This is true but not necessarily entirely correct either. IKEA probably has a legal department handling things such as trademark issues, knockoffs etc; that department may have very little contact with marketing or much-higher-ups.
It's unlikely nobody would be aware of this if this was over "months of negociations", though. Still, I think this is a case where a lot of bureaucracy has clouded what should be a very clear cut case. It's possible if a reasonable top-of-the-chain higher-up is told about all this and it is clearly demonstrated that (assuming this is at all what the site owner wants) IH could be acquired or affiliated and the whole thing could turn from bad PR to good PR, they would tell legal/laywers to sod off.
So when you do something with the IKEA brand and furniture all kinds of 'reasonably considerations' that would flow from brand being owned by the mothership go right out the window.
Likely the only kind of employee the brand company has is IP lawyers.
It's unlikely nobody would be aware of this if this was over "months of negociations", though. Still, I think this is a case where a lot of bureaucracy has clouded what should be a very clear cut case. It's possible if a reasonable top-of-the-chain higher-up is told about all this and it is clearly demonstrated that (assuming this is at all what the site owner wants) IH could be acquired or affiliated and the whole thing could turn from bad PR to good PR, they would tell legal/laywers to sod off.