Rubik's Brand lawsuit against The Cubicle

[saxnbass]

Just ran across this little nugget; the document was dated yesterday.

https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public...Enterprises_LLC_Docket_No_117cv078?1507841795

Thoughts?

 

[JustinTimeCuber]

Just ran across this little nugget; the document was dated yesterday.

https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public...Enterprises_LLC_Docket_No_117cv078?1507841795

Thoughts?

oh no we're screwed

I think they have a case, even though it's obviously complete BS.

 

[XLCuber]

Is this actually real? And they can’t sue a retailer, can they?

 

[Draranor]

So they're taking legal action against the cubicle, who sells these puzzles that are 'acts of infringement', yet they just recently partnered with one of the companies that makes said puzzles, to create a new one?

 

[GenTheSnail]

Lol points 24, 25, and 26. Actually is this lolable?

Also what even
Hopefully Phil's years at law school will be able to help him out.

 

[biscuit]

Is this actually real? And they can’t sue a retailer, can they?

Based on the fact that it's on Bloomberg law, I'd say yes. Thecubicle is a company, and you very much can sue a company.

I'm certainly not a lawyer, and patent/trademark is no where near my realm of interest, but 24, 25 and 26 seem a little shaky to me, which is really the heart of the matter. I'm very biased obviously, but I don't think anyone would be confused as to whether or not a product is made by Rubik's. They certainly won't be "disappointed" to find a non-Rubik's brand cube

As much as I think it's totally stupid, it's actually kinda a really good idea. Going after the manufacturers is not nearly as effective as going after the retailers. Makes a better bottleneck in the chain.

Now that Rubik's actually has a competitor... or at least, a decent cube, if they could shut down any other puzzles, it could actually increase sales. Still stupid.

Just my 2 cents on a topic I'm woefully unqualified to comment on.

Lol points 24, 25, and 26. Actually is this lolable?

Also what even
Hopefully Phil's years at law school will be able to help him out.

If Phil decides to represent him self, he deserves to lose, lol. But really, 24, 25 and 26 are questionable in my opinion. That will certainly be the subject of debate.

 

[One Wheel]

I find points 21, and 37 and following to be highly suspect. Those claims will be, it seems to me, VERY difficult to prove in court. I think ultimately they're really just testing their trademark in US court. I think they lost a similar case in the UK last year?

 

[obelisk477]

brb, bout to drop like $400 at thecubicle and stock up for the cube-pocalypse

 

[Duncan Bannon]

Will this really ever happen? If so what will happen to the Cubicle?


Lol obelisk477! Great excuse as well

 

[bobthegiraffemonkey]

I'm wondering how good a legal argument this is: "the vast majority of people buying cubes from the Cubicle do so because they specifically *aren't* Rubik's brand cubes, but cubes from companies that produce better speedcubes". Also, I though Rubik's lost their trademark battle a while ago, I assume then I'm getting confused with something else that happened or it only applies in certain places?

 

[Ranzha]

I'm wondering how good a legal argument this is: "the vast majority of people buying cubes from the Cubicle do so because they specifically *aren't* Rubik's brand cubes, but cubes from companies that produce better speedcubes". Also, I though Rubik's lost their trademark battle a while ago, I assume then I'm getting confused with something else that happened or it only applies in certain places?

They lost their patent, not their federally registered trademarks.

 

[One Wheel]

I just remembered this exchange with theCubicle support:
At 7:05 PM on February 13, 2016 I wrote:

Which 3x3 is least likely to pop or otherwise break? I'm thinking of getting one for my nephew. He's almost 2, and there are likely to be very young children in the house for quite a while. I have a Rubik's brand tiled 3x3 that, while it's a very bad speed cube, is solid enough that I think it's safe both for him and the cube to let him play with it. I could get another one of those, but as far as I can tell you don't carry them, and I've got some other stuff I might want to get from you at the same time. What would you suggest? Thanks.

Their response, at 2:57 PM on February 17, 2016:

Greetings Christopher,

Although we certainly cannot guarantee the safety of these items beyond the labels and listings on the box themselves, I would recommend solid cubes such as the QiYi Thunderclap.

That said, Rubik's as a company directly does QC to ensure their age safety restrictions so this may be your best bet regarding safety.

Best Regards,
TheCubicle.us Support
[email protected]

I bought a Thunderclap, which my nephew still has, but they recommended Rubik's, even though they don't sell it!

 

[qwertycuber]

I'm still confused to why they would do this, but I assume it's because Rubik's can't make enough profit because of thecubicle. If that assumption is true, wouldn't this be strange because what I presume is legal competition laws? (Please criticize and correct my comment as I have no knowledge in law)

 

[Duncan Bannon]

I'm still confused to why they would do this, but I assume it's because Rubik's can't make enough profit because of thecubicle. If that assumption is true, wouldn't this be strange because what I presume is legal competition laws? (Please criticize and correct my comment as I have no knowledge in law)

That is what I am thinking, why would that be “wrong” to sell other “better” cubes. I know nothing about law as well. But what point does Rubik have to be able to sue the cubicle?

 

[Reed Merrill]

I agree with everything else said here, but it is probably also impossible to go after the manufacturers, whose factories are all in China. China has had copyright infringing manufacturers for a long time, and nothing ever happens because there is no reasonable way to force China to stop allowing their manufacturers to do this.

 

[ReversedPlus]

@One Wheel 's exchange with the cubicle seems really odd to me. Why would they even bring up Rubik's QC? This whole lawsuit is very weird. I also think 25 is going to be really hard to prove.

 

[One Wheel]

@One Wheel 's exchange with the cubicle seems really odd to me. Why would they even bring up Rubik's QC? This whole lawsuit is very weird. I also think 25 is going to be really hard to prove.

On the one hand, they couldn't wholeheartedly endorse a speedcube for a 2-year old, and if they defer to what rubik's advertises they aren't responsible if he chokes on a piece. What was significant to me is that in the lawsuit rubik's claims that theCubicle was intending to mislead its customers into believing that theCubicle was selling the same quality of cubes that rubik's sells, but in this exchange theCubicle explicitly recommends rubik's QC. There is of course more than one kind of quality, but that distinction may be too fine for the courts to understand.

 

[ReversedPlus]

On the one hand, they couldn't wholeheartedly endorse a speedcube for a 2-year old, and if they defer to what rubik's advertises they aren't responsible if he chokes on a piece. What was significant to me is that in the lawsuit rubik's claims that theCubicle was intending to mislead its customers into believing that theCubicle was selling the same quality of cubes that rubik's sells, but in this exchange theCubicle explicitly recommends rubik's QC. There is of course more than one kind of quality, but that distinction may be too fine for the courts to understand.

I agree, but forget the lawsuit for a minute, the cubicle even mentioning Rubik's QC, a product they don't sell makes no sense. From a business perspective, that would be like if you went to an Apple reseller and asked "Which product would be safer for my 2 yr old, a mac or a pc" and they responded with "Well I can not guarantee the QC for macs but PCs have great, guaranteed QC that will keep your 2 yr old safe."

I understand that Apple has QC and PCs have arguably worse QC, but that is beside the point.

 

[Underwatercuber]

tfw you kinda want the cubicle to lose the lawsuit just for the memes

 

[One Wheel]

I agree, but forget the lawsuit for a minute, the cubicle even mentioning Rubik's QC, a product they don't sell makes no sense. From a business perspective, that would be like if you went to an Apple reseller and asked "Which product would be safer for my 2 yr old, a mac or a pc" and they responded with "Well I can not guarantee the QC for macs but PCs have great, guaranteed QC that will keep your 2 yr old safe."

Not at all. From a business perspective they can't afford to sell me a cube "for a 2-year old," because they'll be liable. The cube is like $8. The potential wrongful death lawsuit is millions. They did sell me, as a (allegedly) responsible adult, a cube, which I gave to my nephew, but since they said that a competitor's product was safer they aren't liable if he chokes on a piece.