They use the mark in the URL and site design, which is more than is necessary to identify the origin of the goods mentioned on the site. They use the livery and typefaces (or look-alikes) and the site style matches IKEAs - eg the line drawn cartoons are close in style - and I'd say all these factors suggest an endorsement that is not clearly and prominently disclaimed (it is disclaimed on the site however).
Now all that with no commercial aspects to the use (no advertising) and it's looking a bit thin on the plaintiff's side; but with the commercial use ... in short the use doesn't feel [!] purely referential (or "nominative" in the language of the US caselaw) to me.
They use the mark in the URL and site design, which is more than is necessary to identify the origin of the goods mentioned on the site. They use the livery and typefaces (or look-alikes) and the site style matches IKEAs - eg the line drawn cartoons are close in style - and I'd say all these factors suggest an endorsement that is not clearly and prominently disclaimed (it is disclaimed on the site however).
Now all that with no commercial aspects to the use (no advertising) and it's looking a bit thin on the plaintiff's side; but with the commercial use ... in short the use doesn't feel [!] purely referential (or "nominative" in the language of the US caselaw) to me.