Description
In Rubik’s Cube case (Rubik’s Cube was patented in the 1970s and has been the subject matter of various trademarks and trademark applications) being heard before the Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main in relation to the accumulation of IP rights attained to this toy, Court has decided that the colourful cube was not eligible to copyright protection in view of IP Law.
You may read the following Article via https://lnkd.in/dn8cwpsz in which the author summarized the core legal justification of the German Court as “…The court asserted that the sole purpose of the Rubik’s Cube’s unique visual characteristics was to represent spatial movement in a comprehensible way. The cube’s special feature (compared to earlier cube-shaped 3D puzzles) was its rotation around its own axis, which was not the result of an artistic creation process but was merely technically conditioned – thus based on considerations of expediency. Finally, the unique game concept is not immediately visually obvious, so rather than the external design, it is the mechanical principle that has an effect on the mind. Even within professional circles, the Rubik’s Cube is not recognised as a work of art and so cannot be justifiably classified as such…”
While I agree with the said decision in general, I thought it might be worthwhile to discuss it. So I wonder if you find said decision just and reasonable or would like to challenge it based on your own jurisdiction’s Copyright Law?
