Bruce MacKenzie
Member
A couple of months ago I was forced to remove my 3x3 cube simulation, The Cube, from the Apple App Store by Rubik Brands who complained that the app violated their Trademark.
Rubik Brands trademark was overturned in the EU. Rubik Brands asserts a 3D trademark on the arrangement of 27 cubes in a 3x3x3 array. Trademark law is that one can trademark a shape if it is not a functional requirement of the product. An example of this is the old hourglass shape of a Coca Cola bottle. It is distinctive to Coke and is not functionally required. One can sell soda pop in a differently shaped bottle. Therefore, the Coca Cola bottle shape can be trademarked. In the EU case it was ruled that a 3x3x3 array of cubes is functionally required for the puzzle. That shape therefore falls under patent law, not trademark law and Rubik's 3D trademark was disallowed. Rubik is trying to make their trademark do the work of a patent and that's bogus.
I understand that the cube manufacturer The Cubicle filed suit to challenged the trademark in the US a couple of years ago. Has there been a judgement in that case?
Rubik Brands trademark was overturned in the EU. Rubik Brands asserts a 3D trademark on the arrangement of 27 cubes in a 3x3x3 array. Trademark law is that one can trademark a shape if it is not a functional requirement of the product. An example of this is the old hourglass shape of a Coca Cola bottle. It is distinctive to Coke and is not functionally required. One can sell soda pop in a differently shaped bottle. Therefore, the Coca Cola bottle shape can be trademarked. In the EU case it was ruled that a 3x3x3 array of cubes is functionally required for the puzzle. That shape therefore falls under patent law, not trademark law and Rubik's 3D trademark was disallowed. Rubik is trying to make their trademark do the work of a patent and that's bogus.
I understand that the cube manufacturer The Cubicle filed suit to challenged the trademark in the US a couple of years ago. Has there been a judgement in that case?