Home » Copyright Law Updates » New Settlements and Verdicts » Current Summary
Copyright Law Summary
Barbie v. Bratz Saga: $100M Jury Verdict to Mattel Way Below its $1.8B Demand, But Bratz Doll-Maker MGA to Push for Reduction
Bryant v. Mattel
No. 04-9049, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, 08/26/2008
Companies Mentioned: Mattel, Inc., MGA Entertainment, Inc.
Holding
As part of the continuing sage between "Barbie" doll-maker Mattel, Inc. and "Bratz" doll-maker MGA Entertainment, Inc., Mattel won a jury verdict of $100 million for copyright infringement and contract damages, an amount way below its demand of $1.8 billion. In particular, the jury in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California ordered MGA and its Chief Executive Officer, Isaac Larian, to pay Mattel a total of $90 miilion in three causes of action related to Mattel's employment contract with its former designer, Carter Bryant, who developed the Bratz concept. The jury also issued an award of $10 million to Mattel, this time against MGA, Larian, and MGA Entertainment (HK) Limited ("MGA Hongkong"), for copyright infringement. Mattel however was unable to secure an award for punitive damages, after the jury found that it failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the three defendants had acted with malice, oppression, or fraud. Part of the total award included the value of Bryant's drawings, which the jury pegged at $31,500, plus 7 percent interest calculated from the date Mattel's property was converted by MGA Hongkong.
Detailed Summary
By way of background, the jury on July 17, 2008 found that Bryant conceptualized the Bratz character and name while he was still under contract with Mattel. In that earlier verdict, the jury specifically found that Bryant made most of the first sketches of the Bratz characters while he was employed by Mattel in 1999 and 2000, and that Mattel owned most of Bryant’s Bratz drawings, including the three-dimensional prototypes he made for MGA. The jury also found that that MGA and Larian were liable for intentional interference with Bryant’s Mattel contract. The jury was hung on the issue whether Mattel owned four of Bryant’s original drawings from a spiral notebook that MGA argued the designer made while he was away from Mattel.
At trial, Mattel, represented by Quinn Emanuel Oliver Urquhart & Hedges, argued that MGA unlawfully took the idea for Bratz dolls from Bryant, because Bryant conceived the idea while still under contract with Mattel. MGA asserted that Bryant created Bratz in the time period between two stints at Mattel. Bryant had been a separate defendant in this case, but settled with Mattel on the eve of trial for an undisclosed amount.
MGA, represented by Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, denied any wrongdoing, and, in a separate suit, accused Mattel of copying Bratz. In addition, MGA claimed that Mattel changed the design of its own “My Scene” dolls to more closely resemble the Bratz line and used its leverage with retailers to stifle competition. MGA and Bryant argued that the designer came up with the idea for the dolls and made the original sketches in 1998, while he was living with his parents in Missouri and not working for Mattel. They asserted that the sketches Bryant showed MGA in 2000 were transferred from originals he made in the summer of 1998 inspired by his watching kids walking from school, Steve Madden shoe ads in Seventeen magazine, and the cover of a Dixie Chicks album.
Mattel had demanded that it be paid by MGA $1 billion in profits and interests. It also asked that Larian should pay about $800 million for his participation in Bryant’s breach of his employment contract with Mattel.
On the other hand, MGA argued that it could only be liable for up to about $30 million because it had built the doll line’s value with distinguishing additions, branding and packaging.
The jury award of $90 million for contract damages is broken down as follows: $20 million against MGA and $10 million against Larian in each of three causes of action—intentional interference with contractual relations, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and aiding and abetting breach of the duty of loyalty.
The amount of damages turned on the question of whether jurors believed MGA should only be held responsible for profits derived from the first four Bratz dolls—which came from Bryant’s drawings—or from all the subsequent Bratz dolls and related products.
Press reports indicated that MGA intends to ask the District Court to reduce the award to $30 million.
View a PDF of the verdict.Service
Link to this article · 
Send via E-mail · 
Printable Version (opens in new window)
