[actually_a_dog]

I'm not saying IKEA is at all in the right here, but you do have to admit that this:

> Your game uses a blue and yellow sign with a Scandinavian name on the store, a blue box-like building, yellow vertical striped shirts identical to those worn by IKEA personnel, a gray path on the floor, furniture that looks like IKEA furniture, and product signage that looks like IKEA signage.

is truly, unmistakenly supposed to be a fictional totally-not-IKEA-but-yeah-its-IKEA store. If, instead of furniture, the store had been filled with TVs, large appliances, laptops, cell phones, and related merchandise, while the staff wore blue shirts with yellow name tags, I'm sure you'd have no trouble picking out which store I was describing, in spite of not saying the name, right?

I haven't read the full letter, but this smells like they might be going after a trademark infringement theory. If that's the case, corporations are obligated to do shit like bully video game developers, if they believe that the game's use of their branding would cause confusion or harm the identity of their mark. So, those who condemn IKEA here might just literally be condemning them for being vigorous participants in the capitalist marketplace.

[epicide]

I'm not a lawyer and only vaguely familiar with trademark law, so I'm genuinely curious how some of this works.

> if they believe that the game's use of their branding would cause confusion or harm the identity of their mark

My understanding is "confusion" is centered around people trying to make similar products that seem like they are made by a famous brand. This would be more like if somebody opened a furniture store in a blue box-like building, yellow vertical striped shirts, Scandinavian themed, and named NOKEA[0].

"Harm the identity of their mark" is interesting. It seems intentionally vague, which makes sense[1]. I wouldn't be surprised if the word "harm" is used in the legalese, but it can't possibly cover all cases of potential harm, right? If so, I couldn't review any IKEA product as that arguably "harms the mark" [2].

Basically, I'm curious what "harms" are generally acceptable and which are not. I'm sure this is a really big subject, but in my non-lawyer opinion, it feels like IKEA has a weaker case here because it's a video game and not a furniture store[3].

[0]: Might actually be infringing on two for the price of one!

[1]: To the dismay of programmers everywhere, having hard and fast rules for trademark infringment doesn't really make sense. Those just become instructions for how to infringe legally.

[2]: Tying into previous parts, even if I don't use the word "IKEA", it could still (reasonably) be tied back to them.

[3]: Assuming the game maker removes the purported direct usage of the word "IKEA".

[actually_a_dog]

Yeah, I think what you say definitely has some merit, but you & I both know that the law doesn't always work the way non-specialists think it does. While there's certainly a common sense argument (completely apart from the parody angle) that goes something like "@actually_a_dog's truthful review didn't harm $COMPANY's mark; $COMPANY did so by providing a consumer experience that enabled @actually_a_dog to write such a review truthfully," I don't know if or how that comports with the law or not.

So, sure, if I opened up a Swedish-themed store that sold cheap furniture and Swedish meatballs, then called it MyKEA or something, and had the employees wear shirts with yellow vertical stripes on them, I'd be an idiot not to expect a nastygram from IKEA legal regarding my infringing use of their mark in commerce. The question seems to be "Does depicting a store and using recognizable elements of its brand identity in a commercial video game count as 'use of the mark in commerce?'" To that question, you & I may answer "no," but IKEA, and possibly the law, might answer the other way.

[skocznymroczny]

Well, it's tricky, but many games do that and get away with it.

In many games you have cars or guns which are obvious lookalikes of real life cars and weapons but have their names changed to avoid copyright infringements.

Look at GTA. They can pretend it's taking place in Los Santos, Las Venturas and San Fierro, but we know what real life locations they are meant to represent. We know what that VINEWOOD letters on the hills are meant to represent, we know what "Area 69" military base is meant to represent.

[actually_a_dog]

> Look at GTA. They can pretend it's taking place in Los Santos, Las Venturas and San Fierro, but we know what real life locations they are meant to represent. We know what that VINEWOOD letters on the hills are meant to represent, we know what "Area 69" military base is meant to represent.

True, but none of those names are owned by a corporation as trademarks. If there was a store that with white/minimalist decor that sold similarly designed cell phones, laptops, and tablets and had a name and logo referencing a fruit, what you have to ask yourself is if Apple would care.

Honestly, I am not sure. If Fight Club can literally have an actual Starbucks cup in every scene and the production company not get sued, I don't even know what that's about. Everybody knows that movie isn't about Brad Pitt beating the crap out of a bunch of other guys for funsies, right? I don't know for sure, but if I had to guess, I'd bet they didn't license the cup or the logo from Starbucks, either.

[treis]

GTA had their iFruit, or whatever it was, that was clearly a parody of Apple.

Trademark protections only come into play when there's risk of customer confusion. So even without the parity claim GTA and the game in the OP are almost certainly fine. No one is going to be confused and think that Ikea has put out an Indie computer game.

[lostmsu]

You should check GTA cars then. There's Pegassi, Ocelot and Grotti. My favorite non-sports one is an electric named Coil. It even has the characteristic sound.

https://www.thegamer.com/gta-5-best-cars/

[molotovh]

>True, but none of those names are owned by a corporation as trademarks. If there was a store that with white/minimalist decor that sold similarly designed cell phones, laptops, and tablets and had a name and logo referencing a fruit, what you have to ask yourself is if Apple would care.

Apparently they did not, because GTA V references "iFruit phones" with not just the in-game phones but also branded merchandise for the characters, an Internet radio station, and even a separate downloadable iFruit app for your real world smartphone.

[ohbtvz]

You think multi-million dollars productions would take these kinds of risks willy nilly? Hell, I'd bet that your examples are product placements and the companies literally got paid.

[Cthulhu_]

It's probably the fine line between parody and copying; the ikea game was ruled too much like a copy, GTA was ruled a parody.

[Karliss]

Nothing was ruled so far. IKEA lawyers just looked at it said they don't like it, doesn't matter whether it's valid parody or not. And in many cases it works, because the potential cost of defending in court is too much.

[yjftsjthsd-h]

> If that's the case, corporations are obligated to do shit like bully video game developers,

IANAL, but AIUI they're only obligated to do something, but that something can be "tell the developers that they need to get approval to use trademarked stuff and then immediately hand them permission to use the trademark for free". It's all about controlling use of the trademark, not being obligated to be a bully about it.

[ouid]

The obligation to defend trademark and the fair use doctrine are, when combined, in the best case, nothing but busywork for the courts.

[mattnewton]

It's clearly a parody. I really can't understand the potential for brand damage here ¯ \ _ ( ツ ) _ / ¯