This is a Bratz doll. Will anyone admit to playing with one?
These dolls really make me scared for the future of our society. They are also at the center of a heated legal battle in an industry that is supposed to “play nice.” Years ago Mattel, a toy company, sued Bratz-maker MGA, alleging that the inventor of Bratz came up with the idea while still working at Mattel. In an ugly and long litigation, MGA then counterclaimed against Mattel, alleging that Mattel engaged in corporate spying and unfair business practices. This is truly a case of David and Goliath, with Mattel, the largest toy company in the world, picking on the small California company that made Bratz dolls
A jury found in favor of MGA in 2011, finding that the small company rightfully owned the Bratz dolls, and awarding hundreds of millions in damages against Mattel.
Now an appeals court has struck down the damages award against Mattel, finding that the counterclaims should have been considered separate from Mattel’s original claims. This means the parties will be going back to court yet again, for another trial on MGA’s claims against Mattel.
Regardless of the final outcome, many people have been critical of both companies’ decisions to drag this litigation on for so many years, spending millions on legal fees. Why do you think the parties fought so hard and so long? What is at stake in a case like this?
2 Comments
Yujing Cai posted on February 3, 2013 at 8:11 pm
In the doll industry, it can be really hard to tell the difference between different products. To me, the products from these two companies are almost identical-fashionable dolls that girls can dress up and play with. Therefore, it baffled me why they both spent so much money and time on this lawsuit. Maybe they want to use this hot-debated lawsuit as part of their advertisement, or maybe MGA fought so hard to protect its reputation.
Elma posted on February 4, 2013 at 12:29 am
The reason that MGA and Mattel had fought so long attributes to the grey zone of defining the intellectual property right over the dolls. MGA indeed undermined Mattel’s market shares by hiring the employee, who held the business secret of Mattel. The court might favor Mattel at the beginning. However, Mattel lost on the illegal trading with MGA later, and got caught with evidence by the jury. The new proof of outlaw activities caused the fatal failure of Mattel.
Also, from the court’s point of view, if they could not have obvious and solid evidence against MGA, they should hold on to the judgement, because otherwise they might face the criticisms of that the big corporations are standing above the law in the United States.