Comment by Hackbraten
4 days ago
IKEA bullied the developer of the indie game The Store is Closed into gutting the whole game. [0]
It’s a shame how people can even acknowledge, let alone applaud IKEA’s “funny” gaming-related ad after their successful meddling with SCP folklore, not to speak of the chilling effect their actions may have had on indie gaming.
[0]: https://www.escapistmagazine.com/the-store-is-closed-indie-s...
Yeah sorry man, that's clearly IKEA so it's obvious they had to act on it. Can't sell IKEA-branded games without their permission. Even on their Steam trailer, the first second is clearly IKEA. Just changing the name is not enough. https://store.steampowered.com/app/1593010/The_Store_is_Clos...
Sometimes it's not that deep. Sometimes the cute little indie dev just made a mistake.
The game is also not out yet, even though rewards were promised in June 2024.
No reasonable person would have been confused into thinking it was an official IKEA game; IANAL, but it seems unlikely to me that IKEA would have ultimately prevailed in court, though a simple change to the color of the logo would probably have been helpful to the devs of the game.
It's a direct ripoff of https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-3008, a popular sci-fi horror story set in an IKEA. At the time the game was also using IKEA's brand colors.
1 reply →
IANAL either, but could this be a trademark issue? My understanding is that if you don’t defend your trademarks you risk legally losing them.
7 replies →
Yeah, that seems like the type of thing that should at least in theory be fair use.
5 replies →
Depending of the court, if you don't protect your trademarks you can lose them.
Law is rarely remotely reasonable, just because you (or society) think a certain way, does not mean law does.
1 reply →
Do you know what parody is?
That's mentioned in the article:
> Further, there’s at least the possibility on the part of the developer to claim that such usage is a “parody,” with parody and satire protected at the highest levels of American law through the application of First Amendment freedom of speech rights. However, courts will often require actual commentary to be made in order to extend such protections. In that way, a store name like “I CAN’T A” (or something far more clever) has a greater chance of succeeding than simply using a play on the word “store” in Scandinavian.
3 replies →
Trademarks are lost when they are not defended. That is entirely separate from fair use in copyright law.
25 replies →
I dunno, I've read a novel that was set in a store that was very clearly meant to be IKEA (https://www.amazon.com/Horrorstor-Grady-Hendrix/dp/159474526...) but was also very clearly not officially IKEA. Where do you draw the line?
> The game is also not out yet, even though rewards were promised in June 2024.
The game is in very active development. The most recent alpha was published just four days ago. [0]
[0]: https://steamdb.info/app/1845400/
Kind of reminds me of a college classmate back in the 80s made a Hypercard game which he had called Escape from Harvey Mudd but which the college asked (maybe demanded?) that it be renamed as it started to get distribution so the more commonly seen version was called Escape from Grid Tech. I would guess that there might have been some reputational concerns as that classmate was one of the people who dropped out of Mudd during my time there (the late 80s cohorts had a lot of people, myself included, who had wavered between humanities and sciences and after exposure to life in the sciences decided to opt for the humanities instead—most of us ended up doing programming for a living having no marketable skills post-college. The one person from my freshman year suite who actually finished his degree at Mudd went on to become a music professor).
Did not expect to see Mudd mentioned in the comment section on HN for an IKEA Skyrim mod... Not really surprised the admin was like that given the name, but I hope things worked out well for y'all.
Is IKEA the only furniture store in the world? I do not see any IKEA branding in the trailer.
IKEA is the only furniture store with a four-letter name in that same typeface in yellow on a blue building even though it is called 'STYR' here. It is the only furniture store using that uniform, also blue-yellow, for its personnel. The game maker clearly used IKEA as an inspiration but forgot that 'inspiration' is not the same as 'duplication'. They could have made the building red, used a serif typeface and a 7-character name, dressed their 'personnel' in red-green uniforms, etc. and IKEA would not have bothered them. Now, they did, and right they were.
3 replies →
Trade dress is protected in addition to the actual brand marks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_dress
I've never been in an IKEA but it looks like Backrooms to me
did Backrooms also infringe on IKEA or maybe every furniture store has the same concept
Some of the early backrooms lore and levels were based on noclipping in furniture stores or even IKEA directly since it was all fan made stuff not caring about the legal ramifications.
I tried to find a link but it’s impossible now that backrooms is a popular IP
And having been in an empty IKEA, it definitely had that liminal feel
>The game is also not out yet, even though rewards were promised in June 2024.
Yeah that’s crazy I wonder why
This is a tough one. The main culprit here is that trademwark law forces the trademark owner into an active defense posture to avoid losing the trademwark. This is very different from patents or copyright. So, in a way, IKEA was forced to write that nasty letter to the developer. Still, it's obvious fromo the published game footage that the developer was trying to walk a line between referencing IKEA and calling them out directly.
I kind of wish that lawyers could settle these things more amicably than by opening with outright threats. The game is clearly taking SCP 3008 as its inspiration and that is a a quite satirical horror story take on IKEA stores. A part of me wishes that companies would be a bit more relaxed about obviously comedic or satirical uses of their identity. What would IKEA lose by approaching the developers in a more supportive manner initially? Say, by offering some more constructive suggestions to steer them away from the particular elements they take offense at.
It sounds like they mostly did something like that:
> The lawyers then tell the developer, “You can of course easily make a video game set in a furniture store that does not look like, or suggest, an IKEA store.” The presumed game development experts go on to explain, “You can easily make changes to your game to avoid these problems, especially since you do not plan to release the game until 2024.”
(from https://kotaku.com/ikea-furniture-horror-game-store-is-close..., linked in the article)
They also listed exactly what they think infringes their trademark.
They did that, but I think the 10 day deadline is quite heavy-handed. Also, would it be too difficult to offer a review and critique of a revised design (draft) to make sure that the matter can be resolved without further escalation?
Ah, but this clearly falls under parody. No reasonable person would assume this depicts a genuine ikea store. That said, ikea could’ve just granted permission to use their trademark in a horror parody game. That would’ve been a fun ikea promotion rather than stoke animosity
They could have bought the game rights, hired the devs, or otherwise come to some licensing agreement. It’d have been a boatload of free publicity for very little outlay. I guess they may not have wanted customers to associate their store with scary things, though.
They don’t want that association and it’s definitely not a boatload of PR. This Skyrim mod works because it’s hilarious sounding.
I don't believe in intellectual property, but to the extent that we live in a world where IP exists, the original game as described is pretty clearly using IKEA's trade dress.
I too am skeptical of government-granted intellectual monopolies, as Richard Stallman correctly names them. Trademarks are the least offensive of them because they expire relatively quickly and are designed to prevent genuine consumer confusion. Trade dress rules help prevent consumers from unwittingly buying products from Company A while thinking it's Company B.
This video game creates zero risk that a consumer will buy furniture from the wrong store, so trade dress should be inapplicable. IKEA would likely even lose in court. But as the article points out: legal proceedings ... get really expensive.
This move was pure bullying by IKEA lawyers.
Excellent comment, I just learned something. +1
It's still bad when mega-corporations attack small guy. Its certainly worth to shame companies for doing this kind of stuff.
And almost as comical as Nintendo buying rights to a porn movie to prevent their distribution:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Hornio_Brothers
> It's still bad when mega-corporations attack small guy.
No, actually, we decide things based on the law, not based on which side you like more.
1 reply →
Eh, I kinda get it. For a brief time, the Mario pipes were more associated with Flappy Bird than with Mario itself. That was fine, and the game died out quickly, but if the pipes became associated with Mario's cock, or if the IKEA layout became associated with a bloodbath pvp game, those associations could easily overtake the original meanings in popular culture, and the original brands would never be the same.
I think that would be a fair price to pay for freeing our society from the shackles of pretending you can own an idea, but I get where these executives are coming from.
3 replies →
ALDI/Lidl copy every big brand under the sun. They've been litigated against, but they get away with it way more often than they lose. Many cases fail to prove that consumers were misled, and (I find this incredible) one of the strongest defenses is that store has a strong reputation for brand imitation, so there is in fact no confusion. People go to Lidl to buy Neos, knowing full well they're not Oreos. It's also surprising that other supermarkets get away with it when they sell the copycat product next to the original.
If you could afford lawyers, you could definitely get away with that game, but it's easier for IKEA to stomp you.
I haven’t played The Store is Closed, but to everyone saying IKEA had some obligation to shut down a parody…videogames parody real brands all the time, including their colors? Why was this different?
Some examples offhand:
- Fallout’s Nuka Cola is an obvious parody of Coca Cola (also same colors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuka-Cola) and Cram is an obvious parody of Spam (same colors)
- GTA is full of these: Sprunk (an obvious parody of Sprite, again same colors), Fruit (obviously Apple—same colors, same branding style, same use of iPrefix and “think” marketing), definitely others
- Saints Row “Freckle Bitches” was a fairly obvious reference to Whendy’s (“I’m all grown up”)
All of these games were bigger, not Indy games at all, and none of the parodied brands saw any obligation to sue AFAIK. Would IKEA have gone after Rockstar, given that they’re much bigger and very popular? I’m suspicious that this was a case of “small target” rather than “big problem”.
(Ok, I clicked through the article, it looks like it was just a demand letter? My impression is that demand letters are nearly meaningless. No judge has to approve them, and they cost an hour or two of lawyer time.)
> it looks like it was just a demand letter? My impression is that demand letters are nearly meaningless. No judge has to approve them, and they cost an hour or two of lawyer time.
A solo indie developer who is busy building their debut title is no match for the legal team of a global multi-billion corporation. The developer would run out of money way before the parties could reach any kind of settlement.
My (very) naive take:
Was it important part of the game that the store looks just like IKEA?
If yes, that probably makes it more likely that it was a trademark infringement and that IKEA was justified. If no, it shouldn't be a big deal to change the colors, just to avoid potential confusion.
Yes it unfortunately was. Because the SCP lore this game recreates refers to a horror scenario set inside an infinite inescapable ikea store.
I saw beads at a bead store today that were clearly Pepsi/Sprite but they were "Pepsis" and "Spritc", presumably to be legally distinct.
Is it important that the beads looked like Pepsi/Sprite? Kind of, people want recognizable brands
Interestingly, that link is the first time I've ever gotten a Cloudflare HTTP 451. Apparently that site is banned in Japan for "gambling".
Just like the "chilling" effect the big bad evil Red Cross had on indie games? Shameful how you don't recognize the terrible evil the Red Cross has done.
https://www.pcgamer.com/how-the-prison-architect-developers-...
Is it possible that that influenced IKEA's decision to make the Skyrim mod in OP? That way, they have a stronger trademark case, because it's more likely for a consumer to confuse the fake IKEA game with the real one.
What percent of people do you think know that? I sure didn't. I'm guessing to two decimal points, exactly 0.00% of people know that. It's a shame how people can make sweeping statements about something when it's beyond obvious no one knows what they're talking about.