161–169 of 169 posts
That game though...the cottage near Riverwood with the "nice old lady" who turns out to be a necromancer once you break into her cellar. There are not many games like this. Pure gold.
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...
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.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 wil…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can only defend your trademark with respect to product categories that you actually market. Unless IKEA were in the business of selling parody video games, their trademark doesn't apply. Wait... is that why IKEA just put out a parody video game?
The game featured a store and stuff in it, that's a product category IKEA markets. If the name of an unrelated game was IKEA as some clever acronym or such and it was unrelated to stores, that would be a different trademark convo.
Ultimately, these matters would likely be decided in court. IANAL either but it seems like the game maker would have a strong case. Among the things IKEA would have to prove is actual harm and confusion, who would seriously argue that? That doesn't mean IKEA couldn't make it impossible to fight with their unlimited legal resources, I can understand not wanting to spend a chunk of your life on that.
Two things can be true at once: this is the most creative marketing in recent memory and genuinely funny, and IKEA destroyed someone's work simply because they can.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Unethical IP lawyers spew that nonsense all the time. Failing to enforce your trademark against a tiny alleged infringer has no effect on your trademark rights at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
You can only defend your trademark with respect to product categories that you actually market. Unless IKEA were in the business of selling parody video games, their trademark doesn't apply. Wait... is that why IKEA just put out a parody video game?
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 th…
Yeah that’s crazy I wonder why