Mattel to MGA: We Want our Dolls Back

[WSJ_law_blog]

In August, when a federal jury in Riverside returned a $100 million verdict for Mattel, there didn’t appear to be a clear winner in the four year-litigation between with MGA over who owned the rights to the Bratz doll. After all, the verdict — about $1.9 billion less than Mattel requested — wouldn’t come out to much after Mattel paid its lawyer’s bill to Quinn Emanuel.



Of course, there’s still the issue of what to do with those pouty-lipped, skinny-hipped Bratz dolls. Yesterday, the parties were back in court. And it was clear, according to the LA Times, that Mattel wants its toys back. Mattel asked the court not only to stop MGA from making Bratz, but also to require the company to turn over all its dolls, including those already in stores. Mattel also wants the Bratz name. (Quick refresher: Mattel alleged that Carter Bryant, the designer who sold the Bratz idea to MGA, dreamed up the doll while still under contract with Mattel.)

“The benefit that was developed belongs to Mattel,” said Judge Stephen Larson at the beginning of Monday’s hearing.

“Anything that Carter Bryant created while he was in the employ of Mattel” belonged to the company, argued Mattel attorney Michael Zeller. “We ask that our property be returned.”

But MGA argued that by developing and marketing the doll, it made Bratz a hit. “The value was created lawfully,” said attorney Jason Russell for the Bratz maker. “The value was all created by MGA.”

Judge Larson appeared to agree — at least partly — with MGA. “The measurable value to Bratz,” the judge reportedly said, “is so very much a function of what Isaac Larian and his team put into it.” The argument that MGA should be left with nothing, Larson said, “is quite a leap.”

Larson said he would issue his decision within the next couple of weeks. But either way, it wouldn’t take effect until January, thus sparing retailers the possibility that the dolls would be seized from their shelves in front of crying children. Larson said he wanted to ensure retailers that during the holiday shopping season, “nothing is going to happen in respect to this.”