[AlphaWeaver]

I feel like this should be relatively fair-use under the guise of parody, right? Though I imagine the dev doesn't feel like going to court over it.

[throwup]

Definitely. Brand name lookalikes are a longstanding tradition in media. See: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BlandNameProduct - dozens of subpages and hundreds of examples. If he took this to court he would absolutely win.

[myself248]

Given that a lot of people feel trapped in an IKEA store, I think that's pretty clear.

I have no interest in the game, but I'd chip into a legal-defense fund for it.

[Beldin]

Perhaps, under US law. If the creator felt confident about that and only intended to sell this game in the USA, then perhaps a lawsuit could be worth it.

Then again, the "parody" defense may require something more than "the setting is obviously a take on this trademark", something sufficient to label it "transformative". No clue what the legal standard for that is.

[nkozyra]

> then perhaps a lawsuit could be worth it.

Even in US law, no, there's no scenario wherein the lawsuit against IKEA would be worth ~$50k in revenue (not profit).

[Method-X]

He should take it to court. Great publicity for his game!