Bratz lawsuit

Bratz Prevail Again

patentadmin — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:55:44 +0000

Bratz Prevail Again

Just because two entities had unnervingly similar and equally grotesque ideas for marketing fashion to youngsters doesn't mean that copyright infringement is involved. That was the judge's finding in the case of Belair v. MGA Entertainment Inc. et al..

After closely following the litigation between Mattel and MGA Entertainment, the company responsible for inflicting Bratz on the youth of America, we turned our attention to the case at hand (see "It Ain't Over Yet").

In a nutshell: Photographer Bernard Belair created an ad for Steve Madden shoes which ran in the August 1999 issue of Seventeen and featured girls with rail-thin bodies, elongated limbs and large heads and feet. The creator of the Bratz characters, Carter Bryant, included the ad with some materials given to the sculptor who developed the Bratz prototype doll.

Although it is a fact that the Belair ad served as inspiration for the "absurdly large-headed" dolls (the judge's description, not ours, though we concur), Judge Shira A. Scheindlin disagreed with Belair's claim of copyright infringement.

"It is undisputed that MGA was aware of the Steve Madden look and sought to capitalize on it," wrote Judge Scheindlin. "But that is not enough to justify a finding of infringement. Stirring one’s memory of a copyrighted character is not the same as appearing to be substantially similar to that character, and only the latter is infringement.”

So if you're in the market for dolls sometimes described as "prosti-tots," you're in luck - they don't seem to be going away anytime soon.

patentadmin Tue, 01/10/2012 - 14:55

Add new comment

It Ain't Over Yet

patentadmin — Tue, 30 Aug 2011 20:34:56 +0000

It Ain't Over Yet

Just when we thought that the long-running daytime legal soap opera, THE BRATZ, had come to an end, along comes one Bernard Belair to, as they say in Hollywood, “rescue the franchise.” Belair v. MGA Entertainment Inc. et al.

Mr. Belair has alleged that the Bratz dolls were improperly based on a series of drawings he had created for a third party. Apparently uncertain as to which of the two toy manufacturers would ultimately prevail in their litigation marathon, he sued both of them. (Mattel is the “et al.” in MGA Entertainment Inc. et al.)

Mattel, which had already seen its early win of $100 million replaced by a loss of $88.4 million – thank you very much C.A.F.C. – apparently has run out of patience. It filed a motion to dismiss Bernard’s suit, pointing out that his “central allegation is that the Bratz dolls infringe his works, but Mattel has never produced or sold the Bratz dolls.” Mattel also noted that the claims, which accrued more than a decade ago, were also barred by the three-year statute of limitations.

MGA, on its part, moved for summary judgment, arguing that there are distinct differences between Belair’s work and the little Bratz.

Meanwhile, MGA’s claims against Mattel for $177 million in punitive damages and attorney’s fees remain pending, which means that there will likely be still more episodes of this saga.

patentadmin Tue, 08/30/2011 - 16:34

Add new comment

No Gratitude

patentadmin — Thu, 07 Jul 2011 00:33:39 +0000

No Gratitude

It is not unknown for a losing party to refuse to pay its attorneys’ bills. Shocking, but not unknown. What is unknown – until now – is the winning party refusing to pay its attorneys’ bills.

In litigation with Mattel, MGA Entertainment, represented by the law firm of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, was recently awarded $88.4 million in damages in addition to clear title to the Bratz line of “fashion dolls.” Presently pending are claims for a further $177 million in punitive damages and for attorneys’ fees, which are alleged to run into the hundreds of millions of dollars (we are not exaggerating). One would think that, under these circumstances, MGA would be more than happy to pay the bills from Orrick. Well, apparently not.

Orrick now claims that it is owed “more than $1.2 million in unpaid legal fees and costs.” In response, MGA asserted that it “has paid Orrick tens of millions of dollars in legal fees” and characterized the allegations by Orrick as “unprofessional.”

While all of this was transpiring, MGA was sued by one Bernard Belair, who claims that the Bratz dolls were improperly based on a series of drawings he created for a third party. (Belair v. MGA Entertainment Inc. et al.) To defend it in this matter, MGA has retained the law firm of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP, replacing the allegedly unpaid and clearly unhappy Orrick.

The substitution of counsel is especially interesting when one remembers that Skadden had originally represented MGA in the marathon Mattel litigation, a representation that ended with a judgment for Mattel, which was awarded $100 million and custody of the little Bratz. The reversal of this decision and the recent judgment in favor of MGA were the handiwork of the now-dismissed Orrick firm. It seems to us that by this action, MGA exhibits a startling lack of gratitude, not to mention questionable judgment. In a horse race, who gets off of a winning horse to climb back on a loser?

In any event, if history is any indication, this case will continue to provide boundless audience entertainment and legal employment.

patentadmin Wed, 07/06/2011 - 20:33

Add new comment

The Latest Episode

patentadmin — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 20:07:53 +0000

The Latest Episode

In the last, suspense-filled episode of this long-running (7 years) daytime legal soap opera, the jury had returned a verdict in favor of MGA, awarding it custody of the little Bratz and $88.4 million in damages (see previous blog posts Pass the Popcorn and Soap Opera Summary). In the closing moments of the show, Mattel, professing “disappointment” with the verdict, vowed to appeal. Keeping the tension high and setting the stage for the next episode, MGA filed a motion seeking the addition of punitive damages to the jury award, while Mattel sought to overturn that verdict by filing a motion for judgment as a matter of law.

Now, as the judge wrestles offstage with the competing motions, our next episode opens with MGA filing a motion for costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in its successful defense against Mattel’s theft of trade secret and copyright infringement claims – MGA avers that its insurance did not cover all of these expenses and it was compelled to spend an undisclosed, but substantial amount of its own money on its defense.

MGA initially supported its claim by averring that Mattel is known to be very litigious and was previously sanctioned by the courts in two other cases. MGA then went on to assert that, “in a stunning admission,” counsel for Mattel admitted that “Mattel never voluntarily produces anything – all discovery of Mattel must be conducted by court order.”

Having pointed out to the audience just who is the good guy and who is the villain, MGA reinforced its claim to the moral high ground by noting that its successful defense, “will allow it to keep marketing Bratz fashion dolls, accessories and related products, providing consumers with much-needed choice in the fashion doll market.” (We are not kidding about this).

Moreover, MGA is not merely seeking to protect every little girl’s Christmas dream, it is defending the copyright system. Its successful defense has “secured the public’s access to an original work of authorship and paved the way for future original compositions.’ (Apparently this is a hint that more Bratz are forthcoming).

Finally, in a last attempt to cover ALL audience demographics, MGA argued that it alone offered “a true multi-ethnic doll,” Barbie and Ken apparently being WASPS.

In closing, MGA estimated that Mattel had spend about $400 MILLION in the course of this program and intimated it deserved an award of a like amount. Wouldn’t it be nice to find THAT under your Christmas tree?

patentadmin Fri, 06/10/2011 - 16:07

Add new comment

Soap Opera Summary

patentadmin — Fri, 20 May 2011 18:27:57 +0000

Soap Opera Summary

For those readers who may have missed the latest episode in the long-running legal soap-opera, Bryant v. Mattel Inc., we provide the following summary.

When we last saw the parties (see our previous blog, Pass the Popcorn), they were hurling insults and accusations at each other in preparation for the second trial in their seven year (yes 7 YEARS) battle over ownership of the Bratz line of dolls. The first trial had ended with a decision in favor of Mattel and an award of $100 million in damages. Having garnered such high audience ratings, the folks of MGA Entertainment chose to keep the show running and appealed. The appellate court granted them a new trial, which brings us to the latest episode.

After a trial highlighted by such comic antics as Isaac Larian, the president of MGA, and his attorney asserting that magnets in Mattel toys killed children, the jury returned a verdict in favor of MGA, awarding it custody of the little Bratz. They also found that Mattel had “willfully and maliciously” committed 26 trade secrets violations and awarded MGA $3.4 million in damages for each (for the mathematically challenged, that comes to $88.4 million). MGA, which had alleged 114 such violations, professed disappointment at this paltry result. Laying the groundwork for a new subplot for future episodes, the jury went on to award Mattel $10,000 in damages for interference with contractual relations “of MGA and Larian.”

Mattel announced that it was “disappointed with the verdict” and filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law as to the 26 trade secrets violations, while MGA filed a motion seeking the addition of punitive damages for this heinous conduct.

The action then moved to the courthouse corridor, where Cameron Larian, Isaac’s teenage son, appealing to the younger audience demographic – accused Mattel of hiring “goons” to follow him and his family and harass him at school. Mattel’s female attorneys – appealing to the female and dirty-old-men demographics – replied that Isaac had called them “sluts” and advised them to come to work “half-naked.” That brought the show to a close.

Audiences will, however, be happy to learn that the series may continue. Mattel has filed a motion for a new trial.

patentadmin Fri, 05/20/2011 - 14:27

Add new comment

Pass the Popcorn

patentadmin — Tue, 08 Mar 2011 02:50:46 +0000

Pass the Popcorn

When a lawsuit has reached the point of name-calling and conspiracy accusations, it takes on the aspect of a sitcom. (Mattel, Inc. et al. v. MGA Entertainment, Inc.)

MGA is – at least for the present time – the owner of the line of BRATZ dolls. Mattel contends that the dolls were created by an MGA employee, Mr. Carter Bryant, at a time when he was still under contract to Mattel. Seeking to enforce its claim to ownership of BRATZ, Mattel sued MGA. The legal battle has now stretched on for seven (7) years.

At this point in the proceedings, Mattel has renewed its allegations that Isaac Larian, the President of MGA, destroyed evidence that should have been produced during discovery (destroying or altering evidence is known to those of us in the law biz as “spoliation”). Not surprisingly, Isaac has denied this, calling the accusations “baseless.” MGA admitted that Farhad Larian, Isaac’s brother, had thrown away “several boxes” of company documents, but asserted that these documents pertained to a previous lawsuit between the brothers. MGA further admitted that Mr. Larry Falcon, its Vice President of Sales, had deleted some emails from the company’s servers, but contended that this is “without more, not probative of anything” because Larry “was not in MGA’s IT department” (we are not making this up).

Isaac, in turn, took the opportunity, when on the witness stand, to blame Mattel for killing his father and destroying his family. He also asserted that Mattel caused Mr. Bryant to suffer a stroke and that Mattel’s attorney made a racist remark in court.

The trial, which began on January 18, is expected to run for four months. During that time, it should provide untold entertainment for both the jury and the judge, who obviously has nothing better to do with his time but listen to this witty repartee. We must note that this comedy extravaganza is, in fact, a re-run of sorts. An earlier trial between the parties resulted in a jury awarding $100 million to Mattel. This decision was overturned by the appeals court, thereby providing another judge and jury the opportunity to enjoy the show.

In an effort to keep the show fresh, MGA has added an act to the program. They filed a counterclaim against Mattel, alleging an antitrust violation and seeking $1 billion (yes, BILLION) in damages.

Clearly, companies like Mattel and MGA are a true asset – to both the entertainment industry and the respective law firms they support.

THE LESSON TO BE LEARNED: The widely held belief that lawyers have no sense of humor is obviously false.

patentadmin Mon, 03/07/2011 - 21:50