[antiterra]

I don’t think you can so easily state it’s not parodying Ikea and there’s an argument for fair-use without that, However, at least in the US (this is maybe in the UK?) arguing fair-use for a trademark can cost a lot of money and is a bit fraught.

Also re the ‘our hands are tied, we must protect our mark’ claims, it’s always an option to license the use.

https://www.kirkland.com/publications/article/2020/11/tradem...

[klodolph]

I just don’t see a fair use angle making it very far here. Obviously the “true” test is to actually argue it in court and get a ruling—but it’s fair game to kibitz and make declarations of how you think a case would get resolved, were it to go to court.

[antiterra]

Yes, it’s all bench racing but caselaw provides some small manner of clairvoyance.

I think it really depends on jurisdiction. If it was adjudicated somewhere with the Roger’s test, I think it would have a very decent chance. For example, take Seuss v Comicmix, in which Comicmix didn’t sufficiently meet the bar for parody on copyright grounds but cleared trademark fair use.

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=ebdcd5aa-17b1...

[GauntletWizard]

I was really hoping that your link was going to tell me that Costco will license me their house brand to use in parody.

[antiterra]

hah, we used to volunteer at pax together