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.

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.

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 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.)

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.

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.

Interestingly, that link is the first time I've ever gotten a Cloudflare HTTP 451. Apparently that site is banned in Japan for "gambling".

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.