5 ms·
IANAL, but isn't it incumbent upon IKEA to issue a C&D, whether they want to or not, in order to show they are actively using their trademark? From what I've h
by mtVessel 12y ago
IANAL, but isn't it incumbent upon IKEA to issue a C&D, whether they want to or not, in order to show they are actively using their trademark?
From what I've heard, if they didn't, someone else might have a case that their trademark is open to use.
- aragot 12y agoIt's in their right to be assholes too. Most probably, they wont't because it's a bad way to do business. > If they didn't, someone else might have a case They could have just licensed their trademark to the website for a non-null sum of money.
- pessimizer 12y agoTo use the Ikea trademark when referring to Ikea brand products doesn't dilute the mark.
- michaelhoffman 12y agoIt's incumbent on IKEA to police unauthorized use of their trademark somehow, but that doesn't have to mean that they must start by sending a nasty letter. When Jack Daniels thought their trademark was being infringed, they started by sending a nice letter simply asking the infringer to stop. http://abovethelaw.com/2012/07/cease-and-desist-letter-of-the-day-captain-jack-doesnt-need-mean-lawyers/ http://abovethelaw.com/2012/07/cease-and-desist-letter-of-th... Another way to deal with unauthorized use of a trademark is to authorize it. So IKEA could have started with a letter asking IKEA Hackers suggesting a potential agreement and a nominal fee. An imperative cease and desist letter isn't required.
- doktrin 12y agoThe Jack Daniels C&D letter should be a case study in public relations. While not universal, people really do respond quite well when faced with civility and respect.
- gonzo 12y agoNominative use is allowed. (You can think of this as a trademark analog of "fair use" in Copyright.)