There's no genericisation happening on that site. It's a fan site. It's like saying that "ikeasucks.com" is going to lead to genericisation of the mark, there's no chance as the trademark is only being used to refer to what the company uses it for. On a general point you can defend your mark as much as you like it can still take the elevator to, or get hoovered up by genericisation by the public - google it on Bing if you don't believe me. ;0)
Strictly speaking ikeahackers.net is using the mark in a commercial way (because of the advertising) and so by UK/EU TM law seems to be infringing. There does also appear to be a strong possibility of confusion - the site is very "on message" for Ikea IMO and uses their livery and it's own design to imitate well the Ikea style.
From the sites perspective they can use a different [distinct!] name and make clear they're not legally associated but only a fan site, acknowledge Ikea's RTM in the footer for example and disclaim association. That seems sufficient to differentiate and avoid possibility of actual confusion (though they could still be sued of course). Adding in products from other suppliers would help here too ... that of course is bad for Ikea, but they're the ones pointing the gun at their own feet.
From Ikea's point of view. License the site, pay the content creator a nice fat salary to carry on and thank them sincerely for marketing your products so well for you. It can't possibly be cheaper in lost good will and lawyers salaries to sue "Jules".
Strictly speaking ikeahackers.net is using the mark in a commercial way (because of the advertising) and so by UK/EU TM law seems to be infringing. There does also appear to be a strong possibility of confusion - the site is very "on message" for Ikea IMO and uses their livery and it's own design to imitate well the Ikea style.
From the sites perspective they can use a different [distinct!] name and make clear they're not legally associated but only a fan site, acknowledge Ikea's RTM in the footer for example and disclaim association. That seems sufficient to differentiate and avoid possibility of actual confusion (though they could still be sued of course). Adding in products from other suppliers would help here too ... that of course is bad for Ikea, but they're the ones pointing the gun at their own feet.
From Ikea's point of view. License the site, pay the content creator a nice fat salary to carry on and thank them sincerely for marketing your products so well for you. It can't possibly be cheaper in lost good will and lawyers salaries to sue "Jules".