In February 2016, I have asked a question (Rubik's cube image rights) regarding image rights of Rubik's Cube. In short - I have developed an Android application allowing user to solve Rubik's Cube, but Rubik's Brand Ltd. (https://www.rubiksbrand.com) refused me to publish it at that time.

Time passed, and recently, I have found that EU court decided that Rubik's Cube shape is not a trademark:



My question then is - can I now safely publish my application on Google Play? I am not a lawyer, so please be patient with me if I am asking nonsense. :-)

  • 2
    the "Law Stack Exchange is for educational purposes only and is not a substitute for individualized advice from a qualified legal practitioner. Communications on Law Stack Exchange are not privileged communications and do not create an attorney-client relationship." – Refineo Feb 19 '19 at 21:20
  • 1
    @Refineo en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education - "Education is the process of facilitating learning, or the acquisition of knowledge, skills, values, beliefs, and habits." I do not seek advice from qualified legal practitioner, if I was, I would contact qualified legal practitioner. I do not expect any liability from authors of the answers. My application was written as open source, and would be available for free, I am not building a business. Please keep it helpful, thanks. – Firzen Feb 19 '19 at 21:38
  • 2
    The case is Simba Toys GmbH & Co. KG v. EUIPO, C-30/15 P. curia.europa.eu/juris/documents.jsf?num=C-30/15 – Refineo Feb 19 '19 at 21:44
  • 1
    You're asking for legal advice about your specific situation. That's the definition of specific legal advice. Off-topic completely: "Please don't ask questions seeking legal advice on a specific matter." – Nij Feb 19 '19 at 22:36
  • 1
    @Firzen as you asked "can I now safely publish my application on (...)" this suggested you seek specific legal advice. Maybe you could rephrase? What kind of explanation are you looking for? – Refineo Feb 19 '19 at 23:39

The question is unanswerable. You can read the ruling here, and if there's something that you don't understand you can pose a factual question that someone might be able to answer. If you were wondering if the lower court's decision was overturned, yes, it was. If you are wondering what Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation No 40/94 is, we might be able to explain that. It is impossible to say whether a particular action is legally safe, at least not here. There is more to IP law than trademark.

In fact the point of SE is to give free factual information, and not advise people what they should or can safely do. That is the line that can't be crossed: it would be illegal to give you legal advice.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.