IKEA: A Big Stupid Bully Of A Company
The website IkeaHackers.net starts with IKEA products. It's about getting creative with products you BUY at IKEA. In other words, it is essentially free advertising for IKEA. Not even essentially.
But IKEA has mucked that up by going after the site with a bogus trademark claim -- bogus, but one Jules, who started the site, cannot afford to fight.
Cory Doctorow explains at BoingBoing:
Trademark law is surrounded by urban legends. Trademark does not create the legal right to stop people from making factual uses of a mark ("Ikeahackers" is a site for people who hack Ikea furniture). And while there is a very slim chance of trademarks being "genericized" through a failure to police, this risk is grossly overstated by trademark lawyers (quick, name three modern, active trademarks that have been genericized through a lack of policing), and in any event, you can get the same benefit from offering a royalty-free license as you get from threatening a lawsuit. Finally, trademark is not copyright: there is no parody "defense" (nor is one needed), there is no fair use, there is no need for any of that stuff.
Here's how the dimwitted assholes at IKEA bullied Jules:
Long story short, after much negotiation between their agent and my lawyer, I am allowed to keep the domain name IKEAhackers.net only on the condition that it is non-commercial, meaning no advertising whatsoever.I agreed to that demand. Because the name IKEAhackers is very dear to me and I am soooo reluctant to give it up. I love this site's community and what we have accomplished in the last 8 years. Secondly, I don't have deep enough pockets to fight a mammoth company in court.
Needless to say, I am crushed. I don't have an issue with them protecting their trademark but I think they could have handled it better. I am a person, not a corporation. A blogger who obviously is on their side. Could they not have talked to me like normal people do without issuing a C&D?
IKEAhackers.net was set up in 2006 and truly not with the intent to exploit their mark. I was a just crazy fan. In retrospect, a naive one too. It is not an excuse but that was just how it was when I registered IKEAhackers. Over the last 8 years the site has grown so much that I could not juggle the demands of a full time job and managing IKEAhackers. It also costs quite a bit to run a site this large. Since IKEA® does not pay me a cent, I turned to advertising to support myself and this site.
You really couldn't get stupider as a company. This is a site by and for people who shop at IKEA -- to the point where they are making new things out of the idea furniture and products.
We in this economy who run websites that are not, oh, Walmart.com, need the little bit of ad revenue we get to pay us some minimum for our work and help us stay afloat.
If I were a trademark lawyer, I'd take this guy's case pro bono, and I hope an actual trademark lawyer feels the same way.
This happened one year ago, and IKEA quickly backtracked at the time. Jules kept the domain and it still has advertising on it.
Snoopy at June 16, 2015 10:58 PM
IKEA, reminds me of the old saying:
They know the price of everything and the value of nothing.
David Crawford at June 16, 2015 11:04 PM
As I started reading the blog entry I thought Ikea ran the website and was going after others who copied their ideas or something - I actually went back and reread it. The name of the domain to me suggests that it is hacks that were thought up by Ikea not that it was hacks using Ikea's products
There is are lots of abuses...this is not one.
Abuses like my former employer was sued and lost that their logo contained two prominent letters that a European company regularly used to refer to themselves and the companies did not compete but both were finical services companies. So the logo had to be redesigned.
The Former Banker at June 16, 2015 11:15 PM
"Nonprofit" organizations do this sort of thing, too.
Emory University (in Atlanta) has persecuted small businesses in the adjacent area called "Emory Village," for example, claiming that a dry cleaner has no right to call themselves the "Emory Dry Cleaner."
David Foster at June 17, 2015 5:21 AM
Monster Cable became infamous for two things. One was ridiculously overpriced audio cables promoted with scientific claims of highly questionable validity. But the other was aggressively prosecuting anyone who used the word "monster" in the name or title of anything. Search for "monster cable trademark lawsuit" for some maddening/amusing reading.
Cousin Dave at June 17, 2015 6:59 AM
This happened one year ago, and IKEA quickly backtracked at the time. Jules kept the domain and it still has advertising on it.
Thanks -- somebody at BoingBoing tweeted this yesterday, so I didn't check the date. Grrrr.
But still, I love that they are getting some well-deserved bad publicity over this. And also, thanks, everybody for the other stories along these lines.
Amy Alkon at June 17, 2015 7:37 AM
The problem is that if IKEA lets the Web site use its name without paying a license for it, then the name becomes public domain and can be used by anybody.
Just ask Coke, Jell-O, Kimberly-Clark (Kleenex), Xerox, Bayer (aspirin and heroin), Otis (escalator), Dry Ice, Westinghouse (laundromat), Stanley (thermos), Wham-O (frisbee), etc. All of these companies have lost or are in the process of losing a copyrighted name due to a lack of diligence in defending it.
It sucks for IKEAHackers.net, but that's a reality of life for IKEA.
Conan the Grammarian at June 17, 2015 8:51 AM
Defense of a copyright can go too far, like trying to copyright "Let's roll" after 9/11. Or insisting that naming your company Monster Cable gives you copyright rights over anything with "monster" in the title.
Conan the Grammarian at June 17, 2015 8:54 AM
Not true, Conan. And they are letting her use the website -- they just tried to bully her out of making any money for the work she does.
It is increasingly hard to earn a living from working very, very hard and having become accomplished at something if that something is anything in the creative sphere: Writing, graphic design, etc.
It's scary. I've improved my speaking through doing radio, and I'm trying to get speaking engagements and hope my writing will pay off in big ways -- I certainly try -- but I worry a lot about how I'll manage and I'm not alone.
Amy Alkon at June 17, 2015 9:35 AM
Defense of a copyright can go too far, like trying to copyright "Let's roll" after 9/11. Or insisting that naming your company Monster Cable gives you copyright rights over anything with "monster" in the title.
I remember the former example. Mrs. Beamer and her advisors were on that gravy train within a week.
Let's not forget the Susan G. Komen Foundation suing any piddly charity that dared to use 'pink' in its name -- or was even identified with the color pink.
Kevin at June 17, 2015 9:43 AM
Man, the Monster stuff is so bad, their wikipedia entry has a section on trademark disputes alone.
Miguelitosd at June 17, 2015 5:21 PM
I for one am damn tired of people using the work "hack" for every damn idea they have in life. I made a lego play table out of a lack end table. It wans't a hack. I didn't have to saw it, or spend hours trying to break it's code. I just glued a lego base to the top of a lack table.
That said, there are Ikea hack ideas everywhere, not just that website. Pinterest is full of lists of them. If you like the MCM look, you can get it for very cheap with Ikea and some metallic spraypaint.
momof4 at June 18, 2015 5:29 AM
M4, I get what you're saying, but I'll say this much for it: It's an attempt to restore the word "hack" to its original context and usage, as it arose in the computer science community. Back in the day, a "hacker" was a programmer who was really clever and could figure out ways to make a computer do things that were beyond its apparent capabilities. The media, as they usually do with matters relating to computers, misunderstoon what it was about and started using the word to refer to cyber-criminals. Since then, we've been trying to get it back.
Cousin Dave at June 18, 2015 9:54 AM
"if IKEA lets the Web site use its name without paying a license for it, then the name becomes public domain"
No. To be more accurate, if IKEA lets the Web site use its name without defending it and if people start using the work generically, then the name may be declared to be public domain and you may therefore lose the legal protection from others using your name. (Your examples are exactly this).
In this instance IKEA could have, for example, simply written a nice letter prasing the website, but asking nicely for the site to place a notice acknowledging the IKEA trademark. Simple and all that is necessary to show that you are taking active steps to protect your trademark (which all that is legally required). Even from your own article 'you can get the same benefit from offering a royalty-free license'. What it does not mean is that IKEA must insist on the site paying for a licence.
A pity that lawyers seem to have sucessfully perpetuated a myth that they must press the nuclear button threatning dire retribution, and that some lawyers seem to think this is the only possible option.
peter at June 20, 2015 7:13 AM
As a result, I may say ``I want a Coke'', or alternatively ``This new Coke with corn sweetener is crummy, I wish the company had not mucked with the formula''.
Likewise, I can say that ``Ikea is a lousy company which sends meritless threats'' because I am discussing the company so identified. I can also say ``Ikea furniture can be used in a variety of ways'', though it is less likely that I would say such a thing.
andrews at June 22, 2015 6:18 AM
Leave a comment