. This move was pure bullying by IKEA lawyers.
  - karim79 20d ago
    Excellent comment, I just learned something. +1
boredpudding 21d ago
Yeah sorry man, that's clearly IKEA so it's obvious they had to act on it. Can't sell IKEA-branded games without their permission. Even on their Steam trailer, the first second is clearly IKEA. Just changing the name is not enough. https://store.steampowered.com/app/1593010/The_Store_is_Closed/ https://store.steampowered.com/app/1593010/The_Store_is_Clos... Sometimes it's not that deep. Sometimes the cute little indie dev just made a mistake. The game is also not out yet, even though rewards were promised in June 2024.
- SXX 21d ago
  Do you know what parody is?
  - david-gpu 21d ago
    Trademarks are lost when they are not defended. That is entirely separate from fair use in copyright law.
    - Y-bar 21d ago
      This explains why Apple has sued The Onion a dozen or so times for all the parodies that infringed on trademarks belonging to the corporation. https://theonion.com/apple-introduces-revolutionary-new-laptop-with-no-keybo-1819594761/ https://theonion.com/apple-introduces-revolutionary-new-lapt... https://theonion.com/new-ipad-offers-3-months-of-something-called-apple-deli/ https://theonion.com/new-ipad-offers-3-months-of-something-c...
      - deleted 21d ago
        [deleted]
    - SXX 21d ago
      Just waiting for The Coca Cola company to sue Bethesda for having Nuka Cola.
      - 21d ago
gmueckl 21d ago
This is a tough one. The main culprit here is that trademwark law forces the trademark owner into an active defense posture to avoid losing the trademwark. This is very different from patents or copyright. So, in a way, IKEA was forced to write that nasty letter to the developer. Still, it's obvious fromo the published game footage that the developer was trying to walk a line between referencing IKEA and calling them out directly. I kind of wish that lawyers could settle these things more amicably than by opening with outright threats. The game is clearly taking SCP 3008 as its inspiration and that is a a quite satirical horror story take on IKEA stores. A part of me wishes that companies would be a bit more relaxed about obviously comedic or satirical uses of their identity. What would IKEA lose by approaching the developers in a more supportive manner initially? Say, by offering some more constructive suggestions to steer them away from the particular elements they take offense at.
- srdjanr 21d ago
  It sounds like they mostly did something like that: > The lawyers then tell the developer, “You can of course easily make a video game set in a furniture store that does not look like, or suggest, an IKEA store.” The presumed game development experts go on to explain, “You can easily make changes to your game to avoid these problems, especially since you do not plan to release the game until 2024.” (from https://kotaku.com/ikea-furniture-horror-game-store-is-closed-kickstarter-1849715848 https://kotaku.com/ikea-furniture-horror-game-store-is-close..., linked in the article) They also listed exactly what they think infringes their trademark.
  - gmueckl 21d ago
    They did that, but I think the 10 day deadline is quite heavy-handed. Also, would it be too difficult to offer a review and critique of a revised design (draft) to make sure that the matter can be resolved without further escalation?
- taneq 21d ago
  They could have bought the game rights, hired the devs, or otherwise come to some licensing agreement. It’d have been a boatload of free publicity for very little outlay. I guess they may not have wanted customers to associate their store with scary things, though.
srdjanr 21d ago
My (very) naive take: Was it important part of the game that the store looks just like IKEA? If yes, that probably makes it more likely that it was a trademark infringement and that IKEA was justified. If no, it shouldn't be a big deal to change the colors, just to avoid potential confusion.
- chorizo 21d ago
  Yes it unfortunately was. Because the SCP lore this game recreates refers to a horror scenario set inside an infinite inescapable ikea store.
- abejfehr 20d ago
  I saw beads at a bead store today that were clearly Pepsi/Sprite but they were "Pepsis" and "Spritc", presumably to be legally distinct. Is it important that the beads looked like Pepsi/Sprite? Kind of, people want recognizable brands
kalleboo 21d ago
Interestingly, that link is the first time I've ever gotten a Cloudflare HTTP 451. Apparently that site is banned in Japan for "gambling".
lukas099 21d ago
Is it possible that that influenced IKEA's decision to make the Skyrim mod in OP? That way, they have a stronger trademark case, because it's more likely for a consumer to confuse the fake IKEA game with the real one.
thinkingtoilet 21d ago
What percent of people do you think know that? I sure didn't. I'm guessing to two decimal points, exactly 0.00% of people know that. It's a shame how people can make sweeping statements about something when it's beyond obvious no one knows what they're talking about.
deleted 20d ago
[deleted]
msteffen 20d ago
I haven’t played The Store is Closed, but to everyone saying IKEA had some obligation to shut down a parody…videogames parody real brands all the time, including their colors? Why was this different? Some examples offhand: - Fallout’s Nuka Cola is an obvious parody of Coca Cola (also same colors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuka-Cola https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuka-Cola) and Cram is an obvious parody of Spam (same colors) - GTA is full of these: Sprunk (an obvious parody of Sprite, again same colors), Fruit (obviously Apple—same colors, same branding style, same use of iPrefix and “think” marketing), definitely others - Saints Row “Freckle Bitches” was a fairly obvious reference to Whendy’s (“I’m all grown up”) All of these games were bigger, not Indy games at all, and none of the parodied brands saw any obligation to sue AFAIK. Would IKEA have gone after Rockstar, given that they’re much bigger and very popular? I’m suspicious that this was a case of “small target” rather than “big problem”. (Ok, I clicked through the article, it looks like it was just a demand letter? My impression is that demand letters are nearly meaningless. No judge has to approve them, and they cost an hour or two of lawyer time.)
- Hackbraten 19d ago
  > it looks like it was just a demand letter? My impression is that demand letters are nearly meaningless. No judge has to approve them, and they cost an hour or two of lawyer time. A solo indie developer who is busy building their debut title is no match for the legal team of a global multi-billion corporation. The developer would run out of money way before the parties could reach any kind of settlement.
unrented7977 19d ago
Just like the "chilling" effect the big bad evil Red Cross had on indie games? Shameful how you don't recognize the terrible evil the Red Cross has done. https://www.pcgamer.com/how-the-prison-architect-developers-broke-the-geneva-conventions/ https://www.pcgamer.com/how-the-prison-architect-developers-...

post-it 21d ago

I don't believe in intellectual property, but to the extent that we live in a world where IP exists, the original game as described is pretty clearly using IKEA's trade dress.

SXX 21d ago
It's still bad when mega-corporations attack small guy. Its certainly worth to shame companies for doing this kind of stuff. And almost as comical as Nintendo buying rights to a porn movie to prevent their distribution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Hornio_Brothers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Hornio_Brothers
- post-it 21d ago
  Eh, I kinda get it. For a brief time, the Mario pipes were more associated with Flappy Bird than with Mario itself. That was fine, and the game died out quickly, but if the pipes became associated with Mario's cock, or if the IKEA layout became associated with a bloodbath pvp game, those associations could easily overtake the original meanings in popular culture, and the original brands would never be the same. I think that would be a fair price to pay for freeing our society from the shackles of pretending you can own an idea, but I get where these executives are coming from.
  - fendy3002 21d ago
    people underestimated the effect of jokes / stigma of media to a brand. There is non-zero chance that adults will associate the game with ikea brand and harm the brand image.
    - deleted 21d ago
      [deleted]
    - account42 19d ago
      And bullying the little guys also harms their brand image, or at least should.
- acheron 21d ago
  > It's still bad when mega-corporations attack small guy. No, actually, we decide things based on the law, not based on which side you like more.
  - account42 19d ago
    No, the way we as a society react informs what laws should exist, not the other way around.
throwaway219450 21d ago
ALDI/Lidl copy every big brand under the sun. They've been litigated against, but they get away with it way more often than they lose. Many cases fail to prove that consumers were misled, and (I find this incredible) one of the strongest defenses is that store has a strong reputation for brand imitation, so there is in fact no confusion. People go to Lidl to buy Neos, knowing full well they're not Oreos. It's also surprising that other supermarkets get away with it when they sell the copycat product next to the original. If you could afford lawyers, you could definitely get away with that game, but it's easier for IKEA to stomp you.
zugi 21d ago
I too am skeptical of government-granted intellectual monopolies, as Richard Stallman correctly names them. Trademarks are the least offensive of them because they expire relatively quickly and are designed to prevent genuine consumer confusion. Trade dress rules help prevent consumers from unwittingly buying products from Company A while thinking it's Company B. This video game creates zero risk that a consumer will buy furniture from the wrong store, so trade dress should be inapplicable. IKEA would likely even lose in court. But as the article points out: legal proceedings ... get really expensive. This move was pure bullying by IKEA lawyers.
- karim79 20d ago
  Excellent comment, I just learned something. +1

boredpudding 21d ago

Yeah sorry man, that's clearly IKEA so it's obvious they had to act on it. Can't sell IKEA-branded games without their permission. Even on their Steam trailer, the first second is clearly IKEA. Just changing the name is not enough. https://store.steampowered.com/app/1593010/The_Store_is_Closed/ https://store.steampowered.com/app/1593010/The_Store_is_Clos... Sometimes it's not that deep. Sometimes the cute little indie dev just made a mistake. The game is also not out yet, even though rewards were promised in June 2024.

SXX 21d ago
Do you know what parody is?
- david-gpu 21d ago
  Trademarks are lost when they are not defended. That is entirely separate from fair use in copyright law.
  - Y-bar 21d ago
    This explains why Apple has sued The Onion a dozen or so times for all the parodies that infringed on trademarks belonging to the corporation. https://theonion.com/apple-introduces-revolutionary-new-laptop-with-no-keybo-1819594761/ https://theonion.com/apple-introduces-revolutionary-new-lapt... https://theonion.com/new-ipad-offers-3-months-of-something-called-apple-deli/ https://theonion.com/new-ipad-offers-3-months-of-something-c...
    - deleted 21d ago
      [deleted]
  - SXX 21d ago
    Just waiting for The Coca Cola company to sue Bethesda for having Nuka Cola.
    - 21d ago

gmueckl 21d ago

This is a tough one. The main culprit here is that trademwark law forces the trademark owner into an active defense posture to avoid losing the trademwark. This is very different from patents or copyright. So, in a way, IKEA was forced to write that nasty letter to the developer. Still, it's obvious fromo the published game footage that the developer was trying to walk a line between referencing IKEA and calling them out directly. I kind of wish that lawyers could settle these things more amicably than by opening with outright threats. The game is clearly taking SCP 3008 as its inspiration and that is a a quite satirical horror story take on IKEA stores. A part of me wishes that companies would be a bit more relaxed about obviously comedic or satirical uses of their identity. What would IKEA lose by approaching the developers in a more supportive manner initially? Say, by offering some more constructive suggestions to steer them away from the particular elements they take offense at.

srdjanr 21d ago
It sounds like they mostly did something like that: > The lawyers then tell the developer, “You can of course easily make a video game set in a furniture store that does not look like, or suggest, an IKEA store.” The presumed game development experts go on to explain, “You can easily make changes to your game to avoid these problems, especially since you do not plan to release the game until 2024.” (from https://kotaku.com/ikea-furniture-horror-game-store-is-closed-kickstarter-1849715848 https://kotaku.com/ikea-furniture-horror-game-store-is-close..., linked in the article) They also listed exactly what they think infringes their trademark.
- gmueckl 21d ago
  They did that, but I think the 10 day deadline is quite heavy-handed. Also, would it be too difficult to offer a review and critique of a revised design (draft) to make sure that the matter can be resolved without further escalation?
taneq 21d ago
They could have bought the game rights, hired the devs, or otherwise come to some licensing agreement. It’d have been a boatload of free publicity for very little outlay. I guess they may not have wanted customers to associate their store with scary things, though.

srdjanr 21d ago

My (very) naive take: Was it important part of the game that the store looks just like IKEA? If yes, that probably makes it more likely that it was a trademark infringement and that IKEA was justified. If no, it shouldn't be a big deal to change the colors, just to avoid potential confusion.

chorizo 21d ago
Yes it unfortunately was. Because the SCP lore this game recreates refers to a horror scenario set inside an infinite inescapable ikea store.
abejfehr 20d ago
I saw beads at a bead store today that were clearly Pepsi/Sprite but they were "Pepsis" and "Spritc", presumably to be legally distinct. Is it important that the beads looked like Pepsi/Sprite? Kind of, people want recognizable brands

kalleboo 21d ago

Interestingly, that link is the first time I've ever gotten a Cloudflare HTTP 451. Apparently that site is banned in Japan for "gambling".

lukas099 21d ago

Is it possible that that influenced IKEA's decision to make the Skyrim mod in OP? That way, they have a stronger trademark case, because it's more likely for a consumer to confuse the fake IKEA game with the real one.

thinkingtoilet 21d ago

What percent of people do you think know that? I sure didn't. I'm guessing to two decimal points, exactly 0.00% of people know that. It's a shame how people can make sweeping statements about something when it's beyond obvious no one knows what they're talking about.

deleted 20d ago

[deleted]

msteffen 20d ago

I haven’t played The Store is Closed, but to everyone saying IKEA had some obligation to shut down a parody…videogames parody real brands all the time, including their colors? Why was this different? Some examples offhand: - Fallout’s Nuka Cola is an obvious parody of Coca Cola (also same colors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuka-Cola https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuka-Cola) and Cram is an obvious parody of Spam (same colors) - GTA is full of these: Sprunk (an obvious parody of Sprite, again same colors), Fruit (obviously Apple—same colors, same branding style, same use of iPrefix and “think” marketing), definitely others - Saints Row “Freckle Bitches” was a fairly obvious reference to Whendy’s (“I’m all grown up”) All of these games were bigger, not Indy games at all, and none of the parodied brands saw any obligation to sue AFAIK. Would IKEA have gone after Rockstar, given that they’re much bigger and very popular? I’m suspicious that this was a case of “small target” rather than “big problem”. (Ok, I clicked through the article, it looks like it was just a demand letter? My impression is that demand letters are nearly meaningless. No judge has to approve them, and they cost an hour or two of lawyer time.)

Hackbraten 19d ago
> it looks like it was just a demand letter? My impression is that demand letters are nearly meaningless. No judge has to approve them, and they cost an hour or two of lawyer time. A solo indie developer who is busy building their debut title is no match for the legal team of a global multi-billion corporation. The developer would run out of money way before the parties could reach any kind of settlement.

unrented7977 19d ago

Just like the "chilling" effect the big bad evil Red Cross had on indie games? Shameful how you don't recognize the terrible evil the Red Cross has done. https://www.pcgamer.com/how-the-prison-architect-developers-broke-the-geneva-conventions/ https://www.pcgamer.com/how-the-prison-architect-developers-...