3 ms·
You may well be right about non-US courts, but I don't follow your argument under U.S. law. (Is there one? It actually isn't clear to me what you contend the ou
by pdabbadabba 12y ago
You may well be right about non-US courts, but I don't follow your argument under U.S. law. (Is there one? It actually isn't clear to me what you contend the outcome would be in the U.S.) As I read them, all three NKOTB factors that you quoted weigh in Ikeahackers's favor.
1- The product or service in question is not readily identifiable without use of the mark.
2- Ikeahackers uses no more of the mark than it needs to to identify the products in question.
3- It is a closer question whether the design of the site implies endorsement (for the same reasons as I noted with respect to likelihood of confusion), but some cosmetic changes to the site could probably solve this problem.
- pbhjpbhj 12y agoI don't think IKEAhackers passes on 2 or 3. They use the mark in the URL and site design, which is more than is necessary to identify the origin of the goods mentioned on the site. They use the livery and typefaces (or look-alikes) and the site style matches IKEAs - eg the line drawn cartoons are close in style - and I'd say all these factors suggest an endorsement that is not clearly and prominently disclaimed (it is disclaimed on the site however). Now all that with no commercial aspects to the use (no advertising) and it's looking a bit thin on the plaintiff's side; but with the commercial use ... in short the use doesn't feel [!] purely referential (or "nominative" in the language of the US caselaw) to me.