Tag Archives: Bratz

Best of 2008: Someone dropped in an extra zero, right? RIGHT?

Posted on October 16, 2008.

It’s a month-old story, and how it got past us here notwithstanding, it’s not getting past us now.  Per the ABA Journal, remember the Bratz litigation?  Well, you haven’t read half of it yet:

Two toy companies battling for rights to the Bratz dolls-with-attitude have racked up legal fees of at least $93 million in the case.

MGA Entertainment has spent $63 million in fees since 2004 defending a lawsuit by Mattel Inc. that contended the doll’s designer conceived of the idea before leaping from Mattel to MGA, the Daily Journal reports (sub. req.). Plaintiff Mattel has spent $30 million in just the first half of the year, the story says.

Mattel was awarded $100 million in the case, far short of the more than $2 billion in damages it had sought.

The Daily Journal got MGA’s figures in a lawsuit it filed against its insurers seeking full payment of the Bratz fees, while the publication got the Mattel figure from a stock analyst.

10 Years of LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION®

10 Years of LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION®

The ABA item quotes a Jones Day litigation partner who is flummoxed at the idea that there is any conceivable way to get to $93 million for a trademark case, even over the course of four years.  We sure are, too.  And re-read this ‘graph: Read More…

America’s trademark litigation gravy train – the Bratz / Barbie case is back!

Originally posted 2013-01-30 22:02:10. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

I can’t claim to be keeping close tabs on what’s going on in theBarbie / Bratz trademark litigation. But lookie here:

A federal appeals court has ruled that Mattel Inc. doesn’t have to pay $172 million to MGA Entertainment Inc. to settle a trade secrets theft claim over Bratz dolls because a key claim should have been dismissed before trial.

The ruling filed Thursday by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is the latest wrinkle in a bitter, protracted dispute between two Southland toy companies: El Segundo-based Mattel, the world’s No. 1 toy maker and owner of the Barbie empire, and Van Nuys-based MGA, a little-known company until it introduced Bratz in 2001.

Ok, don’t get too excited:

The unanimous decision by the three-judge panel found that MGA’s counter-claim accusing Mattel of misappropriating trade secrets was not related to an earlier trade secret allegation by Mattel and, therefore, could not be included in the lawsuit. The panel left open the possibility of a separate action on the claim.

Thursday’s ruling leaves MGA with an award of about $137 million, down from the original $310-million award the company received in a 2011 retrial.

Trademark lawyer Ron ColemanNaturally those of us lower in the food chain understand why this work goes to the tippy-toppest trademark lawyers ever, of course — all that certainty you get when you invest in such quality talent.

It’s inspiring to the rest of us just to be allowed to peer in through the knotholes, believe me!

Oh, well, $137 million.  That is less than half of $310 million, so I get why “MGA Chief Executive Isaac Larian said that the company ‘absolutely’ plans to bring another suit against Mattel for trade secret theft, although he declined to say when.”

Clearly no one in this case is “saying when.”  Which we in the legal economy call “a win-win,” of course.