[jacquesm]

It's not that easy though. Setting precedent for infringement being rewarded with a buy-out might send all the wrong signals. If they did that a few thousand 'hack with Ikea' sites would jump up overnight.

The problem with these suits is usually not the specific case at hand but everybody else that will use the opportunity if they no longer defend their trademark vigorously. And buying out a site like that would probably not qualify as defense but as reward.

If the price was $0 or the former owner would pay a token fine and the site would then be run by the former owner but under the IKEA umbrella then it might work. But an actual payment for something that leveraged a brand would be a big mistake imo.

[joering2]

> Setting precedent for infringement being rewarded with a buy-out might send all the wrong signals.

Just exactly what wrong signals did Google send when they bough Youtube?

Unless we are blind and skip the fact youtube willingfully hosted 90% of ifringe content.

[jacquesm]

The analogy would be that google bought googletube, which they did not.

[nasmorn]

They don't infringe on anything IMHO. This is a fan site promoting the use of the companies products. This is not the same as using the tm to sell look alikes. If sites adding massive value to a brand over almost a decade can expect to be noticed and acquired how is that bad for ikea.