I’m done with the Rubik’s Cube thread for now. Honest. The thing is, it led me to some related loose ends—loose ends that I now feel compelled to tie up…
One of last week’s typographically-hacked Rubik’s cubes was Scott Kellum’s “TypeCube”—(inset, on right). Search online for that brand name, however, and you will find at least three other “Typecubes.” Not a huge trademark infringement case, since these are small DIY graphic-designer projects. Still—all but one of the designers has seriously considered selling their Typecubes and, for potential products, there may be some confusing similarity.
1. At top is Manuel Kiem’s 2007 Typecube. Not a Rubik’s cube exactly, but a twistable, modular font-stamping device, similar to Jas Bhachu’s more recent “Font Generator” which we also featured last week. Kiem offers a free font based on his Typecube device. (Scott Kellum also offers a free font based on his Typecube device.)
2. Center photo shows Regina Rebele’s 2008 Type-Cube. Her project is made of paper and is definitely not a Rubik’s Cube. (Although it does appear to be a “Magic Folding Cube”) Also: even though her Type-Cube is nicely packaged, hers is the one that does not seem to be for sale as a product.
3. Lower photo shows Chris Clarke’s 2008 Typecube. Her project consists of a cube-shaped box containing 64 small wooden blocks, which can be used to form modular letters or patterns. A more recent version of this idea may be seen on another graphic designer’s web site: jori-design’s “One Hundred Cubes One Alphabet” — modular typography via small, cube-shaped blocks.
I am not trying to cause any trouble or stir up litigation here. I’m just saying… if a typographically-inclined loved-one wants a “TypeCube” next Christmas—you just need to be sure you know: “which type?”
Beach Packaging Design