A colorful cube. That is all the information we need in order to recognize one of the most famous toys in the world, the Rubik’s Cube, invented by Hungarian architect, Ernő Rubik. A 3D puzzle, constructed by 6 sides, each side containing 9 cubes of different color combinations of white, green, blue, yellow, red and orange. The goal of the puzzle, is to twist and turn the sides of the cube, until each side is one of each color. Having sold a total of around 500 million cubes as of 2024, the Rubik’s Cube is one of the best-selling toys, and the best-selling puzzles in the world. Being easily recognizable, and often associated with other 3D puzzle games, one can’t help but wonder if this has any implications with regard to intellectual property law and trademarks. Is the Rubik’s Cube trademarked, and if so, do any issues regarding its validity arise?
The trade mark for the 3D puzzle had been registered with the European Union Intellectual Property Office on 18 January 2012, by Seven Towns Ltd, the former owner of the Rubik’s Brand. Not long after, in 2013, Verdes Innovations SA, another producer of puzzle cubes, challenged the trademarks registered for the Rubik’s Cube design, claiming the cube itself cannot be trademarked, starting an extensive legal battle about its legitimacy.
Verdes Innovations filed four applications with the European Union Intellectual Property Office declaring the invalidity of the registered EU trademarks for the 3D puzzle design. It argued, that the design of the cube, meaning the cube shape, grid structure and combination of colors, is functional and necessary to obtain the desired technical result, and so its registration goes against EU law, namely the Community Trade Mark Regulation.
In 2017, the EUIPO upheld the filed applications, agreeing with the claims of Verdes Innovations, that all essential features of the design play an important role in obtaining the technical result, and thus the objective of the game.
Spin Master Toys UK, the successor of Seven Towns Ltd, challenged this decision of the EUIPO before the General Court, claiming that the cube contains essential features which are exclusive to its design and are not necessary to achieve the result.
In the most recent development, the General Court dismissed this action on 9 July 2025, confirming the decision of the EUIPO. The grounds for dismissal were all connected to the provision of the Community Trade Mark Regulation, according to which, signs which exist exclusively of the shape of goods are not to be registered if all the essential characteristics of the shape are functional and necessary.
For instance, the black grid lines separating the colors on each side clearly define the shape of the cube and make it easier to twist and turn to achieve the goal of the game. Furthermore, the differentiation of the faces of the cube by color is necessary to make it possible to distinguish each face of the cube and each of the small squares of the gird structure.
Not being registered as a trademark anymore, the functionality of the Rubik’s Cube makes it an unprotected design available for all, making this case a prime example for the limitations of trademarks and the importance of understanding the features of a product.