4 ms·

IKEA handled this admirably, if you think otherwise, you should attempt to qualify your opinion, otherwise it's meaningless and adds nothing to the conversation

by halviti 12y ago

IKEA handled this admirably, if you think otherwise, you should attempt to qualify your opinion, otherwise it's meaningless and adds nothing to the conversation. If you understand even the basics of trademark law, you know that if IKEA were to do nothing at all in this case, that they would risk losing their IKEA trademark. That's a fairly big price to pay, just to allow someone else to make money using the brand name the company spent decades building. The fact that they were even willing to negotiate shows the company actually cared about the individual and wanted to try to come to a compromise that would suit both parties without involving a lawsuit. In the end the author of the website shows everyone that money is what's most important to them, and that's their decision.

DanBC 12y ago
IKEA could have said "we love the community you've created. Here's a free licence to use the trademark within these rules; please also make the site look less like it is connected to IKEA; please also remove the advertising (but we'll use our charitable status to fund the hosting costs for you); oh, BTW, here are some sneak peeks into futre releases, some inside information from our designers about products you've featured; some stuff for prizes for competitions you can run if you like".
- halviti 12y ago
  The request to stop advertising and stop using IKEA's name are exactly what happened. The only things you are adding are: (1) Suggesting a multibillion dollar coroporation license its trademark to a stranger on the internet for free. (2) Suggesting a company that is being infringed on host the infringing website. (3) Suggesting a company give away insider information and free product as some sort of reward for using their company name to make money for themselves. I'm just trying to be playful when I say that you have the negotiating skills of a 12-year-old, but seriously, nobody on Earth would agree to those terms or suggest them outright. Do this. Make a website called McDonald's burgers, use the McDonald's logo everywhere, and then put up a bunch of burger recipes and google ads. Let me know when you get a bunch of free stuff from McDonalds and they start hosting your website. ;)
  - pbhjpbhj 12y ago
    The infringement, if there is one, is of a quite technical nature. >(1) Suggesting a multibillion dollar coroporation license its trademark to a stranger on the internet for free. // Why not? It's not like someone's suggesting to hand over the trademark itself. IKEAhackers is a fan site that is promoting IKEA - and has been widely, for several years - at no cost and probably countable benefit to IKEA. Why not reward your fans for doing marketing for you? The equivalent for McDonalds - McDoHackers - would have a series of outstandingly good reviews of McDonalds meals, it would give menu suggestions for meals at McDonalds. The minimal advertising would be for cupholders for your car that only fit McDonalds drinks, or for carry bags that let you buy more McDonalds food, or for companies that will deliver McDo for you so you can eat more McDonalds rather than buy other people's food (or make your own). Terror of terrors ... yes McDo would probably use the extra revenue you brought them to sue you as well, but that doesn't make that the ethical line.
    - jacquesm 12y ago
      > would have a series of outstandingly good reviews of McDonalds meals Good we're talking fiction here. Otherwise I'd conclude (pun intended) that you were 'out to lunch' ;)
resu_nimda 12y ago
just to allow someone else to make money using the brand name the company spent decades building. Both you and jacquesm seem to have the opinion that this site is run by an opportunistic profiteer parasitically leeching off of IKEA. In reality it's a DIY community that is very supportive of the IKEA brand and probably makes very little money, which is obviously driven more by the hacks than simply the IKEA brand itself. It's depressing that this ruthless capitalist paranoia is so systemic in our society (USA). We should view these situations as opportunities for collaboration, not competition. IKEA could have turned this into a huge positive for everyone by embracing it and making it somewhat official. The fact that they were even willing to negotiate shows the company actually cared about the individual and wanted to try to come to a compromise that would suit both parties without involving a lawsuit. Right...a C&D...so indicative of care and compromise. Never mind the bit about "give us your domain or we will take any legal action necessary." Her and her lawyer pushed for some small ground and IKEA eventually ceded it probably because it was a lot cheaper than a lawsuit. Furthermore, the "compromise" is still completely untenable for the future of the site, so it's still going to have to change the name, this only affords them some semblance of continuity during the transition. In the end the author of the website shows everyone that money is what's most important to them, and that's their decision. Why are you so supportive of a large corporation bullying an individual and simultaneously critical of that individual? What did IKEA show is important to them in this episode? Something other than money? What do you think the website owner should do instead? Close up shop and go back to a day job? Sorry, I just don't find any part of IKEA's actions "admirable" here. "Relatively unsurprising in today's aggressively litigious and paranoid socioeconomic climate," maybe.
kahirsch 12y ago
> If you understand even the basics of trademark law, you know that if IKEA were to do nothing at all in this case, that they would risk losing their IKEA trademark. What do you base this statement on? The only cases that I've heard about where a company lost their trademark were nothing like this one, at all.

by halviti 12y ago

DanBC 12y ago

IKEA could have said "we love the community you've created. Here's a free licence to use the trademark within these rules; please also make the site look less like it is connected to IKEA; please also remove the advertising (but we'll use our charitable status to fund the hosting costs for you); oh, BTW, here are some sneak peeks into futre releases, some inside information from our designers about products you've featured; some stuff for prizes for competitions you can run if you like".

halviti 12y ago
The request to stop advertising and stop using IKEA's name are exactly what happened. The only things you are adding are: (1) Suggesting a multibillion dollar coroporation license its trademark to a stranger on the internet for free. (2) Suggesting a company that is being infringed on host the infringing website. (3) Suggesting a company give away insider information and free product as some sort of reward for using their company name to make money for themselves. I'm just trying to be playful when I say that you have the negotiating skills of a 12-year-old, but seriously, nobody on Earth would agree to those terms or suggest them outright. Do this. Make a website called McDonald's burgers, use the McDonald's logo everywhere, and then put up a bunch of burger recipes and google ads. Let me know when you get a bunch of free stuff from McDonalds and they start hosting your website. ;)
- pbhjpbhj 12y ago
  The infringement, if there is one, is of a quite technical nature. >(1) Suggesting a multibillion dollar coroporation license its trademark to a stranger on the internet for free. // Why not? It's not like someone's suggesting to hand over the trademark itself. IKEAhackers is a fan site that is promoting IKEA - and has been widely, for several years - at no cost and probably countable benefit to IKEA. Why not reward your fans for doing marketing for you? The equivalent for McDonalds - McDoHackers - would have a series of outstandingly good reviews of McDonalds meals, it would give menu suggestions for meals at McDonalds. The minimal advertising would be for cupholders for your car that only fit McDonalds drinks, or for carry bags that let you buy more McDonalds food, or for companies that will deliver McDo for you so you can eat more McDonalds rather than buy other people's food (or make your own). Terror of terrors ... yes McDo would probably use the extra revenue you brought them to sue you as well, but that doesn't make that the ethical line.
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    > would have a series of outstandingly good reviews of McDonalds meals Good we're talking fiction here. Otherwise I'd conclude (pun intended) that you were 'out to lunch' ;)

resu_nimda 12y ago

just to allow someone else to make money using the brand name the company spent decades building. Both you and jacquesm seem to have the opinion that this site is run by an opportunistic profiteer parasitically leeching off of IKEA. In reality it's a DIY community that is very supportive of the IKEA brand and probably makes very little money, which is obviously driven more by the hacks than simply the IKEA brand itself. It's depressing that this ruthless capitalist paranoia is so systemic in our society (USA). We should view these situations as opportunities for collaboration, not competition. IKEA could have turned this into a huge positive for everyone by embracing it and making it somewhat official. The fact that they were even willing to negotiate shows the company actually cared about the individual and wanted to try to come to a compromise that would suit both parties without involving a lawsuit. Right...a C&D...so indicative of care and compromise. Never mind the bit about "give us your domain or we will take any legal action necessary." Her and her lawyer pushed for some small ground and IKEA eventually ceded it probably because it was a lot cheaper than a lawsuit. Furthermore, the "compromise" is still completely untenable for the future of the site, so it's still going to have to change the name, this only affords them some semblance of continuity during the transition. In the end the author of the website shows everyone that money is what's most important to them, and that's their decision. Why are you so supportive of a large corporation bullying an individual and simultaneously critical of that individual? What did IKEA show is important to them in this episode? Something other than money? What do you think the website owner should do instead? Close up shop and go back to a day job? Sorry, I just don't find any part of IKEA's actions "admirable" here. "Relatively unsurprising in today's aggressively litigious and paranoid socioeconomic climate," maybe.

kahirsch 12y ago

> If you understand even the basics of trademark law, you know that if IKEA were to do nothing at all in this case, that they would risk losing their IKEA trademark. What do you base this statement on? The only cases that I've heard about where a company lost their trademark were nothing like this one, at all.