Culture | December 04, 2008 | 56 comments

Bratz dolls banned by federal judge

Image
Hyphy_D
Good these dolls are cheesy anyways

The rowdy Bratz dolls have been evicted. Barbie has regained control of the dollhouse.

Toy giant Mattel Inc. (MAT), after a four-year legal dispute with MGA Entertainment Inc., touted its win in the case Wednesday after a federal judge banned MGA from making and selling its pouty-lipped and hugely popular Bratz dolls.

"It's a pretty sweeping victory," Mattel attorney Michael Zeller said. "They have no right to use Bratz for any goods or services at all."

U.S. District Judge Stephen Larson rocked the toy industry with his order that MGA must immediately stop manufacturing Bratz. He allowed MGA to wait until the holiday season ends to remove the toys from store shelves.

The decision was a stunning defeat for MGA, which exploded onto the tween scene in 2001 with the edgy dolls and made hundreds of millions in profits, giving Mattel's more classic doll-diva Barbie a run for her money.

The ruling, issued in federal court in Riverside, followed a jury's finding that Bratz designer Carter Bryant developed the concept for the dolls while working for Mattel.

The same jury later awarded Mattel $10 million for copyright infringement and $90 million for breach of contract after a lengthy trial stemming from Mattel's 2004 lawsuit ended in August.

MGA spokesman Sandra Ravan did not immediately return a call for comment late Wednesday. It was unclear if MGA planned to appeal Larson's ruling.

Mattel has fought to neutralize the Bratz line for years. The dolls — with their huge lips, pug noses, almond-shaped eyes and coquettish figures — were an instant hit with young girls. MGA had taken Bryant's original four dolls and spun out a line of more than 40 characters, complete with accessories and related toys such as Bratz Boyz, Bratz Petz and Baby Bratz.

El Segundo-based Mattel has seen sales of Barbie — once a rite of passage for American girls — slide since the doe-eyed Bratz dolls first came on the scene. Domestic sales of Barbie were down 15 percent in 2007.

Both sides had a lot riding on the judge's decision and had worried about the impact of any ruling during the holiday shopping season.

The judge's injunction named all 40 dolls in the Bratz line, including the four originals — Yasmine, Chloe, Sasha and Jade. Larson also ordered MGA to reimburse its vendors and distributors for the cost of the dolls and all shipping charges for sending them back.

During trial, Mattel attorneys said MGA made nearly $778 million on the Bratz line since it was introduced seven years ago, and company Chief Executive Isaac Larian made $696 million through June — but MGA insisted the profits were much less.

The post-trial dispute that prompted Wednesday's ruling centered on whether the jury found that only the first generation of four Bratz dolls infringed on Mattel's copyright or whether all the dolls in the line are in violation.

The jury verdict form only asked panelists to find whether there was infringement and assign a dollar reward, but did not ask them to specify which dolls among the dozens MGA made violated the law.

Los Angeles-based MGA, which no longer makes the first-generation dolls, argued that the later toys in the Bratz line don't violate the copyright and it could continue to sell them.

MGA attorney Raoul Kennedy argued that Larson had the discretion to determine which dolls violated Mattel's copyright. Mattel's attorneys disagreed, saying the court does not have the authority to interpret the jury's findings after the fact.
  1. groups:
    Culture,   WTF,   Law
  2. tags:
    Culture,  WTF,  Current TV,  Humor,  4 more
  3.     
    |

56 comments // Bratz dolls banned by federal judge

  • Nommeh_Hallcro
    • 0
      Nommeh_Hallcro  

    • When I was younger and bullied I listened to the Bratz rock angels soundtrack if you here the lyrics to their song it simply justifies Bratz whole meaning and concept.

    • 2 years ago
  • Nommeh_Hallcro
    • 0
      Nommeh_Hallcro  
    • Image

    • To the guy who claimed he doesn't like the thought of 11 year old girls dressing like Bratz. For your information most Bratz outfits are like these ones. Realistic, stylish and not showing too much skin.

      Bratz are modern and interesting and have a lot more morals than Barbie. I grantee you there is a lot more shameful women produces by Barbie than Bratz. Bratz not only came up with great none slutty outfits but they produced films and games.

      These films and games came with morals about friendship, family, work and what should be valued in life as well as following the cleshay of all dolls in having an unlikely dream life of runways and limousines . Whilst Barbie is just a little girls dream world of everything pink.

    • 2 years ago
  • KailynTheKungFuPandaFan
    • 0
      KailynTheKungFuPandaFan  

    • Wow, stupid PEOPLE like you guys and Barbie company complaining about Bratz dolls, they did nothing, they harmed no one, the clothes style is better then barbies! the barbie heads always fall off..and are made of lead which is poisonous.

    • 3 years ago
  • erikamarie23
  • DeliaTheArtist
  • Humdrum
  • DeliaTheArtist
  • Humdrum
  • DeliaTheArtist
    • 0
      DeliaTheArtist  
    • Image
    • DeliaTheArtist:

      I'm just sayin'. I wasn't into dolls, I was into comic books. My mother used to worry that the unrealistic portrayal of women in comics would damage me too. I think everyone worries about it, but I'm not really convinced it's true, you know what I mean?

    • 4 years ago
  • Humdrum
    • 0
      Humdrum  
    • DeliaTheArtist:

      I totally get what you're saying. I agree, actually - everyone can get too worked up over stuff like this.

      I too grew up on comic books, and I didn't get my unrealistic portrayal of the male body from them (mostly came from music videos and underwear ads). I actually have that exact issue of Uncanny X-Men in my archives. Same one with a half-naked, boxer-clad Cyclops stretching his perfectly-defined muscles next to his ruffled bedsheets (lol).
      Admittedly I can only comment so far as to how these dolls affect young female minds, because a) I'm a dude, and b) I never played with dolls as a child.
      But it looks like we're both halfway in the same boat!

      I will say that it probably has a lot to do with the specific personality of the child that is playing with the dolls - the girls that go along with and embrace the physical "norms" of their perceived world/ society are much more common than individualistic girls who read comics and shun Barbie dolls.

      But I'm just speculating here, and stumbling over my ideas because I haven't had my coffee yet.

    • 4 years ago
  • Humdrum
    • 0
      Humdrum  

    • Yep, these dolls are lame; Barbie isn't much better. They are both wastes of plastic.

      But the ruling sucks, imo.
      The only reason the judge gave Mattel the win was because the Bratz creator came up with the dolls while he was working for Mattel. They used a few lines of small print in a contract to keep their monopoly on lame-ass pop culture dolls chugging away.
      Silly and slutty as the Bratz are, the little guy was trampled here.

    • 4 years ago
  • Tayllerand
  • Elligirl
  • DeliaTheArtist
  • DeliaTheArtist
    • 0
      DeliaTheArtist  

    • I just want to point out here that while I understand why everyone hates bratz so much, that's not the reason they are banning them. Mattel won a copyright infringement suit. For better or worse, we're not currently banning things because they are stupid.

      Moving on, is Barbie really "sexist" or a bad role model for girls? Barbie was invented by a woman, keeps herself looking good, owns all of her own houses/cars/clothing,and has taken every job from bathing suit model to doctor to astronaut. Mattel has widened her waist, made different cultural interpretations, they even redid the Barbie house to accommodate disabled Barbie (I'm DEAD SERIOUS.) WTF do you people want?

      Bratz may be the more obnoxious bastard children of Barbie, but they are still just dolls, meant to appeal to girls who are interested in fashion. What's the big deal about their moral implications on society? Is any woman here HONESTLY fucked up psychologically because of Barbie, Bratz, or any other doll?

    • 4 years ago
  • blood77
  • ywiuaQ
  • nessie00
  • TakeBack8
    • 0
      TakeBack8  

    • I wonder how big Mattel is going to get it having Barbie and now Bratz, they basically own the all little girls toys industry

    • 4 years ago
  • KailynTheKungFuPandaFan
  • Elligirl
    • 0
      Elligirl  

    • The comments seem to be a little off the mark, here. The dolls weren't removed for having bad taste. The dolls were removed because their designer was working for a competing company while they were conceived, so they legally belong to that original company (Mattel.)

    • 4 years ago
  • Agent_Alpha
  • Illari
    • 0
      Illari  

    • These are just dolls! I am disgusted by the people who are saying that the world is better off without these dolls. Is anyone saying anything about Bad Taste Bears? http://www.badtastebears.com/
      No.
      They are complaining about the dolls are a "bad role model" because they are too damn lazy to be a real role model for their kids.

    • 4 years ago
  • div
  • AutifK
  • Tygerr
  • FallenMorgan
  • huffamoose2k
  • Illari
  • metalcookiesxy70
  • KailynTheKungFuPandaFan
  • div
  • dougiestardust
  • carl0s808
    • 0
      carl0s808  

    • For the first time i have to agree with the majority here. I hate the fact that the goverment is always trying to get involved on how we live our lives or to raise our children, but theses stupid dolls were a crime! i mean, bratz!? You have to be more than a shitty parent to even considering buying this thing for your kids. And i thought barbies were bad.

    • 4 years ago
  • oracleruby
    • 0
      oracleruby  
    • carl0s808:

      Who are you to say what makes a great parent? It is just a doll. And a doll that my sister grew up on. She's not from the trailer and she doesn't wear skimpy clothes. FAR from that. Be careful how you take on stereotypes, it may become personal. Like your comment is towards me.

    • 4 years ago
  • ashcatash
  • oracleruby
    • 0
      oracleruby  

    • No way! My lil sister is going to be upset. Her room is FILLED with Bratz. I never had to guess what to get her for her birthday or Christmas or happy straight A's presents. Personally I loved those dolls because they were more ethic than Barbie.

    • 4 years ago
  • NoGodsNoMasters
    • 0
      NoGodsNoMasters  

    • THEY ARE JUST DOLLS! Goddamn, people in this country are so bored. If your child is that susceptible to outside influences then you fucked up somewhere. Don't take it out on the toy company because you were a shitty parent. And if you hate Bratz so much, don't buy them.

      So what doll would be good? A little chubby doll that doubles as a bouncy ball? Nope, can't teach kids that it's ok to be fat. I know! How about we just sell sticks wearing clothes....shit, can't do that either, not only will some wacko mother think that it's promoting anorexia but also if that stick has really nice clothes it might offend the poor customers and make them think that life is all about buying cool gear. Lets just sell air in a bag. Oh, but the environmentalists might not like the fact that we are selling plastic bags.

      Will our children ever be able to safely play again?!?

    • 4 years ago
  • FallenMorgan
    • 0
      FallenMorgan  

    • Bratz are incredibly stupid dolls. How 'bout a doll that supports indaviduality? Oh wait, nevermind.

      Dolls are a way parents put their kids into gender stereotypes. Little Billy gets GI Joes while Suzy gets a barbie doll. Thus, the boy grows up to be "boyish" and tough, while the girl ends up dainty and focussed on appearance. Of course, a lot of people grow out of that.

    • 4 years ago
  • arcticspirit
    • 0
      arcticspirit  

    • A copyright of what? Barbie is not exactly healthy for self image, hello? I wish they would make dolls that were more like people. Now that would be a novel idea.

      Barbie's measurements if she were life-size: 39-23-33. (One of these is her IQ; we're not sure about the other two.)

    • 4 years ago
  • justright
  • justright
  • neutralmilkhotel
  • Scott_Bromley
  • rebelution07
  • charmedkitten
  • Neghie
  • mikeyletchero
  • amae617
    • 0
      amae617  

    • cool. what good were these dolls doing for young girls anyway? oh yeah, teaching them to wear excessive makeup and slutty clothes at five years old.

    • 4 years ago
  • punkrooster1210
  • UrbanHippie
  • sickinjersey
more from Culture:
from the community

top videos