IKEA's actions concern me a little. The sub-genre of Urban Fantasy will call in lots of real world elements and then blend in something supernatural. This might have chilling effects for certain kinds of story telling.
> Your game uses a blue and yellow sign with a Scandinavian name on the store, a blue box-like building, yellow vertical striped 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.
is truly, unmistakenly supposed to be a fictional totally-not-IKEA-but-yeah-its-IKEA store. If, instead of furniture, the store had been filled with TVs, large appliances, laptops, cell phones, and related merchandise, while the staff wore blue shirts with yellow name tags, I'm sure you'd have no trouble picking out which store I was describing, in spite of not saying the name, right?
I haven't read the full letter, but this smells like they might be going after a trademark infringement theory. If that's the case, corporations are obligated to do shit like bully video game developers, if they believe that the game's use of their branding would cause confusion or harm the identity of their mark. So, those who condemn IKEA here might just literally be condemning them for being vigorous participants in the capitalist marketplace.
In many games you have cars or guns which are obvious lookalikes of real life cars and weapons but have their names changed to avoid copyright infringements.
Look at GTA. They can pretend it's taking place in Los Santos, Las Venturas and San Fierro, but we know what real life locations they are meant to represent. We know what that VINEWOOD letters on the hills are meant to represent, we know what "Area 69" military base is meant to represent.
True, but none of those names are owned by a corporation as trademarks. If there was a store that with white/minimalist decor that sold similarly designed cell phones, laptops, and tablets and had a name and logo referencing a fruit, what you have to ask yourself is if Apple would care.
Honestly, I am not sure. If Fight Club can literally have an actual Starbucks cup in every scene and the production company not get sued, I don't even know what that's about. Everybody knows that movie isn't about Brad Pitt beating the crap out of a bunch of other guys for funsies, right? I don't know for sure, but if I had to guess, I'd bet they didn't license the cup or the logo from Starbucks, either.
Trademark protections only come into play when there's risk of customer confusion. So even without the parity claim GTA and the game in the OP are almost certainly fine. No one is going to be confused and think that Ikea has put out an Indie computer game.
Apparently they did not, because GTA V references "iFruit phones" with not just the in-game phones but also branded merchandise for the characters, an Internet radio station, and even a separate downloadable iFruit app for your real world smartphone.
> if they believe that the game's use of their branding would cause confusion or harm the identity of their mark
My understanding is "confusion" is centered around people trying to make similar products that seem like they are made by a famous brand. This would be more like if somebody opened a furniture store in a blue box-like building, yellow vertical striped shirts, Scandinavian themed, and named NOKEA[0].
"Harm the identity of their mark" is interesting. It seems intentionally vague, which makes sense[1]. I wouldn't be surprised if the word "harm" is used in the legalese, but it can't possibly cover all cases of potential harm, right? If so, I couldn't review any IKEA product as that arguably "harms the mark" [2].
Basically, I'm curious what "harms" are generally acceptable and which are not. I'm sure this is a really big subject, but in my non-lawyer opinion, it feels like IKEA has a weaker case here because it's a video game and not a furniture store[3].
[0]: Might actually be infringing on two for the price of one!
[1]: To the dismay of programmers everywhere, having hard and fast rules for trademark infringment doesn't really make sense. Those just become instructions for how to infringe legally.
[2]: Tying into previous parts, even if I don't use the word "IKEA", it could still (reasonably) be tied back to them.
[3]: Assuming the game maker removes the purported direct usage of the word "IKEA".
So, sure, if I opened up a Swedish-themed store that sold cheap furniture and Swedish meatballs, then called it MyKEA or something, and had the employees wear shirts with yellow vertical stripes on them, I'd be an idiot not to expect a nastygram from IKEA legal regarding my infringing use of their mark in commerce. The question seems to be "Does depicting a store and using recognizable elements of its brand identity in a commercial video game count as 'use of the mark in commerce?'" To that question, you & I may answer "no," but IKEA, and possibly the law, might answer the other way.
IANAL, but AIUI they're only obligated to do something, but that something can be "tell the developers that they need to get approval to use trademarked stuff and then immediately hand them permission to use the trademark for free". It's all about controlling use of the trademark, not being obligated to be a bully about it.