Barbie Crushes Bratz
Remember that big lawsuit where Barbie maker Mattel was suing MGA? Well, Mattel won. A court ruled that the inventor of Bratz, Carter Bryant, was an employee of Mattel when the thought of the idea for Bratz and therefore Mattel was the one in the wrong.
From the way I’m reading this, this is really bad news for MGA and is completely ridiculous. It shows that when Mattel can’t win in the marketplace, it will do anything it can to cut down the competition. MGA currently has a counter suit still open with the slutty Barbie dolls that Mattel made in order to try to get back market share from Bratz, but it’s a fairly mute point now. MGA lost big, but the real losers are the little girls that will surely be affected from their slutty heroes being crushed by the mighty power of Mattel and it’s team of scuzzy lawyers.
July 19th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
I hate Bratz dolls with a passion. They’re ugly, they encourage a sexuality that girls that age shouldn’t even be thinking about (sadly, a lot of our society teaches this same lesson, but I digress), and they take up space that could be better relegated to cool girls’ toys…okay, I don’t care as much about girls’ toys, but I really hate Bratz.
That being said, what exactly was the lawsuit. “Hey judge, one of our former employees made a prostitute doll and they got the idea when they were working for us. It’s a violation of our TradeMark/Copyright because, well, we lost money.”
I mean honestly, this is one of the dumbest lawsuits ever.
Sam (Sorry I made my comment longer than your post)
July 19th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
The only thing Bratz dolls are good for is the Boyz clothing is the same size as Sigma Six.
Er. . .not that I would. . .know anything personally about that. .
-PJ
July 19th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
To inject a little perspective into the discussion: If an employee with Mattel was under some sort of non-competitive agreement with them as part of the terms of his employment, then any idea that he developed as an employee at Mattel is their property as part of the agreement. He was free to refuse the agreement and in so doing refuse employment at Mattel, but he did not. He doesn’t get to have his cake and eat it, too. That is why companies have contracts like that with their employees - so they don’t find themselves training their future competitors.
July 20th, 2008 at 12:31 am
Addendum: I just caught up on some of the other articles about this case and it would appear that he *took a vacation day* to sell his idea to MGA. I mean, wow - that’s some chutzpah. Sure, you could argue that Mattel is pushing this case because they were getting their asses handed to them - but they’re hardly going to push a case like this against an ex-employee whose idea failed miserably, are they? I wonder whether he pitched his idea to his superiors at Mattel at all (I’m guessing no) or whether he just saw dollar signs (cha-ching!) and decided to freelance “his” idea to another company where he could get a better deal - after all, if he pitched it to Mattel, they would likely have thanked their employee for his good idea and he wouln’t have been able to get as much money for it.
July 20th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
all i know is for 40 bucks I can have Black Canary barbie… it doesn’t get sluttier. Oliver + US Navy = Zing!
July 21st, 2008 at 10:07 am
When you work with intelligent properties you’re often followed by some very powerful contracts… The Bratz designer knew he was playing with fire and really slipped up. …But the blame and financial responsibility is mostly going to go towards MGA who were just being irresponsible as business owners. They put themselves up on the cross when they ran with the designers ideas. …Did they think no one would notice? …No matter, it’s just bad business all around.
…Am I crazy, or did I hear that the actual name ‘Bratz’ was conceived at Mattel, at the same time. That’s perhaps the most damning detail out of the whole thing.
July 21st, 2008 at 11:15 am
Ouch.