openseas
Veteran
"Rubik's is suing theCubicle"
https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public...Enterprises_LLC_Docket_No_117cv078?1507841795
https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public...Enterprises_LLC_Docket_No_117cv078?1507841795
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

"Rubik's is suing theCubicle"
https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public...Enterprises_LLC_Docket_No_117cv078?1507841795
TheCubicle doesn't actually manufacture any puzzles in whole do they? They are just suing them because they have more profit than going after all the individual companies? Or maybe they are going to sue all of them next... Or maybe Rubik's thinks they actually make them all (haha jk, obviously they just partnered with Gans)."Rubik's is suing theCubicle"
https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public...Enterprises_LLC_Docket_No_117cv078?1507841795
TheCubicle doesn't actually manufacture any puzzles in whole do they? They are just suing them because they have more profit than going after all the individual companies? Or maybe they are going to sue all of them next... Or maybe Rubik's thinks they actually make them all (haha jk, obviously they just partnered with Gans).
It's going to be easier to get an enforceable ruling in a US court than a Chinese one. Probably going after theCubicle because they're most visible, and if they can get the precedent there the others really don't have an argument.
The more I think about it, it really feels insulting that they seem more concerned with getting money than they do seeing the cubing community grow.Agreed. Considering how many cases Chinese companies violated in other industries but never got punished, squeezing US retailers are the only options for them.
But why now (other than cubicles now became almost a giant) especially after collaboration with Gans? Do they think their Gans/Rubik's cube are good enough to win over other products?
But why now (other than cubicles now became almost a giant) especially after collaboration with Gans? Do they think their Gans/Rubik's cube are good enough to win over other products?
Unfortunately for The Cubicle, Rubik's have far more resources to fight this. They may see the safest option as closing the lab and agreeing a small financial settlement out of court.
They mention stock cubes and DIYs as well. They are claiming design mark infringement across all those.They are going after The Cubicle now because of their manufacturing and not the reselling of Chinese products.
Yeah I feel similarly although I understand at the end of the day they need to make money to feed their families. The growth in speedcubing is in part credit to the Chinese companies who created viable speedcubes and stores like thecubicle that made them accessible. There are a ton of ways Rubik's could leverage or boost that growth to make more money without relying on negative tactics like this. My own impression of their action is that it betrays a lack of better ideas.The more I think about it, it really feels insulting that they seem more concerned with getting money than they do seeing the cubing community grow.
The key claims are in 30, 37 and 47 which allege that damage is caused to them by promotion, advertising and sale of products they claim infringe their design mark. That is not specific to DIYs or cubes thecubicle assemble themselves.they are goining after DIY cubes that Cubicle sells
If they win maybe Mercedes will sue all the other car companies for making cars.
I agree with Mark about them lacking better ideas. I don't think cubing would be growing like it has without speed cubing, which would not exist like it does if only Rubik's was available to this day. It's kind of biting the hand that feeds you whether they realize it or not.
If they win maybe Mercedes will sue all the other car companies for making cars.![]()
Hahahaha that actually cracked me up.I don't know that it's particularly helpful, but it's a fun analogy to think about to say it's like if Ford sold the model A and model T until 2010 (with some new colors introduced in the '70s), then released the Taurus and promptly sued a Ferrari dealer.
Well, that one definitely doesn't pop and even shark couldn't bite into it, far less a child. But, that's why the manufacturers claim small parts in the products and the usual age limit in such toys is 3 years.I suspect much of the lawsuit is as for safety reasons, Rubik Brand may feel they must provide child-safe toys that do not "pop." The popularity of foreign speedcubes is creating something of an uneven playing field for their original IP. Whether or not this is Cubicle's problem is another matter.