# Rubik's Brand lawsuit against The Cubicle



## saxnbass (Oct 12, 2017)

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

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

Thoughts?


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Oct 12, 2017)

saxnbass said:


> 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 (Oct 12, 2017)

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


----------



## Draranor (Oct 12, 2017)

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?


----------



## GenTheThief (Oct 12, 2017)

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 (Oct 12, 2017)

XLCuber said:


> 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.



GenTheThief said:


> 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 (Oct 13, 2017)

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 (Oct 13, 2017)

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


----------



## Duncan Bannon (Oct 13, 2017)

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


Lol obelisk477! Great excuse as well


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Oct 13, 2017)

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 (Oct 13, 2017)

bobthegiraffemonkey said:


> 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 (Oct 13, 2017)

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.
> 
> ...



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


----------



## qwertycuber (Oct 13, 2017)

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 (Oct 13, 2017)

qwertycuber said:


> 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 (Oct 13, 2017)

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 (Oct 13, 2017)

@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 (Oct 13, 2017)

ReversedPlus said:


> @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 (Oct 13, 2017)

One Wheel said:


> 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 (Oct 13, 2017)

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


----------



## One Wheel (Oct 13, 2017)

ReversedPlus said:


> 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.


----------



## newtonbase (Oct 13, 2017)

They are going after them for manufacturing cubes not for reselling.

Regarding quality control. Someone at Rubik's told me that the reason they would never be able to make a decent speedcube is that they couldn't risk selling one that can pop. This makes them much safer for young children.


----------



## JustAnotherGenericCuber (Oct 13, 2017)

It says that people will be disappointed when they get a cube that is not a rubiks brand lol


----------



## Ollie (Oct 13, 2017)

I'm not a lawyer but...

EDIT: reading points 1-26, I can see where Rubik's are coming from. But it seems hard to believe that people are putting so-called 'speedcubes' into their shopping baskets ( mostly with Chinese branding and no mention of Rubik's) and getting confused when it doesn't arrive as expected.


----------



## Tabe (Oct 13, 2017)

newtonbase said:


> They are going after them for manufacturing cubes not for reselling.


Exactly. The key here is that they're considering The Cubicle to be a manufacturer.


----------



## mitja (Oct 13, 2017)

So, lets predict the next lawsuit: Rubik sues WCA for having a category Rubik's cube, but nobody is competing using Rubik's cube.


----------



## Gomorrite (Oct 13, 2017)

Tabe said:


> Exactly. The key here is that they're considering The Cubicle to be a manufacturer.





newtonbase said:


> They are going after them for manufacturing cubes not for reselling.
> 
> Regarding quality control. Someone at Rubik's told me that the reason they would never be able to make a decent speedcube is that they couldn't risk selling one that can pop. This makes them much safer for young children.


Why would you say that if everywhere in the document it is talking about selling and not about manufacturing?

The lawsuit is about harming the brand. The patent is expired and manufacturing is not a problem anymore.


----------



## Tabe (Oct 13, 2017)

Gomorrite said:


> Why would you say that if everywhere in the document it is talking about selling and not about manufacturing?
> 
> The lawsuit is about harming the brand. The patent is expired and manufacturing is not a problem anymore.


Several of the first claims (15, 16, 17, & 19) refer to The Cubicle as a manufacturer. 

I probably wasn't clear. I was trying to say why The Cubicle was the first ones that Rubik's went after - and that's because they're considered a manufacturer, too. They aren't claiming patent infringement, they're claiming that The Cubicle makes and sells that look like Rubik's Cubes.


----------



## Rubix Cubix (Oct 13, 2017)

I think it will be interesting to see how this turns out. But I think as with a lot of lawsuits, a lot is the time it isn't who is "in the right" who wins, its who has the most resources and money to throw it and the best lawyers, assuming this whole thing goes any further.

Even if you think you could argue your case and win in court, there's always the risk that you'll lose and so for most people /SMEs it doesn't make sense to go to court because of all the time and money it costs.

Ultimately I think it comes down to what rubiks want to gain from it. If they want some ridiculous sum of money then they will most likely want to go to court, however if they want just a cut of the sales or some form of licensing agreement, then the lawsuit might be a way to pressure the cubicle into doing that.


----------



## XLCuber (Oct 13, 2017)

Tabe said:


> Several of the first claims (15, 16, 17, & 19) refer to The Cubicle as a manufacturer.
> 
> I probably wasn't clear. I was trying to say why The Cubicle was the first ones that Rubik's went after - and that's because they're considered a manufacturer, too. They aren't claiming patent infringement, they're claiming that The Cubicle makes and sells that look like Rubik's Cubes.


Well sueing a company outside of the Continent may be a little hard. Maybe that is why they are going after a retailer. I am no way protecting Rubiks. I am a Cubicle Fan


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Oct 13, 2017)

Ranzha said:


> They lost their _patent_, not their federally registered trademarks.


The patent is old news, it seems I was thinking of this.

They lost the trademark battle in the EU only then? Would that not significantly decrease their chances of successfully defending it elsewhere? I would be interested in what Phil has to say.


----------



## AlphaSheep (Oct 13, 2017)

For those who don't want to read the whole complaint, here's a summary:

By making custom cubes that look like Rubik's Cubes, The Cubicle are infringing on the trademark owned by Rubik's (not the expired patent - this is only about the appearance of the cubes, not function). 
Rubik's claim that The Cubicle is deliberately trying to deceive its customers into believing that the cubes it sells are Rubik's brand. 
Rubik's say that their cubes are higher quality, and the cubes that The Cubicle sells are low quality, which damages the image of Rubik's brand (when in fact the opposite is true).
Now for my own opinions:

Interestingly, that first point is the exact same approach that previously failed in European courts, where it was basically ruled that the appearance of the cube is essential for its function, and trademarks can't be used to protect function. It looks like they're trying a different jurisdiction where the laws are worded differently and the justice system works differently in the hopes of getting a different ruling. 

Secondly, it's really interesting that the picked a picture of a custom GAN cube as an example of an infringing cube. I wonder how their recent partnership with GAN will affect that.

Thirdly, they go on about irreparable harm to Rubik's reputation. I think what has caused the most irreparable harm to their reputation is really their dishonesty, and the fact that they actually make a crappy product that's unpleasant to use, and rather than beat the competition by improving their design, they used underhanded litigious methods on legal technicalities. In fact, it's clear from their need to partnership with GAN that Rubik's is incapable of producing a superior cube and has to sponge of of "imitations" to even have a hope of producing a better cube.

I seriously seriously hope Rubik's loses this, because if they don't, the implications for speed cubing are enormous.


----------



## AidanNoogie (Oct 13, 2017)

Rubik's brand cubes "high quality" and cubicle labs cube "low quality" lol.


----------



## VenomCubing (Oct 13, 2017)

Thecubicle brands their 3x3s as 3x3s or speedcubes, not Rubik's Cubes. The only 3x3 that they claim is a Rubik's product is, in fact, a Rubik's product. IIRC, Rubik's never made a bandage cube diy kit, so their picture for diy kits is not good evidence whatsoever. A lot of these claims are bull crap. I get that this is to reduce competition in the market, but this lawsuit has few, if any, actual claims against thecubicle, so it shouldn't be of much use. I wouldn't be surprized if this actually nets thecubicle more money.


----------



## pjk (Oct 13, 2017)

Rubik and others like Hasbro Games have been hassling shops and manufacturers in the speedcubing industry for years now (as did V-Cube for the longest time). They've blocked shipments from shops in the past, shut down listings, closed Paypal accounts, filed suits, etc. It is an ongoing game.

The oddity in it all is that Rubiks (and others) sponsor many competitions where not a single cuber is using a Rubik's Cube, and they know it. Rubik's has not innovated really at all in this space as they seem to target the general public which has made up the bulk of their 350 million+ sales. Not only this, Erno was just at Worlds and didn't seem the slightest bit concerned about all thousand competitors using cubes not made by Rubiks. Erno has also expressed interest in supporting the community, knowing that most cubers aren't using a Rubik's cube. So it's somewhat of a contradiction for Rubiks to be supporting the community, yet suppressing it simultaneously. Them suing theCubicle is just another example of this which has been going on for 7+ years now.


----------



## Jason Green (Oct 13, 2017)

Although it is funny to imagine if there were a cubing black market for speed cubes. Hahaha


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Oct 13, 2017)

Jason Green said:


> Although it is funny to imagine if there were a cubing black market for speed cubes. Hahaha


"ya got the stuff"
"yeah"


----------



## Competition Cuber (Oct 13, 2017)

Ummm, that's like suing Targat or Walmart for selling Rubik's cubes. Their both retailers, they can, but the cubicle can't???


----------



## One Wheel (Oct 13, 2017)

Competition Cuber said:


> Ummm, that's like suing Targat or Walmart for selling Rubik's cubes. Their both retailers, they can, but the cubicle can't???


Target and Walmart sell licensed rubik's cubes. TheCubicle sells "knockoffs."


----------



## Tabe (Oct 13, 2017)

One Wheel said:


> Target and Walmart sell licensed rubik's cubes. TheCubicle sells "knockoffs."


Target and Walmart also don't manufacture cubes.


----------



## cuber314159 (Oct 13, 2017)

newtonbase said:


> They are going after them for manufacturing cubes not for reselling.
> 
> Regarding quality control. Someone at Rubik's told me that the reason they would never be able to make a decent speedcube is that they couldn't risk selling one that can pop. This makes them much safer for young children.


But surely it would be in their interests to say they are not responsible for such injuries, the way almost all food says cannot guarantee but free


----------



## willi pilz (Oct 13, 2017)

Ok, that's it, I lost all respect for rubik's. 
I'm gonna call the *RUBIK'S CUBE* the *MOYU CUBE* now.


----------



## Mellis Ferton (Oct 13, 2017)

I think if this lawsuit goes through, and Phil (TheCubicle) loses, this could be a huge red flag for other cube retailers. If Rubik's decides to start suing other cube retailers, we could see smaller (no offense) stores (like speedcubeshop.com, cancube.ca) losing these lawsuits, and the cubes we all know and love go away. 

But what I find idiotic is that Rubik's recently partnered with Gan to make a speedcube. If they start going after Gan, I think Gan will have a higher chance of winning, since it is a large company. But it's unsure. Let's hope that TheCubicle will win, and we can keep the cubes we know today.


----------



## biscuit (Oct 13, 2017)

bobthegiraffemonkey said:


> 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?


Not a great one, because "The vast majority" is not all. You can still be trying to deceive someone into buying a product thinking it's something else, even if most people are not looking for that product.


----------



## rz303 (Oct 13, 2017)

i don't really see a problem, if they loose they can just move shop to Europe, which means cheaper shipping for us across the pond.


----------



## TipsterTrickster (Oct 13, 2017)

Wow


----------



## cuber314159 (Oct 13, 2017)

Its not a Rubik's cube unless it actually is but at least we can rest assured that China doesn't care about copyright and Chinese stores are nearly half the price of the cubicle, but I think the WCA should sue Rubik's for not producing a decent cube or at least replace the Rubik's cube with 3x3x3


----------



## I_<3_SCS (Oct 13, 2017)

willi pilz said:


> Ok, that's it, I lost all respect for rubik's.
> I'm gonna call the *RUBIK'S CUBE* the *MOYU CUBE* now.



That's really disrespectful. You're not respecting the patent. Besides, wouldn't you be disappointed when you get a Moyu cube instead of a Rubik's cube? I know I would...



cuber314159 said:


> Its not a Rubik's cube unless it actually is but at least we can rest assured that China doesn't care about copyright and Chinese stores are nearly half the price of the cubicle, but I think the *WCA should sue Rubik's for not producing a decent cube *or at least replace the Rubik's cube with 3x3x3



How does that even work? What basis does the WCA have for such legal action? What a dotard...


----------



## cuber314159 (Oct 13, 2017)

I_<3_SCS said:


> That's really disrespectful. You're not respecting the patent. Besides, wouldn't you be disappointed when you get a Moyu cube instead of a Rubik's cube? I know I would...
> 
> anyway, I think my last post didn't get posted, so here I go:
> 
> ...


And speedcubeshop is probably next on Rubik's list of cube stores to sue, maybe affiliates will lose out

And i understand that the WCA can't sue Rubik's but I think copyright laws really do need updating and that they should decide whether it is an infringement based on the shape of a corner or edge not the overall puzzle


----------



## I_<3_SCS (Oct 14, 2017)

cuber314159 said:


> And speedcubeshop is probably next on Rubik's list of cube stores to sue, maybe affiliates will lose out



That's true... maybe that's why I only buy from Rubik's!


----------



## cuber314159 (Oct 14, 2017)

I_<3_SCS said:


> That's true... maybe that's why I only buy from Rubik's!


This is the speedsolving forum not the deliberately slow stiff cube lovers forum


----------



## I_<3_SCS (Oct 14, 2017)

cuber314159 said:


> This is the speedsolving forum not the deliberately slow stiff cube lovers forum



The first speedcubers used Rubik's and plus, haven't you seen the new Rubik's Speedcube?

EDIT: Want a link?...


----------



## cuber314159 (Oct 14, 2017)

I_<3_SCS said:


> The first speedcubers used Rubik's and plus, haven't you seen the new Rubik's Speedcube?
> 
> EDIT: Want a link?...


Yes but I thought gan said they were honoured to have been picked and would use their best cube designs- why has the gan air SM
A) received lots more attention
B) been widely used by top speescubers while the rsc has not


----------



## Mellis Ferton (Oct 14, 2017)

cuber314159 said:


> Yes but I thought gan said they were honoured to have been picked and would use their best cube designs- why has the gan air SM
> A) received lots more attention
> B) been widely used by top speescubers while the rsc has not


(answer to B) I've heard people say it's because of the tiles. Also, they can't change their color scheme/shades and make it their own.

(answer to A) Most likely because it is part of the Gans Air cubes, which in itself is popular.


----------



## I_<3_SCS (Oct 14, 2017)

Agree with ^^^ 

remember, the rubiks speedcubes are not only amazingly fast and great for speedcubers, but also great for little children who might choke and die otherwise. Thus, Rubik's has done the impossible by making a best of both worlds cube!!!


----------



## xyzzy (Oct 14, 2017)

cuber314159 said:


> China doesn't care about copyright





I_<3_SCS said:


> You're not respecting the patent.





cuber314159 said:


> the WCA can't sue Rubik's but I think copyright laws really do need updating and that they should decide whether it is an infringement based on the shape of a corner or edge not the overall puzzle



Trademark ≠ copyright ≠ patent ≠ trademark. Rubik's is suing over a trademark violation. The patent on the original Rubik's Cube expired many years ago and simple geometric shapes cannot be copyrighted.

(If you want to talk about piece internals, which nowadays really aren't simple geometric shapes, they fall under copyright insofar as the the shape does not fundamentally contribute to the functionality of the overall product, which is basically never. I assume this restriction is to prevent people from double-dipping with both copyright and patent protection.)


----------



## SolemnAttic (Oct 14, 2017)

I need enlightenment. How does TC manufacture cubes? Dont they just set up cubes for us, which is the same thing as buying an rc car, then the shop gives us lubricant, a free bottle of oil, spart parts etc? Or am I missing something as i never bought from TC?


----------



## AlphaSheep (Oct 14, 2017)

SolemnAttic said:


> I need enlightenment. How does TC manufacture cubes? Dont they just set up cubes for us, which is the same thing as buying an rc car, then the shop gives us lubricant, a free bottle of oil, spart parts etc? Or am I missing something as i never bought from TC?


They buy the base cube from one source and vinyl sheets from somewhere else from which they cut stickers, stick them to the cube, and then sell the result as a finished product. I'm pretty sure the magnets and lube aren't relevant here since they don't affect appearance which is all that is covered by the trademark.


----------



## SolemnAttic (Oct 14, 2017)

AlphaSheep said:


> They buy the base cube from one source and vinyl sheets from somewhere else from which they cut stickers, stick them to the cube, and then sell the result as a finished product. I'm pretty sure the magnets and lube aren't relevant here since they don't affect appearance which is all that is covered by the trademark.



Hmm, makes sense.


----------



## teboecubes (Oct 14, 2017)

GenTheThief said:


> 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.


Yeah I know. If 25 was accurate:

"Finally, my cube came in the mail"
*opens box*
"What, this isn't a Rubik's Cube, it's the imitation cube The Cubicle sells to mislead customers!"


----------



## WACWCA (Oct 14, 2017)

Underwatercuber said:


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


If they lose, it's likely going to happen to other cube stores, not just them


----------



## Competition Cuber (Oct 14, 2017)

I wonder what the court will be like with all these cuber terms and stuff, and everyone else being a non cuber.


----------



## I_<3_SCS (Oct 15, 2017)

xyzzy said:


> Trademark ≠ copyright ≠ patent ≠ trademark. Rubik's is suing over a trademark violation. The patent on the original Rubik's Cube expired many years ago and simple geometric shapes cannot be copyrighted.
> 
> (If you want to talk about piece internals, which nowadays really aren't simple geometric shapes, they fall under copyright insofar as the the shape does not fundamentally contribute to the functionality of the overall product, which is basically never. I assume this restriction is to prevent people from double-dipping with both copyright and patent protection.)



Actually, internals are geometric, considering they are designed with cad programs such as solidworks or ptc creo, y'know.


----------



## cubing master (Oct 15, 2017)

I'm too stupid to completely understand what this thing fully states and too lazy to figure it out, but from what I understand, Rubik's is suing Thecubicle because they sell cubes that are different variants of the Rubik's Cube. Am I right or are they suing for more or different reasons. 



I'm lost.


----------



## AidanNoogie (Oct 15, 2017)

So if Rubik's wins will they go after speedcubeshop next?


----------



## One Wheel (Oct 15, 2017)

AidanNoogie said:


> So if Rubik's wins will they go after speedcubeshop next?


Almost certainly. If Rubik's wins, then they just need to show that the other places do practically the same thing as theCubicle, and they don't even really need to try the case because the precedent is already set.


----------



## DMCubing (Oct 15, 2017)

AidanNoogie said:


> So if Rubik's wins will they go after speedcubeshop next?


It makes you wonder. Now, if all the lawsuit entailed was the Cubicle manufacturing cubes, that would be one thing, they could cease and desist, but it looks like the scope of the lawsuit is well beyond this. Imo, it's stupid. It probably began with the brand being unable to go after the manufacturers in China, evolved to them closing down the production of the Duncan brand cube, and now they're going after the retailers. Ridiculous! 

And I think it might be worth noting that it's highly unlikely Prof. Rubik has a thing to do with this. His brand is owned by a separate entity and I doubt he has much if any input. 

The end result may be a terrible outcome: people disliking Rubik himself, though he's blameless; the end of commercially available custom cubes; the end of sponsored cubing events, and ultimately, the possible end of cubing as we now know it, all because of the greediness of a trade mark holder. 

Ultimately we'll all lose if they get their way. And it's certainly going to be difficult for the enthusiasm we all have for cubing to rebound after this lawsuit gets going and the results are made final.


----------



## ogre cubes (Oct 15, 2017)

saxnbass said:


> Just ran across this little nugget; the document was dated yesterday.
> 
> https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public...Enterprises_LLC_Docket_No_117cv078?1507841795
> 
> Thoughts?



16, using this logic, couldn't Ford as a company sue every other car manufacturer or retailer because they originally made the car?



One Wheel said:


> 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?


Yes, the cubicle is obviously trying to sell us all trashy rubik's brands


----------



## I_<3_SCS (Oct 15, 2017)

DMCubing said:


> It makes you wonder. Now, if all the lawsuit entailed was the Cubicle manufacturing cubes, that would be one thing, they could cease and desist, but it looks like the scope of the lawsuit is well beyond this. Imo, it's stupid. It probably began with the brand being unable to go after the manufacturers in China, evolved to them closing down the production of the Duncan brand cube, and now they're going after the retailers. Ridiculous!
> 
> And I think it might be worth noting that it's highly unlikely Prof. Rubik has a thing to do with this. His brand is owned by a separate entity and I doubt he has much if any input.
> 
> ...



Stop being so dramatic lmao. the RSC isn't that bad, dude.


----------



## FastCubeMaster (Oct 15, 2017)

Competition Cuber said:


> I wonder what the court will be like with all these cuber terms and stuff, and everyone else being a non cuber.


"This company thinks their cubes gets them PB ao5s and ao12s, when really it's just because their Cross and F2L stages of CFOP are improving simultaneously. Everyone thinks Feliks Zemdegs got the YTUWR with the defendants 3x3 but it only looks like that because he's colour neutral and he changed the colour scheme and GES nuts. It's actually our half brights scoring him the WRs and OcRs.

Is your PB sub skewb WR, your honour?


----------



## applezfall (Oct 15, 2017)

We need to buy more cubes from SCS,cube depot etc.Before Rubik's sues them


----------



## DMCubing (Oct 15, 2017)

applezfall said:


> We need to buy more cubes from SCS,cube depot etc.Before Rubik's sues them


The Cubicle could use the support too.


----------



## JustAnotherGenericCuber (Oct 15, 2017)

applezfall said:


> We need to buy more cubes from SCS,cube depot etc.Before Rubik's sues them


You can still buy from the cubicle


----------



## applezfall (Oct 15, 2017)

JustAnotherGenericCuber said:


> You can still buy from the cubicle





DMCubing said:


> The Cubicle could use the support too.


Oh yea but wouldn't it be risky to order now?


----------



## JustAnotherGenericCuber (Oct 15, 2017)

applezfall said:


> Oh yea but wouldn't it be risky to order now?


On reddit they said they are still operating normally


----------



## applezfall (Oct 15, 2017)

C


JustAnotherGenericCuber said:


> On reddit they said they are still operating normally


Ok


----------



## DMCubing (Oct 15, 2017)

applezfall said:


> Oh yea but wouldn't it be risky to order now?


No, not at all.


----------



## Ordway Persyn (Oct 15, 2017)

Would stickerless cubes still be infringement? I know that Rubik's, if they succeed, could only block 2x2s through 5x5's (although V-cubes and Mefferts could use the same strategy if Rubik's wins). I suspect that Rubik's claim violates anti-monopoly rules in someway. Because if Rubik's succeeds, they would legally have the ability to shut down any competitors. This is one area where I think their case will fall apart. As well as that TheCubicle has never claimed that the cubes they sell are official Rubik's brand products.

I know very little about law so you should not take my post as a serious defense or anything of the nature, and I very well may be wrong about many aspects, so please correct anything I got wrong.


----------



## h2f (Oct 15, 2017)

It has started in August http://www.bbc.com/news/business-41087022

Read this: https://www.rubiksbrand.com/usage-rights-legal

Who is who in Rubiks Brand Ltd. https://www.rubiksbrand.com/about

Truely, I'm disappointed.


----------



## FastCubeMaster (Oct 15, 2017)

I think the Jury should just read this thread to determine their final verdict.


----------



## Ksh13 (Oct 15, 2017)

Mellis Ferton said:


> (answer to B) I've heard people say it's because of the tiles. Also, they can't change their color scheme/shades and make it their own.
> 
> (answer to A) Most likely because it is part of the Gans Air cubes, which in itself is popular.


It's not just the tiles. The cube isn't bad, I've tried it, but it isn't close to the SM or Valk or GTS2. It's just decent.


----------



## Benjamin Warry (Oct 15, 2017)

Ksh13 said:


> It's not just the tiles. The cube isn't bad, I've tried it, but it isn't close to the SM or Valk or GTS2. It's just decent.


Rubik's on there site claim that it's, "The best speedcube yet!"


----------



## ParzivalCubing (Oct 15, 2017)

*Everyone, we need to work together here. *Lets not be hostile because mass hostility could further decrease TheCubicle's chances of surviving this. Instead, email them directly at [email protected] and message like this: I would just like to let you know, as a member of the speedcubing community, that I highly condemn your attempt to sue TheCubicle. I only buy from them to get 'SPEED'cubes - not 'Rubik's cubes'. Anyone who buys from there is doing it for a reason - for a speedcube - and doesn't expect to get a Rubik's brand. This is purely down to the inferior quality of YOUR product, and not 'being tricked into doing so' as you claim. And as for the hypocrisy! Directly after you collaborate with Gan... due to what seems to be a disregard to the speedcubing community as a whole, I no longer solve the Rubik's cube, I solve the 3x3.

In no way am I associated with TheCubicle, I am merely a customer and a speedcuber,

[your name]

_Any edits or suggestions? _


----------



## One Wheel (Oct 15, 2017)

ParzivalCubing said:


> *Everyone, we need to work together here. *Lets not be hostile because mass hostility could further decrease TheCubicle's chances of surviving this. Instead, email them directly at [email protected] and message like this: I would just like to let you know, as a member of the speedcubing community, that I highly condemn your attempt to sue TheCubicle. I only buy from them to get 'SPEED'cubes - not 'Rubik's cubes'. Anyone who buys from there is doing it for a reason - for a speedcube - and doesn't expect to get a (in my opinion, bad) Rubik's brand. This is purely down to the inferior quality of YOUR product, and not 'being tricked into doing so' as you claim. And as for the hypocrisy! Directly after you collaborate with Gan... Thanks to your utter disregard to the speedcubing community as a whole, I no longer solve the Rubik's cube, I solve the 3x3.
> 
> In no way am I associated with TheCubicle, I am merely a customer and a speedcuber,
> 
> ...


If they were looking for public input a form letter would be counted in a spreadsheet and tallied. They aren't looking for public opinion, so this isn't going to do any good. Somebody on reddit suggested contacting the press to raise public awareness of the issue, and a few people have done so, myself included. That's probably the most helpful thing that we can do. I don't know if it might be possible to contact the White House and get an executive order declaring Rubik's trademark invalid, but that's kind of the nuclear option: more likely to happen with the current president than the last one, but still pretty improbable.


----------



## ParzivalCubing (Oct 15, 2017)

One Wheel said:


> If they were looking for public input a form letter would be counted in a spreadsheet and tallied. They aren't looking for public opinion, so this isn't going to do any good. Somebody on reddit suggested contacting the press to raise public awareness of the issue, and a few people have done so, myself included. That's probably the most helpful thing that we can do. I don't know if it might be possible to contact the White House and get an executive order declaring Rubik's trademark invalid, but that's kind of the nuclear option: more likely to happen with the current president than the last one, but still pretty improbable.


Considering half of the entire lawsuit is over how they are perceived by the public due to TheCubicle.us so I reckon they would listen.


----------



## One Wheel (Oct 15, 2017)

ParzivalCubing said:


> Considering half of the entire lawsuit is over how they are perceived by the public due to TheCubicle.us so I reckon they would listen.


Do you really think that's what they care about, or is that just what they think will win in court? My money is on the latter. In the off chance that you're right, though, don't send a form letter, write your own letter.


----------



## xyzzy (Oct 15, 2017)

ParzivalCubing said:


> Lets not be hostile


>say this
>compose a hostile email

Okay, whatever you say. If you want an example of a _non-hostile_ message, look at u/megaminxwin's. (I expect that you've seen it because you've been spamming your "call to action" everywhere, but I'm linking it for the people who don't check r/cubers.)


----------



## ParzivalCubing (Oct 15, 2017)

One Wheel said:


> Do you really think that's what they care about, or is that just what they think will win in court? My money is on the latter. In the off chance that you're right, though, don't send a form letter, write your own letter.


I don't see why the court wouldn't be interested in evidence for the claim that their reputation is being downed by TheCubicle. Also I think they would be interested in customer emails - i.e what customers are saying to them. To be honest I'm 13 and have very little clue about how suing works, so I'll take your word for it.



xyzzy said:


> >say this
> >compose a hostile email
> 
> Okay, whatever you say. If you want an example of a _non-hostile_ message, look at u/megaminxwin's. (I expect that you've seen it because you've been spamming your "call to action" everywhere, but I'm linking it for the people who don't check r/cubers.)



I haven't been 'spamming' anything. I have posted this once on reddit and once here. I'm sorry if it seemed too hostile - it's not like Rubik's were hostile or anything...


----------



## DMCubing (Oct 15, 2017)

ParzivalCubing said:


> *Everyone, we need to work together here. *Lets not be hostile because mass hostility could further decrease TheCubicle's chances of surviving this. Instead, email them directly at [email protected] and message like this: I would just like to let you know, as a member of the speedcubing community, that I highly condemn your attempt to sue TheCubicle. I only buy from them to get 'SPEED'cubes - not 'Rubik's cubes'. Anyone who buys from there is doing it for a reason - for a speedcube - and doesn't expect to get a Rubik's brand. This is purely down to the inferior quality of YOUR product, and not 'being tricked into doing so' as you claim. And as for the hypocrisy! Directly after you collaborate with Gan... due to what seems to be a disregard to the speedcubing community as a whole, I no longer solve the Rubik's cube, I solve the 3x3.
> 
> In no way am I associated with TheCubicle, I am merely a customer and a speedcuber,
> 
> ...


Boycotting everything they make might get their attention, and this includes the Gan Rubik's RSC. Don't buy a thing with their brand on it. We're their biggest sales base.


----------



## shadowslice e (Oct 15, 2017)

DMCubing said:


> Boycotting everything they make might get their attention, and this includes the Gan Rubik's RSC. Don't buy a thing with their brand on it. We're their biggest sales base.


Are you really sure about that?


----------



## cuber314159 (Oct 15, 2017)

DMCubing said:


> Boycotting everything they make might get their attention, and this includes the Gan Rubik's RSC. Don't buy a thing with their brand on it. We're their biggest sales base.


were not Rubik's biggest sales base, noobs are, when was the last time any of you bought a Rubik's brand, would you recommend it, for me I have never bought a Rubik's brand, I received them as presents over three years ago, none since then


----------



## AidanNoogie (Oct 15, 2017)

I_<3_SCS said:


> Stop being so dramatic lmao. the RSC isn't that bad, dude.


Yeah, but cubicle labs cubes are way better


----------



## cuber314159 (Oct 15, 2017)

Any suggestions for two videos on my channel about this would be appreciated, one that's intended to be emailed to Rubik's and one angry one where I complain at them to show how I really feel about this( and for the views)


----------



## DMCubing (Oct 15, 2017)

cuber314159 said:


> were not Rubik's biggest sales base, noobs are, when was the last time any of you bought a Rubik's brand, would you recommend it, for me I have never bought a Rubik's brand, I received them as presents over three years ago, none since then


Those of us that are more into cubing have the potential of influencing sales, hence my sales base comment. As a member of the cubing community, we can directly affect their sales by guiding younger cubers away from their products. We're the larger sales base for cubing, NOT noobs. Noobs will buy one cube and (more likely) quit or move onto a better brand. Cubers like us never stop at one cube. As a community, we can influence others on their initial cube choice.


----------



## Ronxu (Oct 15, 2017)

DMCubing said:


> Boycotting everything they make might get their attention, and this includes the Gan Rubik's RSC. Don't buy a thing with their brand on it. We're their biggest sales base.


This thread summed up in a single post. 90% of you have no clue how any of this works.


----------



## DMCubing (Oct 15, 2017)

shadowslice e said:


> Are you really sure about that?


I believe we are CUBING'S biggest sales base.



cuber314159 said:


> were not Rubik's biggest sales base, noobs are, when was the last time any of you bought a Rubik's brand, would you recommend it, for me I have never bought a Rubik's brand, I received them as presents over three years ago, none since then


I recently bought THREE Gan RSC, TWO wooden anniversary model Rubik's cubes, and TWO Rubik's brand cubes for my niece and nephew.


----------



## Ordway Persyn (Oct 15, 2017)

I wonder if people will ever learn that boycotting never really works.


----------



## shadowslice e (Oct 15, 2017)

DMCubing said:


> I believe we are CUBING'S biggest sales base.


But not Rubik's' by a long shot.


----------



## DMCubing (Oct 15, 2017)

Ordway Persyn said:


> I wonder if people will ever learn that boycotting never really works.


It does on social media. Get a clue. Or just sit on your hands doing nothing while the pastime we enjoy goes down the tube.



shadowslice e said:


> But not Rubik's' by a long shot.


You don't understand. Rubik is the one trying to eliminate all other brands.


----------



## shadowslice e (Oct 15, 2017)

DMCubing said:


> You don't understand. Rubik is the one trying to eliminate all other brands.


I don't think you understand. If Rubik's eliminates all other brands then if you want to do cubing then you won't have a choice but to get stuff from them. Even if you boycott them that would be essentially the same as stopping cubing altogether. In addition, even if every single speedcuber in the world boycotts Rubik's then they will still not really case as we would still form the vast minority of people who buy cubes.


----------



## DMCubing (Oct 15, 2017)

shadowslice e said:


> I don't think you understand. If Rubik's eliminates all other brands then if you want to do cubing then you won't have a choice but to get stuff from them. Even if you boycott them that would be essentially the same as stopping cubing altogether. In addition, even if every single speedcuber in the world boycotts Rubik's then they will still not really case as we would still form the vast minority of people who buy cubes.


Trust me, I think I know full well how this works, but keep believing what you want. 

Meanwhile, there are things we can do besides arguing semantics back and forth.


----------



## shadowslice e (Oct 15, 2017)

DMCubing said:


> Trust me, I think I know full well how this works, but keep believing what you want.
> 
> Meanwhile, there are things we can do besides arguing semantics back and forth.


Exactly how many cubes do you think are bought from Rubik's by cubers each year?

And how many cubes are bought in general by cubers from all brands?


----------



## Ordway Persyn (Oct 15, 2017)

obviously, I don't want Rubik's to win this. Boycotting usually never really works well in that the act of doing so actually puts more attention to the company that were trying to boycott. In some cases when people boycott companies for stupid reasons, It makes me want to support said company. I haven't bought a Rubik's brand since becoming a cuber and this lawsuit does make me less likely to buy one. It won't change anything either if they win this case, the amount of competition they eliminate will out way the losses they will lose with. I'm certain that cubers are less than 0.5% of the Population here in the US, and many of us don't buy Rubiks to begin with. You seem to be very stubborn, though In this case may be somewhat understandable, as we are all nervous about the worst happening. I think TheCubicle has the better legal ground, and Rubik's lost a similar case in Europe, so I think Rubik's has a good chance of loosing the court battle.


----------



## DMCubing (Oct 15, 2017)

shadowslice e said:


> Exactly how many cubes do you think are bought from Rubik's by cubers each year?
> 
> And how many cubes are bought in general by cubers from all brands?


See my second paragraph. I've said what I needed to say and don't plan on beating a dead horse. 

Boycott if you feel like it, or not. No one is holding a gun to your head to do anything.



Ordway Persyn said:


> obviously, I don't want Rubik's to win this. Boycotting usually never really works well in that the act of doing so actually puts more attention to the company that were trying to boycott. In some cases when people boycott companies for stupid reasons, It makes me want to support said company. I haven't bought a Rubik's brand since becoming a cuber and this lawsuit does make me less likely to buy one. It won't change anything either if they win this case, the amount of competition they eliminate will out way the losses they will lose with. I'm certain that cubers are less than 0.5% of the Population here in the US, and many of us don't buy Rubiks to begin with. You seem to be very stubborn, though In this case may be somewhat understandable, as we are all nervous about the worst happening. I think TheCubicle has the better legal ground, and Rubik's lost a similar case in Europe, so I think Rubik's has a good chance of loosing the court battle.


Boycotting works. No one is forcing you to do anything. No point in me continuing this argument.


----------



## shadowslice e (Oct 15, 2017)

DMCubing said:


> See my second paragraph. I've said what I needed to say and don't plan on beating a dead horse.
> 
> Boycott if you feel like it, or not. No one is holding a gun to your head to do anything.


I'm pointing out that your points are wrong. Non-cubers outnumber cubers by such a huge amount that even if non-cubers only "buy one cube and then stop", the sheer number of people buying one will outweigh however many cubes the totality of cubers get. In addition, (barring you it seems) the vast majority of cubers also "buy one and then stop" meaning that even if every single cuber went out of their way to avoid buying Rubik's products it would barely make a dent in their sales figures.

I would also like to see more evidence in you statement that "boycotting works" when the boycotters are in the minority of people buying the product.

Lastly, most cubers will not be repeat purchasers of Rubik's products so are essentially boycotting it without even having to make a change meaning that it would make an even smaller difference than if cubers bought only Rubik's products (which would still be dwarfed by the sales to non-cubers).

TL;DR as cubers purchase so few Rubik's products they would not notice any difference.


----------



## Duncan Bannon (Oct 15, 2017)

shadowslice e said:


> I'm pointing out that your points are wrong. Non-cubers outnumber cubers by such a huge amount that even if non-cubers only "buy one cube and then stop", the sheer number of people buying one will outweigh however many cubes the totality of cubers get. In addition, (barring you it seems) the vast majority of cubers also "buy one and then stop" meaning that even if every single cuber went out of their way to avoid buying Rubik's products it would barely make a dent in their sales figures.
> 
> I would also like to see more evidence in you statement that "boycotting works" when the boycotters are in the minority of people buying the product.
> 
> ...



I think this is wrong, the reason they are suing the cubicle, is because they dont have enough money. Thus meaning most people have a Rubik’s cube and they dont need another. Only speedcubers are making purchases.


----------



## cuber314159 (Oct 15, 2017)

DMCubing said:


> Boycotting works. No one is forcing you to do anything. No point in me continuing this argument.


I've essentially boycotted Rubik's since I got my first apeedcube, if moyu or qiyi did something like this then it would be harder for us to boycott them but with Rubik's, I would say most cubers have already boycotted Rubik's for years, but it is still a good idea to tell Rubik's that we don't like what they are doing. Boycotting Rubik's won't do much as I have essentially boycotted them anyway


----------



## shadowslice e (Oct 15, 2017)

Duncan Bannon said:


> I think this is wrong, the reason they are suing the cubicle, is because they dont have enough money. Thus meaning most people have a Rubik’s cube and they dont need another. Only speedcubers are making purchases.


Can I have a citation for this?
Because these: 
https://companycheck.co.uk/company/08431416/RUBIKS-BRAND-LIMITED/financials
https://suite.endole.co.uk/insight/company/08431416-rubik-s-brand-limited
appear to stand in direct contradiction to it.


----------



## cuber314159 (Oct 15, 2017)

Anyone have any objection with me sending first one to Rubik's?

Please subscribe as a video may come soon when I smash Rubik's points against the cubicle in their lawsuit


----------



## ParzivalCubing (Oct 15, 2017)

cuber314159 said:


> Anyone have any objection with me sending first one to Rubik's?
> 
> Please subscribe as a video may come soon when I smash Rubik's points against the cubicle in their lawsuit


Maybe it's worth dropping an email to any of these three:
Rubik's General Enquiries (DIRECT EMAIL ADDRESS): [email protected]
Seven Towns: [email protected]
Or why not tell Rubik's (Plaintiff's) Attorneys directly: [email protected] or [email protected]
^^ Source: The bottom of the lawsuit page

Also, be rather careful when you pursue an Attorney...
Hope I could help


----------



## Tabe (Oct 15, 2017)

shadowslice e said:


> I would also like to see more evidence in you statement that "boycotting works" when the boycotters are in the minority of people buying the product.


The 1960s Civil Rights Movement in the US is example A-1 that boycotting works.


----------



## shadowslice e (Oct 15, 2017)

Tabe said:


> The 1960s Civil Rights Movement in the US is example A-1 that boycotting works.


Were they in the vast minority of people using the bus?


----------



## Tabe (Oct 15, 2017)

cuber314159 said:


> I've essentially boycotted Rubik's since I got my first apeedcube, if moyu or qiyi did something like this then it would be harder for us to boycott them but with Rubik's, I would say most cubers have already boycotted Rubik's for years, but it is still a good idea to tell Rubik's that we don't like what they are doing. Boycotting Rubik's won't do much as I have essentially boycotted them anyway





shadowslice e said:


> Were they in the vast minority of people using the bus?


Fair point.


----------



## Max Cruz (Oct 15, 2017)

DMCubing said:


> Boycotting everything they make might get their attention, and this includes the Gan Rubik's RSC. Don't buy a thing with their brand on it. We're their biggest sales base.



Nope. Nope. And... Nope. If we are actually "speedcubers," thus differentiating ourselves from those "noobs" who buy Rubik's brands, how can boycotting Rubik's help? Don't we already? Isn't that why we are trying to save thecubicle.us? Hypocrite much?


----------



## cuber314159 (Oct 15, 2017)

I know it's quite long but you can always try it at double speed


----------



## DMCubing (Oct 15, 2017)

Max Cruz said:


> Nope. Nope. And... Nope. If we are actually "speedcubers," thus differentiating ourselves from those "noobs" who buy Rubik's brands, how can boycotting Rubik's help? Don't we already? Isn't that why we are trying to save thecubicle.us? Hypocrite much?


Hypocrite much? Juvenile. But I'll reply. 

Rubik's is more involved in cubing than just making an inferior cube. They actually sponsored Worlds 2017 in Paris. They apparently have an association with Gan. Boycotting means not supporting their company through many ways besides not buying their cubes. It could include not participating in any Rubik's sponsored events, not supporting their company by staying away from any other brands associated with them, and not buying their products. 

A lot here seem to misunderstand what a boycott truly actually is. There's more action involved than inaction. It's about getting their attention.


----------



## Mellis Ferton (Oct 15, 2017)

If this lawsuit goes through, and TheCubicle wins, Rubik's might start going after retailers AND producers.


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Oct 15, 2017)

DMCubing said:


> They actually sponsored Worlds 2017 in Paris ... It could include not participating in any Rubik's sponsored events


You want people to boycott Rubik's by not going to competitions they sponsor? Boycotting genius at work here, everyone take note. Worlds 2019 will be so much less interesting if nobody competes, but at least we'll be making a point.


----------



## DMCubing (Oct 15, 2017)

bobthegiraffemonkey said:


> You want people to boycott Rubik's by not going to competitions they sponsor? Boycotting genius at work here, everyone take note. Worlds 2019 will be so much less interesting if nobody competes, but at least we'll be making a point.


You don't have to be rude. Anyway you all can have it your way. I'm finished replying here. Not many seem genuinely interested in a solution and seem more interested in arguing back and forth. Good luck with that.


----------



## One Wheel (Oct 15, 2017)

Competition Cuber said:


> Guys... what effect on the cubing community as a whole will it have if rubik's actually wins?


It will be harder (not impossible, but harder) to get cubes, because US-based retailers will be shut down. This will lead to no competitions sponsored by US-based retailers, and with decreased sales (and the chance of cubes being seized in customs) development of puzzles by Chinese manufacturers will likely stall.


----------



## Competition Cuber (Oct 15, 2017)

One Wheel said:


> It will be harder (not impossible, but harder) to get cubes, because US-based retailers will be shut down. This will lead to no competitions sponsored by US-based retailers, and with decreased sales (and the chance of cubes being seized in customs) development of puzzles by Chinese manufacturers will likely stall.


Not joking, Im scared that cubing might actually change in the US.


----------



## shadowslice e (Oct 15, 2017)

DMCubing said:


> You don't have to be a dick. Anyway you all can have it your way. I'm finished replying here. Not many seem genuinely interested in a solution and seem more interested in arguing back and forth. Good luck with that.


We're explaining the flaws in your "solution". 

If this is how you respond to criticism, I have to say you are more juvenile than anyone else here and it may be better if you removed yourself from the conversation so we can explore actual solutions rather than have to explain to someone who does not explain or elaborate on their views when they are challenged.


----------



## Tabe (Oct 16, 2017)

bobthegiraffemonkey said:


> You want people to boycott Rubik's by not going to competitions they sponsor? Boycotting genius at work here, everyone take note. Worlds 2019 will be so much less interesting if nobody competes, but at least we'll be making a point.


One would hope that the WCA would take note of this lawsuit, reject any sponsorship from Rubik's, and rename the 3x3 event.


----------



## FastCubeMaster (Oct 16, 2017)

I vote people that don't really know what they're talking about, stay out of this. (Myself included)


----------



## Ordway Persyn (Oct 16, 2017)

Huh, well this thread has become fairly interesting. I think I'm done though as I have nothing more meaningful to add.


----------



## One Wheel (Oct 16, 2017)

In fairness, @DMCubing 's boycott solution is actually pretty good if it could be implemented. Which makes me wonder: are any Gans-sponsored cubers dropping their sponsorships over this? I've got to imagine that Gans sells enough non-rubik's-branded puzzles through US shops that they can't be on board with this? I don't imagine that they have much say, but maybe it would be worthwhile to boycott Gans as well, unless they drop the partnership or rubik's drops the lawsuit? I get the impression that the RSC is kind of Erno Rubik's pet project, it may be that pressure on Gans would induce Erno Rubik to use what little influence he has on the company that bears his name.

@Teoidus I understand being frustrated, but please. @DMCubing has arguably done more with his work and tutorials on magnetic cubes to advance hardware in the last few years than probably anyone other than Chris Tran. A little respect is due on that front even if he weren't trying to deal in a mature, level-headed way with a really frustrating development in the cubing community (which he is).


----------



## FastCubeMaster (Oct 16, 2017)

Do people know about this?

https://www.change.org/p/erno-rubik...campaign=share_sms_responsive&utm_term=160624

If I'm not mistaken, it's not Erno Rubik in charge of this. That petition is getting a few people mad at him for doing this.


----------



## mitja (Oct 16, 2017)

If Rubik wins this, better store your old cubes people. They will be worth a fortune soon.


----------



## genericcuber666 (Oct 16, 2017)

What is happening in this thread? It seems like some of the most influential people in this community are losing their braincells before they comment. Noone cares who proposed a bad point. We just want a solution

(Not that I am any better)


----------



## mitja (Oct 16, 2017)

genericcuber666 said:


> What is happening in this thread? It seems like some of the most influential people in this community are losing their braincells before they comment. Noone cares who proposed a bad point. We just want a solution
> 
> (Not that I am any better)


Don't get nervous. You are trying to get a solution for a retarted lawsuit. What's happening tu Cubicle is just the reflection of the society it is in. Every moron can sue. That's a fact and even though it is very sad, it makes me laugh. And don't forget , it is all about greed and they "invented" it in the country where this is happening. I boycot in my way, by never buying Rubik or Gans.


----------



## xyzzy (Oct 16, 2017)

genericcuber666 said:


> Noone cares who proposed a bad point.


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


----------



## One Wheel (Oct 16, 2017)

Here's a crazy idea: has anybody tried sending Baron Trump a Rubik's brand and a nice cubicle magnetic cube? If he suggested to his dad that theCubicle is cool, well, in theory it wouldn't do anything, and with a more scrupulous president it might not, but dealing with what we've got, you know. Might be worth a shot.


----------



## CornerCutter (Oct 16, 2017)

Could someone sum up this one thread in a paragraph or two?


----------



## cuber314159 (Oct 16, 2017)

CornerCutter said:


> Could someone sum up this one thread in a paragraph or two?


Rubik's want to sue the cubicle for selling products that infringe on their patent, dmcubing wants us to boycott Rubik's but we basically all do anyway. Everyone except the SCS guy is against Rubik's actions I believe.

Oh and please subscribe to my YouTube channel, it has some videos on this


----------



## xyzzy (Oct 16, 2017)

cuber314159 said:


> infringe on their patent,


no

_no_

*no*

It's about _trademarks_, not patents.


----------



## Ronxu (Oct 16, 2017)

CornerCutter said:


> Could someone sum up this one thread in a paragraph or two?


Mostly trash ideas from people who probably didn't even open the link. Nothing of value.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Oct 16, 2017)

One Wheel said:


> Here's a crazy idea: has anybody tried sending Baron Trump a Rubik's brand and a nice cubicle magnetic cube? If he suggested to his dad that theCubicle is cool, well, in theory it wouldn't do anything, and with a more scrupulous president it might not, but dealing with what we've got, you know. Might be worth a shot.



Baron Trump (2017TRUM02)


----------



## One Wheel (Oct 16, 2017)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> Baron Trump (2017TRUM02)


Actually I misspelled it. The correct spelling is Barron. It would be possible to send cubes to him at the White House, but Secret Service would have to check them, and I'm going to guess they would be suspicious of magnets.


----------



## Gomorrite (Oct 16, 2017)

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.


----------



## Sion (Oct 16, 2017)

Honestly I call for a boycott of all Rubiks and GAN products, because I have a feeling they could turn around and say something along the lines of "we collaborated to make an officially licensed cube, so GAN products are fine. So there is no excuse of ordering these other models if we already have one that's adequate."

Not everyone enjoys nor can afford GAN or Rubik's products, which could severely damage cubing, if not end it entirely, because it is almost like a choice of iPhones or Vintage Telephones.

I would call for a boycott on GAN until they make an official statement of cutting ties with Rubiks.


----------



## Competition Cuber (Oct 16, 2017)

Sion said:


> Honestly I call for a boycott of all Rubiks and GAN products, because I have a feeling they could turn around and say something along the lines of "we collaborated to make an officially licensed cube, so GAN products are fine. So there is no excuse of ordering these other models if we already have one that's adequate."


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


----------



## Ronxu (Oct 16, 2017)

Competition Cuber said:


> 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 (Oct 16, 2017)

Ronxu said:


> >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 (Oct 16, 2017)

Competition Cuber said:


> Every $50 counts.


Problem is it already counted.


----------



## Competition Cuber (Oct 16, 2017)

One Wheel said:


> Problem is it already counted.


Fine.

Thanks for the reason to stick with my UM


----------



## Sion (Oct 16, 2017)

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 (Oct 16, 2017)

xyzzy said:


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





xyzzy said:


> no
> 
> _no_
> 
> ...



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


----------



## CornerCutter (Oct 16, 2017)

Sion said:


> 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 (Oct 16, 2017)

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? 


Duncan Bannon said:


> 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?





Gomorrite said:


> 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 (Oct 16, 2017)

Tony Fisher said:


> 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?
> 
> 
> ...



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 (Oct 16, 2017)

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 (Oct 16, 2017)

turtwig said:


> 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 (Oct 16, 2017)

Sion said:


> -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 (Oct 16, 2017)

bobthegiraffemonkey said:


> 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 (Oct 16, 2017)

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 (Oct 17, 2017)

One Wheel said:


> 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 (Oct 17, 2017)

mark49152 said:


> 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 (Oct 17, 2017)

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 (Oct 17, 2017)

Mellis Ferton said:


> 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 (Oct 17, 2017)

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 (Oct 17, 2017)

Reed Merrill said:


> 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.


----------



## Reed Merrill (Oct 17, 2017)

pglewis said:


> 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.



Ok, good point! For the other side of my post about how things like this dispute over similar products have almost always just fizzled out, do you agree? I don't think that we need to worry too much about this lawsuit.


----------



## pglewis (Oct 17, 2017)

My completely speculative guess is still that they'd like to charge a licensing fee on non Rubik's brand cubes but they need to test the legal strength of their trademarks before they can negotiate. I have zero legal background and this is nothing more than a guess. A licensing fee would give them passive income from the stuff we're buying; I'm not sure how putting a halt to sales of non Rubik's brand cubes from TheCubicle gives them that sort of benefit. The only other logical thought is that it's something personal between the two. I have no reason to believe that other than it would explain the action.


----------



## pglewis (Oct 17, 2017)

One other thing that strikes me as odd (and highly questionable) is the repeated references to TheCubicle being "a manufacturer". AFAIK they do not manufacture any puzzles, either in the sense of having an injection molding operation or having anyone else manufacture their designs. Sending my guitar through my luthier to change out the pickups, do a setup, and string it up to my specifications is a service and does not make him a guitar manufacturer.


----------



## Aamir Saifee (Oct 17, 2017)

But what I'm wondering is why the cubicle Only? Why not scs even they have a custom line? Why are they just after cubicle I think as they have the most sales.....


----------



## VenomCubing (Oct 17, 2017)

pglewis said:


> My completely speculative guess is still that they'd like to charge a licensing fee on non Rubik's brand cubes but they need to test the legal strength of their trademarks before they can negotiate. I have zero legal background and this is nothing more than a guess. A licensing fee would give them passive income from the stuff we're buying; I'm not sure how putting a halt to sales of non Rubik's brand cubes from TheCubicle gives them that sort of benefit. The only other logical thought is that it's something personal between the two. I have no reason to believe that other than it would explain the action.


It is my belief that they are doing this purely to reduce competition in the market.


----------



## cuber314159 (Oct 17, 2017)

Aamir Saifee said:


> But what I'm wondering is why the cubicle Only? Why not scs even they have a custom line? Why are they just after cubicle I think as they have the most sales.....


they are the biggest US cube store so suing them will prove they have the legal strength to sue all US cube store.


----------



## lejitcuber (Oct 17, 2017)

I know most people in this thread, recently at least are from America, so you may not have seen that Euros 2018 in Madrid are bypassing Rubik's as a sponsor for the competition


----------



## pglewis (Oct 17, 2017)

VenomCubing said:


> It is my belief that they are doing this purely to reduce competition in the market.



Quite possibly, and that's how it reads to me at face value. I'm seriously hoping they understand the dynamics between the sport and the brand better than that and this is just phase one of some potential legal shell game. Speedsolvers aren't buying their hardware but if the sport is exciting and growing it gets press, and that strengthens their brand awareness. I personally think halting good hardware for the sake of reducing competition hurts them more by hurting the sport, and I don't believe they're naive enough to think competitive speedsolvers are going to switch to buying Rubik's brand simply by putting a halt to online US retailers selling superior competing puzzles. 

tl;dr: That strategy only works if the end result is us buying Rubik's brand hardware and I see that as a "lead a horse to water" situation.

Keeping in mind most of my thoughts on the matter are seriously biased by not wanting to believe this is as malicious as it appears at face value


----------



## Tabe (Oct 17, 2017)

pglewis said:


> My completely speculative guess is still that they'd like to charge a licensing fee on non Rubik's brand cubes but they need to test the legal strength of their trademarks before they can negotiate. I have zero legal background and this is nothing more than a guess. A licensing fee would give them passive income from the stuff we're buying; I'm not sure how putting a halt to sales of non Rubik's brand cubes from TheCubicle gives them that sort of benefit. The only other logical thought is that it's something personal between the two. I have no reason to believe that other than it would explain the action.


This would be my guess as well. It's not like they'll stop the manufacture of cubes from Moyu or whoever. *IF* they win against the Cubicle, one of three things will happen: 1) Cubicle disappears; 2) Cubicle sells Rubik's brand stuff only; 3) Cubicle pays a licensing fee and sells whatever they want. The one that makes Rubik the most money is #3.

Rubik (Seven Towns, to be more exact) *HAS* to know that if they shut down US sites, we'll all just start ordering from Lightake or whoever and taking our chances on Customs seizures. Stuff like that happened in the past when V-Cubes was intent on enforcing their patents and it didn't stop people from ordering cubes.

In other words, we'll all still be able to get our cubes, it just might a little more challenging.


----------



## mark49152 (Oct 17, 2017)

lejitcuber said:


> I know most people in this thread, recently at least are from America, so you may not have seen that Euros 2018 in Madrid are bypassing Rubik's as a sponsor for the competition


Source? Unless an authoritative source has disclosed that the WCA/organisers or Rubik's have declined to work together, I suspect the sponsorships have simply not been finalised yet.


----------



## CornerCutter (Oct 17, 2017)

Is this really as big a deal as everybody is making it? What will happen if Rubik's wins?


----------



## cuber314159 (Oct 17, 2017)

CornerCutter said:


> Is this really as big a deal as everybody is making it? What will happen if Rubik's wins?


If Rubik's wins then the cubicle will probably have to shut down, this may mean other cube stores can be sued. The cubicle (Chris Tran) is responsible for the existence of magnetic cubes which have in turn reduced the world records to unexpected levels.


----------



## Mellis Ferton (Oct 17, 2017)

One Wheel said:


> 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.


Like I said, they haven't done anything. Boycotting them because they are affiliated makes no sense.


----------



## Kit Clement (Oct 17, 2017)

mark49152 said:


> Source? Unless an authoritative source has disclosed that the WCA/organisers or Rubik's have declined to work together, I suspect the sponsorships have simply not been finalised yet.



Very bottom of this candidacy page: http://madrid2018.cubecomps.com/


----------



## shadowslice e (Oct 17, 2017)

Kit Clement said:


> Very bottom of this candidacy page: http://madrid2018.cubecomps.com/


I feel like they should make it more explicit now though (I believe that this was before the whole fiasco?)


----------



## pglewis (Oct 17, 2017)

Kit Clement said:


> Very bottom of this candidacy page: http://madrid2018.cubecomps.com/



Eeeen-teresting.


----------



## mark49152 (Oct 18, 2017)

Kit Clement said:


> Very bottom of this candidacy page: http://madrid2018.cubecomps.com/


Very interesting, thanks. It doesn't make specific reference to Rubik's and I guess the reality could still work out differently to the aims set forth in the candidacy page, but reading between the lines, this page seems to say something about recent history leading up to the lawsuit.


----------



## One Wheel (Oct 18, 2017)

Mellis Ferton said:


> Like I said, they haven't done anything. Boycotting them because they are affiliated makes no sense.



No, it makes perfect sense. It's like refusing to vote for a Republican congressional candidate because you don't like Donald Trump. They are affiliated. We as a speedcubing community have little or no influence on Rubik's, because we don't buy their product anyway. As virtually the sole customer base of Gans we have tremendous influence on that company.


----------



## Ronxu (Oct 18, 2017)

One Wheel said:


> No, it makes perfect sense. It's like refusing to vote for a Republican congressional candidate because you don't like Donald Trump. They are affiliated. We as a speedcubing community have little or no influence on Rubik's, because we don't buy their product anyway. As virtually the sole customer base of Gans we have tremendous influence on that company.


Many people like Gans cubes and I doubt Rubik's cares about how many cubes Gans sells. The only result you get from boycotting them is fewer good cubes.


----------



## Aamir Saifee (Oct 18, 2017)

cuber314159 said:


> they are the biggest US cube store so suing them will prove they have the legal strength to sue all US cube store.


Cool but I hope this never happens!


----------



## pglewis (Oct 18, 2017)

Reed Merrill said:


> Ok, good point! [...]



Then again, I could be entirely off base and the WCA is already a few steps ahead of us . I definitely applaud their move towards independence on the funding and it's obviously no accident.


----------



## pglewis (Oct 18, 2017)

CornerCutter said:


> Is this really as big a deal as everybody is making it? What will happen if Rubik's wins?



Give a read of the section starting on page 12:



> WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully demands judgment against Defendant as follows:



Some very threatening actions being demanded, including: 



> E. Ordering Defendant to deliver to Plaintiff for destruction or other disposition all remaining inventory of all infringing products, including all advertisements, promotional and marketing materials therefore, as well as means of making same.



The way I read that is they're attempting to assert their power to seize TheCubicle's inventory of non Rubik's branded 3x3s (that infringe on the trademark) and basically shut them down. And if they win that judgement it sets the precedent for all other US retailers. 

I'm still questioning if this is actually what they're setting out to do if they win the judgement but it sure reads like a pretty big deal.


----------



## cuber314159 (Oct 18, 2017)

When is the actual trial happening?


----------



## CornerCutter (Oct 20, 2017)

cuber314159 said:


> When is the actual trial happening?


Wow that sat for a while.

Is there anybody on here or does anybody know of anyone who is really informed about this whole deal?


----------



## Competition Cuber (Oct 20, 2017)

I wonder if this RSCA will effect this at all.


----------



## michaelcmelton (Oct 20, 2017)

They just filed the summons on Tuesday to thecubicle.us I don't think the trial date will be set for a while.


----------



## tx789 (Oct 21, 2017)

This does only affect 3x3s as far as I can tell. There is no mention of 2x2 or big cubes.


----------



## CornerCutter (Oct 21, 2017)

tx789 said:


> This does only affect 3x3s as far as I can tell. There is no mention of 2x2 or big cubes.


Great point! Rubiks didn't design the Pyraminx.


----------



## MiaSponseller (Oct 22, 2017)

Why aren't they suing SpeedCubeShop?


----------



## turtwig (Oct 22, 2017)

CubeStack_Official said:


> Why aren't they suing SpeedCubeShop?



They probably don't want to sue everyone at once in case they lose.


----------



## Parity Cuber (Oct 22, 2017)

I wish there was a way for us to have a say... I feel it's unlikely that the Cubicle will 'win' this case, what ever that entails. Hopefully Rubik's will stop at this, and not try to push law suits like this for cubes all the way up to 5x5's. If they do, we might see an influx in not only price and rarity of cubes but overseas orders getting held by customs. My first cube order from Amazon was a OP Dayan and that was detained by customs. I can only hope that Rubik's doesn't move on to other US stores like SCS or CubeDepot.


----------



## One Wheel (Oct 24, 2017)

Parity Cuber said:


> I wish there was a way for us to have a say... I feel it's unlikely that the Cubicle will 'win' this case, what ever that entails. Hopefully Rubik's will stop at this, and not try to push law suits like this for cubes all the way up to 5x5's. If they do, we might see an influx in not only price and rarity of cubes but overseas orders getting held by customs. My first cube order from Amazon was a OP Dayan and that was detained by customs. I can only hope that Rubik's doesn't move on to other US stores like SCS or CubeDepot.



I am doubtful that they will win, at least not outright. Either way, the fate of theCubicle is almost certainly the fate of all other US-based cube stores.


----------



## Parity Cuber (Oct 24, 2017)

One Wheel said:


> I am doubtful that they will win, at least not outright. Either way, the fate of theCubicle is almost certainly the fate of all other US-based cube stores.


Which fate might that be?


----------



## WACWCA (Oct 24, 2017)

Parity Cuber said:


> Which fate might that be?


He means no matter that happens, because it will set a precedent for the case. If they lose, others cubestore a will too, but if they win, other cube stores would win


----------



## Parity Cuber (Oct 24, 2017)

WACWCA said:


> He means no matter that happens, because it will set a precedent for the case. If they lose, others cubestore a will too, but if they win, other cube stores would win


Ah, I see. Well, if they don't lose outright, that will be a glimmer of hope at least.


----------



## Max Cruz (Oct 24, 2017)

One Wheel said:


> In fairness, @DMCubing 's boycott solution is actually pretty good if it could be implemented. Which makes me wonder: are any Gans-sponsored cubers dropping their sponsorships over this?* I've got to imagine that Gans sells enough non-rubik's-branded puzzles through US shops that they can't be on board with this?* I don't imagine that they have much say, but maybe it would be worthwhile to boycott Gans as well, unless they drop the partnership or rubik's drops the lawsuit? I get the impression that the RSC is kind of Erno Rubik's pet project, it may be that pressure on Gans would induce Erno Rubik to use what little influence he has on the company that bears his name.
> 
> @Teoidus I understand being frustrated, but please. @DMCubing has arguably done more with his work and tutorials on magnetic cubes to advance hardware in the last few years than probably anyone other than Chris Tran. A little respect is due on that front even if he weren't trying to deal in a mature, level-headed way with a really frustrating development in the cubing community (which he is).



Remember, Gans might be losing some customer base from closing down cubes stores, but at the same time, Rubik's is getting them into retail stores everywhere.


----------



## Will Faust (Oct 27, 2017)

GenTheThief said:


> 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.


I know this is crazy. I could not imagine anyone ordering a cube thinking it was rubiks brand, recieving a Cubicle Gan air sm and getting sad that its not a rubiks brand.


----------



## pglewis (Oct 27, 2017)

The bottom line for me on this lawsuit is patents expire for a reason. I understand protecting the inventor, time and effort was spent to achieve something novel. But we also recognize that exclusive rights removes motivation to improve an invention whereas competition drives things forward*. Here's hoping the courts continue to see it that way too. 

* Granted I firmly believe open collaboration, free from the constraints of intellectual property, is the real fast track to doing great things but the world is currently rigged against that.


----------



## Sean Fei (Oct 29, 2017)

Underwatercuber said:


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


For some reason me too


----------



## GAN 356 Air SM (Oct 30, 2017)

saxnbass said:


> Just ran across this little nugget; the document was dated yesterday.
> 
> https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public...Enterprises_LLC_Docket_No_117cv078?1507841795
> 
> Thoughts?


If speedcubes perform so well and people think the company is related to Rubik's doesn't that boost their reputation not harm it?


----------



## Underwatercuber (Oct 30, 2017)

GAN 356 Air SM said:


> If speedcubes perform so well and people think the company is related to Rubik's doesn't that boost their reputation not harm it?





GAN 356 Air SM said:


> If speedcubes perform so well and people think the company is related to Rubik's doesn't that boost their reputation not harm it?


Because someone other than them is making money which in their eyes is wrong


----------



## rokicki (Oct 30, 2017)

Will this actually go to trial? Does thecubicle, a store that sells $7.00 plastic toys to a very limited market, have the financial resources to fight this? If they have the financial resources, do they have the stomach for it? The US civil legal system has little regard for who is "right", especially in cases like these where there is such a mismatch in resources between the two parties.


----------



## Max Cruz (Oct 30, 2017)

If my seventh attempt at the bar exam has taught me anything, thecubicle.us is going to get blasted.


----------



## One Wheel (Oct 30, 2017)

Max Cruz said:


> If my seventh attempt at the bar exam has taught me anything, thecubicle.us is going to get blasted.


Do you care to elaborate? I'm no lawyer, I've never taken the bar or even the LSAT, but I just can't see past the argument that the patent expired, and the form is inherent to the function and therefore not subject to trademark protection.


----------



## Underwatercuber (Oct 31, 2017)

One Wheel said:


> Do you care to elaborate? I'm no lawyer, I've never taken the bar or even the LSAT, but I just can't see past the argument that the patent expired, and the form is inherent to the function and therefore not subject to trademark protection.


Whoever has more money wins


----------



## Ronxu (Oct 31, 2017)

Underwatercuber said:


> Whoever has more money wins


wrong


----------



## DeltaFlyer99 (Nov 11, 2017)

I feel that Rubik's is out of hand. I watched a video a few days ago by Lazer0M0nkey (I think it was) and he explained the situation very well. What he said was that non-cubers would often think any cube is a Rubik's branded cube. This would cause them to go buy a Rubik's cube. Essentially all that this is doing is spreading the cubing community. It is not harming or affecting Rubik's negatively in any way. In fact, it is driving up revenue for Rubik's if anything. So that's just my thoughts on the entire thing. Correction: The video was from EzCubing.



Underwatercuber said:


> Whoever has more money wins


It isn't all about money. In fact, it is about who wins the case.


----------



## genericcuber666 (Nov 11, 2017)

DeltaFlyer99 said:


> It isn't all about money. In fact, it is about who wins the case.


and you win a case with money. Whether or not the cubicle is right dosent matter if they dont have the money to pay for a legal team long enough to win the case. Even if they win they will be in a horrible state


----------



## Underwatercuber (Nov 11, 2017)

genericcuber666 said:


> and you win a case with money. Whether or not the cubicle is right dosent matter if they dont have the money to pay for a legal team long enough to win the case. Even if they win they will be in a horrible state


Basically my thoughts


----------



## DeltaFlyer99 (Nov 11, 2017)

genericcuber666 said:


> and you win a case with money. Whether or not the cubicle is right dosent matter if they dont have the money to pay for a legal team long enough to win the case. Even if they win they will be in a horrible state


True Very true.


----------



## efattah (Nov 12, 2017)

When I ran my scuba diving computer company we faced lawsuits for ridiculous reasons, and in each case it was cheaper to pay the complainant than to defend ourselves. In many cases with small companies you are better off declaring bankruptcy, then have a friend go to the auction that the bank holds to auction off your stuff, and have a friend buy it all back. Then the legal entity no longer exists and you can start another company immediately and resume business. This is what SNK did (makers of King of Fighters and Neo-Geo). They declared bankruptcy, had a distant relative buy back the assets at the auction, and then resumed business under the name SNKPlaymore.

There is one other option though. And that is to cross complain and sue the person who is suing you. This is a risky move but it can essentially cancel the lawsuit. This happened when Capcom tried to sue Data East, saying that Fighter's History copied Street Fighter 2. Data East immediately sued Capcom, saying that Street Fighter 2 copied the earlier Data East game ('Karate Champ'). The end result was both lawsuits were dropped and both companies reach an agreement to COOPERATE and boost each other's business by free sharing of some game concepts.

Since any patents on Rubik's cubes have long since expired, cubicle could try to sue Seven Towns on anti-trust complaints (trying to achieve a monopoly). Being found guilty of attempting to achieve a monopoly carries a much worse penalty than some sort of copyright infringement.


----------



## DeltaFlyer99 (Nov 12, 2017)

Adding on to what I said earlier, Rubik's is pretty much trying to eliminate all competition which will hurt their business. Now I know this would usually drive business revenue up, but this may actually bring it down. After all these lawsuits being in the news of Rubik's getting rid of all competition, who would want to buy a cube from a money thirsty business like that? Also, Rubik's is targeting the retailers saying that "they make their own knock-off versions. If a user uses the defendant's cube (TheCubicle) they will be dissatisfied with the product compared to the plaintiff's (Rubik's) cube, as they have a long history of QC." Now I know two things that you are thinking-first off, TheCubicle isn't even making cubes. The only way they could be considered making their own cubes is Cubicle Labs or Pro Shop. They are just tensioning, lubing, re-stickering, and adding magnets to the cubes. Though even then they still aren't making their own cubes. Second, you are probably thinking that there is no absolute way that a Rubik's brand cube is better than any cube that TheCubicle sells. Even then, you would be right. A few months ago a close friend of mine asked me if I had any cubes to get him started with cubing. So I just bought him one with my order that cost me $2.21. (If any of you are curious it was a clearance MoFangJaoShi.) Even then the $2 cube was better. I really think that Rubik's is just hurting their business by doing this. Because who knows, after this Rubik's may target other cube businesses like SpeedCubeShop or other retailers. And then going back to what I said earlier if this gets in the news (which it most likely will and is already on Bloomberg) it will drive people away from Rubik's because they would realize that Rubik's is just another money thirsty toy company. Adding on to all of this, look at cubing competitions around the world, those are also just drawing business into Rubik's, not TheCubicle. As practically all non-cubers would think that any cube is a Rubik's cube, many people who want to start speedcubing would most likely start with a Rubik's branded cube. And many of these competitions are funded by TheCubicle, which give gift cards to the winners of the competition. I would be really sad to see TheCubicle go as I buy all of my cubes there. I have absolutely nothing against SpeedCubeShop, but I was originally going to buy a Cosmic Gans Air SM there and then saw the processing time warning for it. It said, "due to extremely high demand, please allow up to _*30 *_business days for your cube to ship." Why would I wait 30 business days for a cube to be made NOT to ship? TheCubicle Pro Shop does it in one week. I'll stop my blabbering and rant there. I just really hope that Rubik's loses the lawsuit or at the bare minimum, TheCubicle doesn't go out of business.


----------



## CelloJames (Nov 12, 2017)

They made RSC _before_ they sued the Cubicle. That was a good plan if they are getting ready to sue all cube stores.


----------



## CelloJames (Nov 12, 2017)

By the way, I am more of an SCS fan, but I really would love to buy Cubicle's Cosmics when I get very good at speedcubing.


----------



## DeltaFlyer99 (Nov 12, 2017)

CelloJames said:


> By the way, I am more of an SCS fan, but I really would love to buy Cubicle's Cosmics when I get very good at speedcubing.


Same at first I was until I read about the 30 business day processing time.


----------



## CelloJames (Nov 12, 2017)

DeltaFlyer99 said:


> Same at first I was until I read about the 30 business day processing time.


To me, time to wait doesn't matter if the cube is pro quality. If I'm waiting an entire month on a crappy Rubik's brand, then I'll reconsider purchasing it.


----------



## DeltaFlyer99 (Nov 13, 2017)

CelloJames said:


> To me, time to wait doesn't matter if the cube is pro quality. If I'm waiting an entire month on a crappy Rubik's brand, then I'll reconsider purchasing it.


Yeah though I was getting a Gans Air SM and I knew that the Pro Shop at TheCubicle was right around the same quality, if not better. Also, I knew that many of the top cubers were using Pro Shop cubes.


----------



## EpiCuber (Nov 20, 2017)

If Rubiks does win. That would effect the number of competitors at WCA comps beacuse of the lack or cubes.


----------



## theawesomecuber (Nov 20, 2017)

EpiCuber said:


> If Rubiks does win. That would effect the number of competitors at WCA comps beacuse of the lack or cubes.


I seriously doubt that one distributor losing a lawsuit would result in the death of every new cube.


----------



## One Wheel (Nov 20, 2017)

theawesomecuber said:


> I seriously doubt that one distributor losing a lawsuit would result in the death of every new cube.



This case is about a lot more than "a distributor." A lot of the case hinges on the pro shop "manufacturing" cubes, which means that if Rubik's wins they can pretty much immediately shut down SCS no questions asked. I don't know if anybody else in the US does custom cubes on any scale, but shutting down two of the biggest US distributors (and likely others) would have a chilling effect on cube availability and innovation.


----------



## Tabe (Nov 20, 2017)

One Wheel said:


> This case is about a lot more than "a distributor." A lot of the case hinges on the pro shop "manufacturing" cubes, which means that if Rubik's wins they can pretty much immediately shut down SCS no questions asked. I don't know if anybody else in the US does custom cubes on any scale, but shutting down two of the biggest US distributors (and likely others) would have a chilling effect on cube availability and innovation.


How many people do you think buy from SCS or The Cubicle but don't know about Lightake or the other Chinese sites? I'd say not many and the lawsuit won't touch the Chinese sites.


----------



## One Wheel (Nov 20, 2017)

Tabe said:


> How many people do you think buy from SCS or The Cubicle but don't know about Lightake or the other Chinese sites? I'd say not many and the lawsuit won't touch the Chinese sites.



That's a fair point. I guess in my mind the US stores are higher-margin accounts, but there probably isn't much difference, if any, from the manufacturer's perspective.


----------



## Dr_Detonation (Nov 20, 2017)

I don't see why they're just sueing the cubicle. If they really bad a problem with it they'd do something else. Rubik's is probably just mad that TheCubicle has better business then them. They do, right?


----------



## shadowslice e (Nov 20, 2017)

Dr_Detonation said:


> I don't see why they're just sueing the cubicle. If they really bad a problem with it they'd do something else. Rubik's is probably just mad that TheCubicle has better business then them. They do, right?


That's exactly why they are suing them. What would you suggest they do otherwise?


----------



## pglewis (Nov 20, 2017)

Dr_Detonation said:


> I don't see why they're just sueing the cubicle. If they really bad a problem with it they'd do something else. Rubik's is probably just mad that TheCubicle has better business then them. They do, right?



They're not just suing The Cubicle, they've been consistently pushing to assert trademark claims: https://www.forbes.com/sites/lisabr...s-you-are-so-sued-and-im-famous/#95e0b1265a99

I currently doubt it'll stop there If they succeed (or maybe even if not).


----------



## Competition Cuber (Nov 29, 2017)

Does anyone know if anything is happening?


----------



## mark49152 (Nov 29, 2017)

Competition Cuber said:


> Does anyone know if anything is happening?


Don't hold your breath. Their legal action in Europe took 10 years.


----------



## Underwatercuber (Nov 29, 2017)

One Wheel said:


> This case is about a lot more than "a distributor." A lot of the case hinges on the pro shop "manufacturing" cubes, which means that if Rubik's wins they can pretty much immediately shut down SCS no questions asked. I don't know if anybody else in the US does custom cubes on any scale, but shutting down two of the biggest US distributors (and likely others) would have a chilling effect on cube availability and innovation.


and then cube manufacturers would also lose a lot of business if the main cubestores shut down meaning that they would be making far less money and that would affect them.


----------



## cuber314159 (Nov 29, 2017)

Underwatercuber said:


> and then cube manufacturers would also lose a lot of business if the main cubestores shut down meaning that they would be making far less money and that would affect them.


Or people buy more cubes because they are cheaper from Chinese stores, I think it will balance out ok, I wouldn't be surprised if lightake and MCM want Rubik's to win


----------



## Reed Merrill (Nov 30, 2017)

I also would guess that domestic Chinese buyers are by far the largest market for speedcubes. So, in my opinion losing a few US distributors, and even all of their US consumers probably won't be fatal to their business. 

That's assuming that Rubik's wins, which is by no means guaranteed.


----------



## Competition Cuber (Nov 30, 2017)

Did anyone else notice the WCA website changed "Rubik's Cube" to "3x3x3 Cube"?


----------



## Duncan Bannon (Nov 30, 2017)

When is this all going down?


----------



## cuber314159 (Nov 30, 2017)

Competition Cuber said:


> Did anyone else notice the WCA website changed "Rubik's Cube" to "3x3x3 Cube"?


Finally they did it!


----------



## Underwatercuber (Nov 30, 2017)

Competition Cuber said:


> Did anyone else notice the WCA website changed "Rubik's Cube" to "3x3x3 Cube"?


Yep, they also changed “Rubik’s clock” to “Clock”. Not sure how this relates to this thread though other than both involve Rubik’s.


----------



## TipsterTrickster (Nov 30, 2017)

Competition Cuber said:


> Did anyone else notice the WCA website changed "Rubik's Cube" to "3x3x3 Cube"?


Yea, It was kind of annoying me.


----------



## Reed Merrill (Nov 30, 2017)

Competition Cuber said:


> Did anyone else notice the WCA website changed "Rubik's Cube" to "3x3x3 Cube"?


Hopefully this helps the name Rubik's becomes less and less associated with speedcubing as a whole. If it does then Rubik's argument in court could definitely be weakened.


----------



## Isaac Lai (Dec 1, 2017)

Competition Cuber said:


> Did anyone else notice the WCA website changed "Rubik's Cube" to "3x3x3 Cube"?


Rubik's is a registered trademark, needed to be removed from a lot of places on the website before WCA becomes a non-profit. (from James Molloy)


----------



## CornerCutter (Dec 1, 2017)

Competition Cuber said:


> Did anyone else notice the WCA website changed "Rubik's Cube" to "3x3x3 Cube"?


We were was talking about that in episode 20 of the Podcast! Now they did it!


----------



## 1001010101001 (Jan 15, 2018)

"A photograph of Plaintiff’s RUBIK’S CUBE puzzle Mark is set forth below:
(picture of a sucky cube)
A photograph of a stock twist puzzle cube sold by Defendant TheCubicle to consumers is set forth below
(Picture of a Guanlong)"
LOL

'As a result of Defendant’s use of a spurious version of Plaintiff’s federally registered RUBIK’S Design Mark, consumers who expect to receive Plaintiff’s RUBIK’S CUBE puzzle, for which Plaintiff has developed a national and international reputation, will be *disappointed* when using Defendant’s imitation twist puzzle cube. This will cause irreparable harm to Plaintiff’s reputation and the goodwill which is symbolized by the RUBIK’S Design Mark'


"Mommy, I am so disappointed that my cube can turn fast and corner cut! I wanted a rubik's brand that can barely turn, can't corner cut, and can't be tensioned!"


----------



## xyzzy (Jan 15, 2018)

1001010101001 said:


> "A photograph of Plaintiff’s RUBIK’S CUBE puzzle Mark is set forth below:
> (picture of a sucky cube)
> A photograph of a stock twist puzzle cube sold by Defendant TheCubicle to consumers is set forth below
> (Picture of a Guanlong)"
> ...



Thanks for your extremely original insight that totally hasn't been mentioned right in the very first page.

(e: why are you guys liking the post where I'm being a dick; what's wrong with you people? I'm just fed up at how kids keep posting in this thread (and the other drama threads) with almost nothing new to say.)


----------



## Duncan Bannon (Jun 4, 2018)

Are there any updates on this?


----------



## Ghost Cuber (Jun 4, 2018)

Duncan Bannon said:


> Are there any updates on this?


Not that I'm aware of except that it's still going on and taking up lots of time.


----------



## weatherman223 (Jun 5, 2018)

Ghost Cuber said:


> Not that I'm aware of except that it's still going on and taking up lots of time.



I talked to Jesse (JRCuber) who has direct contact to Phil and he said that there has been no progress so far, in both legal terms and other terms.


----------



## Draranor (Jun 5, 2018)

Ghost Cuber said:


> Not that I'm aware of except that it's still going on and taking up lots of time.


Lots of time AND money


----------



## ruwix (Mar 14, 2019)

I just found this on the Rubik's Facebook page, funny isn't it?


----------



## cuber314159 (Mar 14, 2019)

ruwix said:


> I just found this on the Rubik's Facebook page, funny isn't it?
> 
> View attachment 10109


do you know that they did just crop it?


----------



## AbsoRuud (Mar 14, 2019)

They are listing the source now.


----------



## Underwatercuber (Mar 14, 2019)

cuber314159 said:


> do you know that they did just crop it?


https://ruwix.com/the-rubiks-cube/popular-culture/rubikubism-pixel-art-mosaic/


----------



## Mike Hughey (Mar 14, 2019)

AbsoRuud said:


> They are listing the source now.


That may be, but having cropped out the Ruwix logo from the photo is still pretty flagrant.


----------



## Underwatercuber (Mar 14, 2019)

If they would have left the watermark in or cropped it out but given a source it would be fine but they didn’t seem to care until people called them out


----------



## Futurechamp77 (Nov 13, 2022)

Any updates on the case?


----------



## abunickabhi (Nov 13, 2022)

Futurechamp77 said:


> Any updates on the case?


Case has already been resolved.

Why bump this thread tho?


----------



## pjk (Nov 13, 2022)

abunickabhi said:


> Case has already been resolved.
> 
> Why bump this thread tho?


Where can he find the result as requested? His bump was reasonable from what I see.


----------

