Dept. of Homeland Security Enforces Expired Patent

Fouquet writes "Apparently the Department of Homeland Security does not have enough to do in keeping the US safe, and now is enforcing copyright law as well. The AP reports that a toy store owner in Oregon was requested by Homeland Security officials to remove a potentially copyright-infringing Rubik's cube-like toy from her shelves. The patent for Rubik's cube was issued in 1980, and so it is expired."

Comments

Useless summary.

[praksys]

Trademarks don't expire. Trademark, copyright, and patent are entirely different things. Reading the summary you can't tell which of these areas of law was involved and you get the impression that the action was taken on expired IP.

The article states that the action was taken on the basis of a trademark. With a name like "Magic Cube" if the toy is anything at all like a Rubic's Cube then it almost certainly does infringe on the Rubic's Cube trademark.

And why all the fake wonderment about the department of Homeland Security handling the case? In case anyone missed the press release the department is not some niche organisation that deals specifically with terrorism. It's a big tarball of a whole bunch of departments and old law enforcement angencies that used to deal with all manner of federal law enforcement issues. They do lots of things besides deal with terrorism.

Re:Fear of powers

[Anonymous Coward]

These are US Customs agents. Customs agents enforce, among other things, import regulations against counterfiet goods.

The Customs Service is now part of Homeland Security. Ergo, DHS agents were the ones who investigated this incident.

(This is cut and pasted from below. It should be near the top... or in the summary)

Re:Fear of powers

[querencia]

Your job is to read the article. You didn't do so, because if you did you'd know that no trademark was infringed, and the patent's already expired.

Which article did you read?

The article said, "...Agents went to Pufferbelly based on a trademark infringement complaint...." So, this is a trademark issue -- the patent expiration is irrelevant. It also said, "A representative [of Magic Cube's manufacturer] told her that ... the Magic Cube did not infringe on the rival toy's trademark." Of course the manufacturer said that. The Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the owners of the trademark who filed the complaint obviously disagree.

Please U[understand]TFA before you tell me to RTFA.

Re:Fear of powers

[the_quark]

Well, the patent's a total red herring, anyway, it has nothing to do with the raid. The government never said they were enforcing a patent, whether it's expired or not seems to have nothing to do with it.

The only evidence the article presents that no trademark was infringed is "a representative" of the manufacturer, via hearsay testimony from the owner of the store, both of whom presumably have some interest in claiming not to be breaking the trademark.

Unfortunately, the only evidence the article presents that a trademark was infringed was a spokesperson for DHS stating there was a complaint. There is a lot we don't know - it's quite possible the Magic Cube does infringe on Rubik's trademark. Contrary to the title of the /. article, it's not expired; they're running around suing people for violating it.

But, beyond that, nowhere in the article does it say Rubik was the one complaining. People just jumped to that conclusion. There is a live trademark on "Magic Cube" for a "manipulative puzzle" filed in December, 2001 by Atico, International. It would seem reasonable to me that Toysmith's product violates this trademark. There is no information in the AP article to conclude "no trademark was infringed," in fact the reporter seems to have done no research at all but calling DHS and the toy store operator. It's a terribly done article that is mostly about how weird it is that the people who enforce trademarks now work for DHS. But that's hardly new or news.

Re:Fear of powers

[rjkimble]

The trademark infringement complaint, according to the article, ....

Sigh. I guess dealing with the caliber of typical posters on slashdot is a waste of time. The author of the article didn't even grasp the difference between patents and trademarks. On top of that, the source that denied the existence of trademark infringement was the distributo of the infringing goods. Hello????

Of course, what else would you expect from the likes of an Associated Press reporter?

A little research turns up the fact that not only has Seven Towns Limited trademarked Rubik and Rubik's Cube, they have trademarked its appearance. You might want to check out this, this, and this before continuing your sophistry. Realizing that one might actually have to search a bit on the last referenced page to find the relevant commentary, I'll post it here:

March 2004

Section: 7th Circuit.

Gary Ropski was quoted in the March, 2004 publication of Corporate Legal Times in an article discussing the Seven Towns v. Hazco lawsuit concerning the Rubik's Cube. Mr. Ropski, counsel for Seven Towns, commented on Hazco saying that, "they know how valuable the Rubik's Cube trademark and trade dress are because they tried to get a license from Seven Towns to use it. . . After being refused permission, they used it anyway." He continued by saying, "The U.S. Patent and Trademark Association granted Seven Towns a trademark for the appearance of the Rubik's Cube. It's a violation of federal law to infringe that trademark by making a product that's confusingly similar."

So it turns out that the Customs agents knew their job and were doing their job, just as I stated. I'm sorry if you don't like the facts.

Re:Fear of powers

[rjkimble]

No. I'm advocating that they do their job, which they did. It turns out that Seven Towns Limited has a trademark on the terms "Rubik" and "Rubik's Cube" as well as on the appearance of the Rubik's cube. So the "Magic Cube" mentioned in the story was probably infringing on the appearance trademark. A little research reveals that Seven Towns had already won a lawsuit over this very issue. It's highly likely that the Customs agents had all the relevant information they needed to take their course of action.

I think you are the one who needs to do some cursory research before jumping to inaccurate conclusions and flaming professionals who are competently performing their jobs.