Uhm, the company set out to do this. Sure, they bought a tonne of failed games before they landed on Angry Birds (a point they try to hide), but that was the goal all along as far as I understood:
Get a game, jimmy some marketable characters into it, and rival Sanrio Corp (aka Hello Kitty).
Sanrio got brand exposure via product quality: they outsourced 100% of the production such that if a rival product was superior, they could simply offer to move the production contract over to them. All they truly own are character copyrights, and a couple of retail stores in Tokyo (which never really worked out). The rest is contract.
Rovio has taken the complete opposite approach, and actively persued China first. By doing so, and by purposely turning a blind eye to knock-offs, they've leveraged the Chinese copyright infringement culture into massive, free publicity. Then, with massive free publicity from knock-offs, they can introduce their own official goods and take control of the market via quality.
Personally, I think it's genius.
Regardless of the outcome, expect Rovio to become a standard case study in university level business textbooks within the next 2-5 years.
I'll give you Rubiks Cube, but the rest of those all had plots that could be imagined just by hearing what they're about, each can have a nefarious, dastardly villain for the protagonist to confront.