Rubik's Brand lawsuit against The Cubicle

[Ronxu]

Im temperarely putting down my UM, switching to my magnetic original yuexiao.

>gans avatar
I'm sure they're devastated to hear that you refuse to touch a $50 chunk of plastic you bought from them.

 

[Competition Cuber]

>gans avatar
I'm sure they're devastated to hear that you refuse to touch a $50 chunk of plastic you bought from them.

Every $50 counts.

 

[One Wheel]

Every $50 counts.

Problem is it already counted.

 

[Competition Cuber]

Problem is it already counted.

Fine.

Thanks for the reason to stick with my UM

 

[Sion]

Well, how I see it is that on this goes underway, and less people actually use GAN products in comp, the less popular the brand will become.

What I'm saying is: the less people use GAN cubes in comp, the less records will be set with GAN cubes, thus they will be forced to part with Rubiks because of Legal issues.

I just hope the GAN gurus may know what potentially know what they are putting on the line here if Rubiks turns around and uses GAN as a justification for closing cube stores.

 

[Teoidus]

Some of us suffer from SIWOTI syndrome and care way more than we should. It's incurable, as far as I know.

no

no

no

It's about trademarks, not patents.

damn, you've got it too? i'm so sorry

 

[CornerCutter]

Well, how I see it is that on this goes underway, and less people actually use GAN products in comp, the less popular the brand will become.

What I'm saying is: the less people use GAN cubes in comp, the less records will be set with GAN cubes, thus they will be forced to part with Rubiks because of Legal issues.

I just hope the GAN gurus may know what potentially know what they are putting on the line here if Rubiks turns around and uses GAN as a justification for closing cube stores.

What does Feliks think of this whole thing?

Not using Gan cubes you already have does nothing. Just stop buying them.

 

[Tony Fisher]

This would be my defense-
M'lord I would like to make the court aware that Rubik's has sponsored the World Championship speedcubing contest for several years. On more than one occasion Erno Rubik himself has attended and given support for the competition, signing puzzles and giving prizes. I would also like to make the court aware that it is common knowledge (including by Erno Rubik / Rubik's) that competitors very rarely use original Rubik's Cubes. This surely proves that the claims of damaged reputations etc are totally spurious? Why would Rubik's associate themselves with such a competition if they were truly concerned?

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?

Thecubicle should make sure the word "Rubik" is mentioned nowhere in their website, and they could even ban it from comments.

It is a trademark issue, so the only way to help is to try to dissociate the word "Rubik" from a 3x3x3 puzzle. It might help if the WCA stops using the word. Also popular "youcubers" might have some boycotting power by avoiding the word. By the way, I noticed Feliks deleted his video solving the new Rubik's speedcube.

If you read the whole thing you will see it's more than just the word. They think the cubes appearance looks like a genuine Rubik's Cube so a buyer could think he was buying something he was not. They are also concerned about losing revenue to buyers of other cubes.

 

[Sion]

This would be my defense-
M'lord I would like to make the court aware that Rubik's has sponsored the World Championship speedcubing contest for several years. On more than one occasion Erno Rubik himself has attended and given support for the competition, signing puzzles and giving prizes. I would also like to make the court aware that it is common knowledge (including by Erno Rubik / Rubik's) that competitors very rarely use original Rubik's Cubes. This surely proves that the claims of damaged reputations etc are totally spurious? Why would Rubik's associate themselves with such a competition if they were truly concerned?



If you read the whole thing you will see it's more than just the word. They think the cubes appearance looks like a genuine Rubik's Cube so a buyer could think he was buying something he was not. They are also concerned about losing revenue to buyers of other cubes.

So, to rephrase, they feel the physical appearance will trick buyers into thinking they are buying something Rubiks branded.

That would've been much more convincing back in 2010, but now it is almost unconvincing, florian holes, corner square offs, torpedo mechanisms, actually good stickers, etc.

The funny thing is that Rubiks is in no technical justification to back this up, because speedcubes have evolved so much since their last solo attempt at a cube. I'm pretty sure the Cubicle has a good defense if Rubiks comes out with the RSC as a defense, due to GAN collaborations. I'm pretty sure Ernö wanted nothing to do with this.

Aside from that, I'm pretty sure Rubiks has a weak case, if the Jury is smart enough to realize that speedcube mechanisms are entirely different from Rubiks mechanisms, and that Rubiks cubes past the 1.0 are based off of speedcubes trends.

Basically, Rubik's Co. Is a hypocrite in the sense of that they update their cubes onto the cubes they put in question.

 

[turtwig]

I don't really see what boycotting them is going to do. As far as I can see, almost no cubers use Rubik's products anyway, and Gans is not Rubik's, I don't think we should boycott them just because they worked together once. Refusing to call a 3x3 a "Rubik's Cube" is also pretty pointless (it might be a good choice for cubing stores to make to avoid this kind of legal stuff, but not for normal people).

On top of that, if the lawsuit succeeds, there very little we can do about it. It's not like Rubik's is going to allow other cube stores to compete with them because some, or even a large portion of people refuse to buy from Rubik's. We might like them better if they do but we're not going to buy from Rubik's anyway so it's not like they have a big incentive to do this. And the chance that boycotting them will make them notice us and suddenly do the righteous thing is extremely low.

 

[Sion]

I don't really see what boycotting them is going to do. As far as I can see, almost no cubers use Rubik's products anyway, and Gans is not Rubik's, I don't think we should boycott them just because they worked together once. Refusing to call a 3x3 a "Rubik's Cube" is also pretty pointless (it might be a good choice for cubing stores to make to avoid this kind of legal stuff, but not for normal people).

On top of that, if the lawsuit succeeds, there very little we can do about it. It's not like Rubik's is going to allow other cube stores to compete with them because some, or even a large portion of people refuse to buy from Rubik's. We might like them better if they do but we're not going to buy from Rubik's anyway so it's not like they have a big incentive to do this. And the chance that boycotting them will make them notice us and suddenly do the righteous thing is extremely low.

Actually, after some thought, I need to agree. I just feel the Cubicle needs to point out that Rubiks is being hypocritical in the sense of how they are basically copying other designs to catch up. Here are a few things they copied I should call out.

-Fangshi style antipop mechanism (edge wings, no torpedoes.)

- Triangle corner bases, which have been introduced with the Guhong (Or Vcube, depending on your position on that debate.)

-Corner rounding, which has been generally introduced by cube modifications in the mid-late 2000s, and then introduced by Later GuoJia and Dayan cubes to ehance fluidity and corner cutting.

-a tiled or psuedo stickerless color coding mechanism, which have already been done by C4Y, Dayan, and were once commercially available by CubeSmith.

Due to the nature of the lawsuit, I can say this about the RSC, which most design features could be refuted because of GAN, mainly because they were already making cubes of their particular design far before they ever collaborated with Rubiks.

 

[bobthegiraffemonkey]

-Florian holes, which have been generally introduced by cube modifications in the mid-late 2000s, and then introduced by Later GuoJia and Dayan cubes.

Ok, I know this is off-topic, but this is the worst of example of this I've seen yet. Florian modded a SS 5x5 to make the outer layers look more like a ZhanChi, and made a good tutorial about it. He has absolutely nothing to do with rounded-off pieces in general, and especially not cubes mass-produced with rounded pieces, just a specific SS bigcube mod. Sorry, but the constant misuse of that term these days really bugs me (and I'm aware it's way too late to fix it).
[/rant]

 

[Sion]

Ok, I know this is off-topic, but this is the worst of example of this I've seen yet. Florian modded a SS 5x5 to make the outer layers look more like a ZhanChi, and made a good tutorial about it. He has absolutely nothing to do with rounded-off pieces in general, and especially not cubes mass-produced with rounded pieces, just a specific SS bigcube mod. Sorry, but the constant misuse of that term these days really bugs me (and I'm aware it's way too late to fix it).
[/rant]

Fixed it.

 

[One Wheel]

So I just did a quick google search, and ran across this:

Under some circumstances, trademark protection can extend beyond words, symbols, and phrases to include other aspects of a product, such as its color or its packaging. For example, the pink color of Owens-Corning fiberglass insulation or the unique shape of a Coca-Cola bottle might serve as identifying features. Such features fall generally under the term "trade dress," and may be protected if consumers associate that feature with a particular manufacturer rather than the product in general. However, such features will not be protected if they confer any sort of functional or competitive advantage. So, for example, a manufacturer cannot lock up the use of a particular unique bottle shape if that shape confers some sort of functional advantage (e.g. is easier to stack or easier to grip). Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., Inc., 115 S. Ct. 1300 (1995).

Reading that, I'm completely baffled how any lawyer worth his salt wouldn't mop the floor with Rubik's lawsuit, yet people are talking like Rubik's pretty well has this in the bag. Is it just that people want to believe the worst possible outcome?

 

[mark49152]

Reading that, I'm completely baffled how any lawyer worth his salt wouldn't mop the floor with Rubik's lawsuit, yet people are talking like Rubik's pretty well has this in the bag. Is it just that people want to believe the worst possible outcome?

I believe that's the point on which they lost the case in Europe. The ECJ judges said : “In examining whether registration ought to be refused on the ground that shape involved a technical solution, EUIPO and the General Court should also have taken into account non-visible functional elements represented by that shape, such as its rotating capability."

 

[One Wheel]

I believe that's the point on which they lost the case in Europe. The ECJ judges said : “In examining whether registration ought to be refused on the ground that shape involved a technical solution, EUIPO and the General Court should also have taken into account non-visible functional elements represented by that shape, such as its rotating capability."

So in English: form is inherent to function. Function can be patented but not trademarked, form can be trademarked but not patented. The patent on the function has expired, so while the rubik's logo could be trademarked in perpetuity the cube-and-colored-grid cannot be trademarked because it is inherent to the (public domain) function. My only question is why on earth did it take 3 rounds in EU court to reach that conclusion?

 

[Mellis Ferton]

To put it in simplest form; Boycotting Gan will have little/no effect. The fact that Rubik's has partnered with Gan before this doesn't mean Gan should be treated any differently. Their cubes perform greatly, and have set numerous world records. The fact that Gan is affiliated with Rubik's lawsuit just because they made a cube with them is stupid. Unless Gan decides to join in with the Rubik's lawsuit, then there should be no reason to boycott Gan. Should we send hate to Feliks for using a cube from a company that has made a cube with a company that is suing a retailer? No, of course not. Again, Gan produces cubes that are high quality. I think they should be treated with the same respect as they were before.

 

[One Wheel]

To put it in simplest form; Boycotting Gan will have little/no effect. The fact that Rubik's has partnered with Gan before this doesn't mean Gan should be treated any differently. Their cubes perform greatly, and have set numerous world records. The fact that Gan is affiliated with Rubik's lawsuit just because they made a cube with them is stupid. Unless Gan decides to join in with the Rubik's lawsuit, then there should be no reason to boycott Gan. Should we send hate to Feliks for using a cube from a company that has made a cube with a company that is suing a retailer? No, of course not. Again, Gan produces cubes that are high quality. I think they should be treated with the same respect as they were before.

It's not a matter of respect, but political pressure. Most of the people here have, in my observation, a fairly high opinion of Erno Rubik, but are very upset with the company that bears his name. Gan makes good quality puzzles, no one is denying that, the problem that Gan may be able to help with is a political one, and a boycott is a political action.

 

[Reed Merrill]

Like @Tabe, I think one of the best things that the WCA could do is stop letting Rubik's sponsor their events, and change the name of the 3x3 event. Almost every industry gets adopted by manufacturers who rely on the innovations of the original inventor (Ford and cars, etc...) So I think that this will likely go the same way. The shape, colours, and so forth on speedcubes are essential to it's function, and that shouldn't be trademarked. I think that this lawsuit will turn into the same thing that almost every other dispute over similar products has, and just go away over time.

 

[pglewis]

Like @Tabe, I think one of the best things that the WCA could do is stop letting Rubik's sponsor their events, and change the name of the 3x3 event.

It's easy to say that, until you're personally faced with organizing an event of that scale. Turning away the money and support they bring to the party hurts the event, not the sponsors. Rubik's Brand is going to benefit from any press covering competitions regardless of whether or not they sponsor them. Only speedsolvers know no one is using a Rubik's brand in competitions, the rest of the world sees a bunch of "Rubik's Cubes".

I see the same basic problem with the boycott talk. Only the speedsolving community cares and we're already passively boycotting Rubik's brand because they're inferior. You can't inflict any damage with a boycott when you're not spending any money there in the first place.

Not just to poo-poo on ideas or attack anyone's suggestions but I think you have to consider where the carrots and sticks are.