Copyright infringement? BRATZ / stolen or not? - 88 million

Bratz is a line of toys, featuring dolls with exaggerated facial features, owned by American MGA ENTERTAINMENT. The first dolls were launched in 2001, but the real success came in 2005 / 2006 when sales reached about two billion. The growth in market share (up 40%) came at the expense of Mattel's Barbie.  

When the Mattel My Scene line came (same body as Barbie but with larger head and eyes - like Bratz), first blood was drawn.  Bratz launched a case against Mattel. Mattel also initiated a case against MGA since the BRATZ doll was designed by a former Mattel employee, during his time with Mattel.
Initially, Mattel won, despite the statement by the designer that he was not employed by Mattel in 1998 and that the doll was developed during a period when  he was self employed between two the jobs. Ultimately, the federal court in California decided that MGA had not stolen the doll from Mattel. MGA will get a compensation of over $ 88,000,000. Mattel will appeal against the verdict.
This case illustrates the importance of good and water-tight contracts with freelancers or self-employed workers. If changing employers within an X number of years was regulated in the designer’s contract all this may have been prevented.
 

copyright



Latest news
Rituals vs. The Body Shop: Battle of the Brands
The Bulldog rightly claims damages from Red Bull
Trademark Escobar parfum contrary to public order
Abcor team in World Trademark Review 1000
Louis Keijzer passes BBMM exam with flying colours
Our Clients
Follow Abcor
claimant
defendant
claimant
defendant

IP quiz Trademarks

Puma is one of the bigger sports and lifestyle brands in the world. The core-business is the design, development and sale of (sports) shoes, (sports) clothing and accessories. In 1960, Puma registered an international trademark for a device designed in 1958: the formstrip. Since then, Puma has registered approximately 90 formstrip trademarks with validity in the Benelux or the European Union. Puma claims that this is a serial mark. Monshoe is a wholesaler of women's shoes and related products. The company designs and develops Monshoe shoes which it largely markets itself. Monshoe sells its women's shoes under the brands Shoecolate and Pearlz. The shoe Shoecolate is offered in various colour combinations. Puma claims that Monshoe infringes its well-known formstrip trademark. Monshoe contradicts this and states that the average consumer will not perceive the device of Monshoe on the sneakers as a trademark. And if the public will recognize a trademark in the decoration, it will not make the connection to Puma. According to Monshoe, the formstrip logo is not a well-known trademark within the meaning of the BVIE and the UMVo. There is no likelihood of confusion because the sign does not or hardly evoke any association with Puma among the public. In light of the above, who is right? Does this constitute decorative use or linking to a well-known trademark?