IKEA Bullies Indie Developer Into Changing Game Set In A Furniture Store

from the the-horror dept

Big businesses really should know better as to how trademark law works. Or, failing that, their corporate counsels should. And yet we see far too often that big businesses take an aggressive approach to anything remotely resembling trademark infringement that they do not like.

Take The Store is Closed, an as yet unreleased video game stemming from a Kickstarter campaign. This game takes place in a neverending furniture store, has horror game and crafting elements, and heavy exploration gameplay. Said horror store briefly is shown to have a blue box architecture, a Scandanavian name, and gray floors. Basically due to that, IKEA reached out to the game’s creator, Jacob Shaw, demanding that the game be changed to remove all of that “trademark infringement.”

“Our client has learned that you are developing a video game, ‘The Store is Closed’,” the legal letter explains, “which uses, without our client’s authorization, indicia associated with the famous IKEA stores. Your game uses a blue and yellow sign with a Scandinavian name on the store, a blue box-like building, yellow vertical stiped shirts identical to those worn by IKEA personnel, a gray path on the floor, furniture that looks like IKEA furniture, and product signage that looks like IKEA signage. All the foregoing immediately suggest that the game takes place in an IKEA store.”

Where to begin. For starters, some of the items listed among the complaints are fleeting at best. For instance, Kotaku’s review of a build of the game notes that the look of the store and the signage IKEA is complaining about only show up on the menu screen, rather than in the game itself. Also, IKEA isn’t mentioned anywhere in the game or the Kickstarter. Instead, the store is named STYR, which is a Swedish word meaning “controls.” As Kotaku notes, IKEA isn’t even a Swedish or Scandanavian word.

As for the claim that the furniture looks like IKEA furniture, well…

Shaw disputes that he designed any furniture with Ikea in mind. “I bought generic furniture asset packs to make this game,” Shaw said, meaning that this is furniture that can be featured in any game for a price. “I don’t know what that means.” The game does, however, have a grey path on the floor. It is also common for stores to have signage that tells the customer where to go.

None of this constitutes trademark infringement. But, where IKEA is likely getting irritated is when several press outlets that have reviewed early builds of the game have referenced the company, stating that the store reminds them of playing the whole thing out in an IKEA store. But that still isn’t trademark infringement. The First Amendment allows content creators to create parody or homages using real world brands and this is done all the time. Just think of literally almost everything in many Grand Theft Auto games, for instance.

But IKEA’s threat letter demanded Shaw remove all the “offending” content within 10 days or risk legal action. And, because trademark bullying works, Shaw is complying.

“I was going to spend the last week of my Kickstarter preparing an update for all the new alpha testers,” Shaw told Kotaku. “But now I’ve got to desperately revamp the entire look of the game so I don’t get sued.”

All while IKEA is trotting out the well-worn excuse that it had to take these actions or risk losing its trademarks, which also isn’t true.

In fact, the real horror here isn’t so much the game, but the mega-brand that bullied a small creator for no reason.

Filed Under: , , ,
Companies: ikea

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “IKEA Bullies Indie Developer Into Changing Game Set In A Furniture Store”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
24 Comments
Anonymous Coward says:

a gray path on the floor

Really? I mean… really?

That “gray path” is usually called “concrete” where I’m from, and is standard in any warehouse-like store I’ve ever been in.

The striped shirts thing and the building colors are the only bits I can remotely consider trade dress.

Now what I’d REALLY like to see here is the developer decide to go the blatant fair use route and change everything to mimic IKEA as a parody. But I wouldn’t wish the lawsuit on him — Mike knows what it’s like to have to fight a frivolous and meritless lawsuit.

So the next thing to do is switch the shirt and building color palette — say, to green and orange. And then tell IKEA that they don’t own trade dress on bare concrete.

Anonymous Coward says:

Complaining about what the furniture looks like is facially absurd. It’s like complaining that a glass of dark, golden-brown, bubbly liquid in a 3D restaurant game infringes on the trademark of a real soda brand. Normal people look at the game and think “that looks like soda”, not “that looks just like a specific soda brand that I drank last year”. How does a customer distinguish between soda brands without the different types of soda right in front of them? How does a customer not in a store recognize a store brand by the look of the furniture inside the store? Even if they did, the design of the furniture itself is covered under copyright, not trade dress. And I last bought furniture years ago, not days ago. There’s zero chance for customer confusion (the only thing trademark was supposed to prevent). There’s zero chance for trademark dilution. There’s zero chance for lost sales.

False trademark claims should have the same penalties that trademark infringement does. (The same concept should apply to false copyright infringement claims and false patent infringement claims.)

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

The functional aspects are not copyrightable but might be patentable. If someone makes a couch with 6 legs and a 90 degree bend in the middle, I can make a couch with the same structure unless the original has a patent on it. However, the purely aesthetic aspects are copyrightable. I don’t know where the line is, but I’d guess that a floral pattern depicted in the threads of a couch would be copyrightable. A multi-colored paint job definitely is copyrightable. A face etched into the back of a wooden chair is copyrightable.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

FeRDNYC (profile) says:

He should take an approach similar to the one a University (I think it was CalTech) took a couple of decades ago, after their decision to name a server carlsagan.caltech.edu drew a complaint from the server’s Not. Remotely. Flattered. namesake.

Complying with the letter of the prickly pseudo-celebrity’s request, the server name was duly changed. Furthermore, the school in its supreme generosity chose to once again name it in his honor!

And so, buttheaded-astronomer.caltech.edu was brought online. Suck it, Carl.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...