[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.