Barbie Battles Bratz as Toy Makers Head to Trial

Barbie Battles Bratz as Toy Makers Head to Trial
Posted by Dan Slater

barbiebratzWas the designer of Bratz dolls — a $500 million per year franchise that’s stolen much of Barbie’s marketshare — still an employee of Mattel when he dreamed up the pouty-lipped dolls beloved by tweenage girls?

That issue, among others, will take center-stage next Tuesday when Mattel, the maker of Barbie, heads to trial in California federal court to square off against closely held MGA Entertainment, the maker of Bratz. The WSJ’s Nick Casey has penned a scintillating walk-up to the trial, which you can find here, along with some cool video reporting.

Mattel, represented by Quinn Emmanuel’s John Quinn, accuses MGA of essentially stealing the idea for Bratz dolls, and is trying to seize ownership of the Bratz line. MGA, rep’d by Skadden’s Tom Nolan, denies wrongdoing, and accuses Mattel in a separate suit of copying Bratz.

Here’s what happened, according to Casey’s story: In 1998, designer Carter Bryant left Mattel and moved back to his parents’ home, at which point he says he had a eureka moment involving the fashions and hair styles of teenagers that led to the Bratz sketches.

In 1999, Bryant signed a new contract with Mattel to design clothes for the Barbie lines. In 2000, Bryant took a vacation day from Mattel to discuss the doll idea with MGA, then jumped ship to MGA and got the Bratz project off the ground. In 2002, Mattel’s CEO received an anonymous letter saying Bryant had created Bratz while at Mattel. In 2004, Mattel hired PIs to spy on one of its own execs who it suspected of leaking secrets. Later that year, Mattel filed a suit against Bryant, accusing him of dreaming up the hit doll while on Mattel’s payroll.

In 2005, MGA counter-sued, claiming Mattel altered the design of its own dolls to more closely resemble the Bratz line and used its sway with retailers to stifle competition. In 2006, Mattel expanded its suit to include MGA and its CEO, Isaac Larian. Bryant, represented separately by John Keker, the same lawyer who represented Dickie Scruggs, agreed to a confidential settlement with Mattel — leaving Mattel and MGA to duke it out. (Mattel didn’t disclose the terms of its settlement with Bryant, but said the agreement will bolster its case; MGA says its position isn’t undermined.)

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/05/23/barbie-battles-bratz-as-toy-makers-head-to-trial/?mod=googlenews_wsj

would want to push a toy on young girls called "bratz".

:hide:

Why not just change teh saying on our money to be "In the Almighty Dollar We Trust"?

Good for them. :thumbsup:

If only Barbie had her "Rabble Rousing Playhouse with Anatomically Correct Ken and Jeremy, Complete with Squad 19" set before Bratz got there...

around. I'm a bit ashamed to admit that I freelance as an MGA designer from time to time, and the mountain of contracts I had to sign before I got the gig was staggering.I can't allow anyone-neighbors, boyfriends, plumbers- ANYONE see the drawings that I do for the company or I risk a lawsuit. It's pretty silly, but these companies are tighter than the Pentagon. The upside is that the pay is great and the people that I work with are very personable and professional (and the lines I work on aren't as slutty as their mainstays).

I always hated dolls as a kid. I preferred my Breyer horses, the great outdoors and my books!

It's contract slavery. But slavery none the less. The whole jist of the contracts is that we own you and therefore anything you produce. Be it in their office or your home. If you produce it. They own it because they own you. This is just another form of wage slavery.