3 ms·

Let's use this as a case study: What (according to HN) should IKEA have done? Buy the site and pay the owner to keep on running it. If it's owned by IKEA ther

Let's use this as a case study: What (according to HN) should IKEA have done? Buy the site and pay the owner to keep on running it. If it's owned by IKEA there's no trademark dilution problem...

protomyth 12y ago
IKEA could license the the site for $0 to use their trademark.
jacquesm 12y ago
> Buy the site and pay the owner to keep on running it. I think that would send the wrong signal to would-be copycats. I think the chosen solution, allow them to continue but non-commercially is a pretty good one. If it's a fan site then it should be non-commercial.
- pan69 12y ago
  You can then sue the copycats, I guess.
- Niten 12y ago
  I don't think it would send that message at all. IKEA Hackers wasn't just some site using the IKEA name, it was a high-quality and well-established community. If IKEA had purchased this establishment, I don't think a reasonable person would conclude they would give the same treatment to just any other trademark infringer. And even non-profit sites need money to pay for hosting.