[jacquesm]

No legal action would ever be taken by a company like this without the appropriate managers being 100% aware of the situation. Even if they claim later publicly that they did not know once the backlash starts up. Lawyers don't just act on lowly minions talking to them, someone with specific powers must authorize the action.

[scrollaway]

This is true but not necessarily entirely correct either. IKEA probably has a legal department handling things such as trademark issues, knockoffs etc; that department may have very little contact with marketing or much-higher-ups.

It's unlikely nobody would be aware of this if this was over "months of negociations", though. Still, I think this is a case where a lot of bureaucracy has clouded what should be a very clear cut case. It's possible if a reasonable top-of-the-chain higher-up is told about all this and it is clearly demonstrated that (assuming this is at all what the site owner wants) IH could be acquired or affiliated and the whole thing could turn from bad PR to good PR, they would tell legal/laywers to sod off.

[jacquesm]

I think you fail to understand the basiscs about how IKEA is put together. The brand is not owned by the parent company:

http://www.thelocal.se/20120809/42514

So when you do something with the IKEA brand and furniture all kinds of 'reasonably considerations' that would flow from brand being owned by the mothership go right out the window.

Likely the only kind of employee the brand company has is IP lawyers.

[pbhjpbhj]

A fine tax dodge no doubt - Lichtenstein should nationalise that shell company, y'know, just for the giggle.