[ActionNewsBill]

I guess I should be shocked that the alleged infringer denied the allegations. But I'm not.

The company that made the original Rubik's Cubes said that the trademark had expired and the toy store was free to sell the knock-off model.

I don't know how much simpler I can make it for you.

Maybe use smaller words?

[B Knotts]

Rubik's Cube - Rubik and the Cube

The article notes that Rubik applied for his patent in 1975, which was granted in 1977.

Indeed, it would have expired years ago.

[kesg]

Maybe you should go read that article again. The person says she called the manufacturer of the Magic's Cube. That's not the maker of the Rubick's cube, but the allegedly infringing Magic's Cube.

In fact, here is what you yourself quoted: " "After the agents left, Cox called the manufacturer of the Magic Cube, the Toysmith Group, which is based in Auburn, Wash. A representative told her that Rubik's Cube patent had expired, and the Magic Cube did not infringe on the rival toy's trademark."

If this doesn’t do it, try this quote, this time straight from the article itself: “When the two agents arrived at the store, the lead agent asked Cox whether she carried a toy called the Magic Cube, which he said was an illegal copy of the Rubik's Cube, one of the most popular toys of all time."