Ikea C&D's 8-year old Ikea furniture hacking website

More specifically, "Evidence of Registration and Use in Bad Faith" can be demonstrated that "by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location" (see https://archive.icann.org/en/udrp/udrp-policy-24oct99.htm). In this case, it seems that the domain name holder is using the IKEA name to attract users for commercial gain. In a UDRP proceeding, IKEA would most likely be able to gain control of the domain name.

On a side note, the site is great. I am glad I found out about it.

That's exactly the problem. See you you used it as a 'brand'?

The big difference from the current situation is that he/she will need to redo the website to stop using IKEA logos and the IKEA name. I mean if you look at the site, it would be very difficult for someone to determine whether or not this was actually a branch, offshoot, or official project of IKEA, of which it is none.

They are making money by using someone else's name, and that's the problem.

I'm sure IKEA loves the idea of people experimenting with their furniture, but every company on the planet knows you can't give your trademark away, or you lose it.

If you understand even the basics of trademark law, you know that if IKEA were to do nothing at all in this case, that they would risk losing their IKEA trademark.

That's a fairly big price to pay, just to allow someone else to make money using the brand name the company spent decades building.

The fact that they were even willing to negotiate shows the company actually cared about the individual and wanted to try to come to a compromise that would suit both parties without involving a lawsuit.

In the end the author of the website shows everyone that money is what's most important to them, and that's their decision.

I think that would send the wrong signal to would-be copycats. I think the chosen solution, allow them to continue but non-commercially is a pretty good one. If it's a fan site then it should be non-commercial.

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.

Right now the majority of the OBL's on the site are to what appears to be his Amazon store:

http://i.imgur.com/PKrZAyR.png

Ikea could redirect all 18,000 of those links to Ikea.com product pages instead of his personal amazon store.

In addition that type of community that the webmaster built is gold! 100s of thousands of comments, a huge Facebook Page, a very well done Pinterest page along with other social media accounts all for the taking.

They could have easily just allowed him use of the name and if Ikea was ever in some kind of trademark lawsuit could have stated so. They chose not to for their own reasons, but the idea that business is forced to act this way and that Ingvar Kamprad is this grandfatherly old man who loves cheap furniture and not the ruthless head of a major world-wide corporation is asinine.

I disagree, especially in non-US courts, largely because of the "commercial" nature of the site. Any revenue makes it commercial, that doesn't obviate fair use but it makes extremely difficult to win on that claim. People arrive here because of Ikea's brand and products, they see Ikea livery and designs and then are forwarded to purchase other products to the gain of the site owners.

The "New Kids" case fits quite well with the case in hand and recapitulates the test for whether nominative use is infringing or not.

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/integrity/Lin...

One might feel that the Volkswagenwerk AG vs Church case mentioned makes Ikeahackers a winner [see the footnote for key differences!] but the test stands that there is (ibid.)

>"a nominative fair use defense provided he meets the following three requirements: First, the product or service in question must be one not readily identifiable without use of the trademark; second, only so much of the mark or marks may be used as is reasonably necessary to identify the product or service; [7] and third, the user must do nothing that would, in conjunction with the mark, suggest sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark holder." //

Based on what I see, the domain name was registered in "bad faith", shown by: "by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location".

Strictly speaking ikeahackers.net is using the mark in a commercial way (because of the advertising) and so by UK/EU TM law seems to be infringing. There does also appear to be a strong possibility of confusion - the site is very "on message" for Ikea IMO and uses their livery and it's own design to imitate well the Ikea style.

From the sites perspective they can use a different [distinct!] name and make clear they're not legally associated but only a fan site, acknowledge Ikea's RTM in the footer for example and disclaim association. That seems sufficient to differentiate and avoid possibility of actual confusion (though they could still be sued of course). Adding in products from other suppliers would help here too ... that of course is bad for Ikea, but they're the ones pointing the gun at their own feet.

From Ikea's point of view. License the site, pay the content creator a nice fat salary to carry on and thank them sincerely for marketing your products so well for you. It can't possibly be cheaper in lost good will and lawyers salaries to sue "Jules".

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.