Week 8 EOC: Bratz (MGA) vs Barbie (Mattel)

In the decade long dispute over trade secrets between the dolls Bratz and Barbie, a significant amount of money has tethered the two in a nasty game of tug-o-war. The often convoluted issues of who stole what and from whom, has taken center stage and is the heart of the matter.

Originally, Barbie was created by Ruth Handler with the assistance of Mattel.  Barbie was one of the first of its kind to evolve away from traditional dolls that were mainly babies. The leap from the traditional doll blossomed into a billion dollar entity with a wide selection of products in her image (cartoons, bedspreads, backpacks, etc.). Moreover, her signature style was born from her mature look and "knock out" measurements, thus creating a highly recognizable toy icon status.

Enter Carter Bryant. A previous employee of Mattel, who worked on the Barbie line, began constructing his own doll line that we now recognize as Bratz. At the time he pitched and ultimately released the doll to MGA for production, there was overlap in his employment with Mattel. This in turn pulled into question whether he had violated a "nondisclosure agreement entered into with [his] employer" (Stim, pg.520), who was Mattel at that time. The issue of trade secrets being used in the production of his doll line was severely under scrutiny, not to mention the time of conception for the brazen doll line.

The push and pull over this issue began in 2004 when Mattel first sought damages. Mattel claimed Bryant was secretly working for the competition, MGA, while still employed with Mattel. Another two years pass and Mattel filed again for damages, but this time it was for copyright infringement and trade secret theft. In 2008 there was yet another suit, but Bryant settled with Mattel before going to trial. However, in 2011 MGA was awarded damages because the judge, David Carter, deemed the first ruling back in 2004 was erroneous, stating that, “Mattel asserted a copyright claim that was stunning in scope and unreasonable in relief it requested,” Carter said. “The claim imperiled free expression, competition and the only serious competitor Mattel had faced in the fashion doll market in nearly 50 years.” (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-08-05/mga-wins-225-million-punitive-damages-fees-against-mattel.html). 

Bryant claims to have originally sketched the concept for the Bratz dolls back in 1998, before his employment with Mattel. This did not shake Mattel from jumping all over the claim that he stole trade secret to produce the doll by using knowledge that is "not known outside of the particular business entity" (Stim, pg. 519). In 2011, a jury found that Mattel did not own a copyright in the creative designs behind the dolls. It also found that the ideas, designs and name of the doll collection were not Mattel’s trade secrets and that generally, MGA/Bryant did not take any of Mattel’s trade secrets for their use. The same jury found, however, that Mattel was guilty of "misappropriation of trade secrets occur[ed]...by improper means" (Stim, pg. 549), by attending showroom floors at MGA using fake business cards to gain access.  Mattel, again, was at the throat of MGA in asking for a retrial, but was ultimately denied. This matter is likely to head to the Supreme Court to finally be put to sleep.

In closing, this case has become a bit like 'the most suspicious is also the most guilty. It is my opinion that Mattel has taken this too far. The Barbie brand is a classic one that is not in jeopardy of dying off anytime soon. Nor do they need to fear whether Bratz dolls would ever be confused with Barbie. If anything, Mattel needs to step it up and compete fairly. It seems that they are the ones hitting below the belt and for not. Innovation and creativity shall prevail.