Federal Judge Sides With Mattel, Bans Bratz. [Archive]

The Huntsman

12-04-2008, 09:05 AM

I'm not a avid follower/collector or dolls, mind you, so maybe I missed a detail regarding this case, but what exactly was Mattel suing MGA over? Did they violate some marketing rule? Or was it that Mattel simply couldn't stand having any serious competition and just wanted the Bratz to be taking out of the running?I’m not really sure. Apparently, it all started because the creator of Bratz was working at Mattel when he originally conceived the idea of the new dolls. There must have been some legal clause in his contract.

Starbraces

12-04-2008, 10:19 AM

Finally

I'm so tired of seeing angry mom's letters to newspaper bulletins about how Bratz percieve an unrealistic image... and while I don't disagree, I'm just tired of hearing the mom's complain about it. Why by the freaking dolll in the first place? So I'm glad it's banned

Master Moron

12-04-2008, 12:38 PM

I'm not a avid follower/collector or dolls, mind you, so maybe I missed a detail regarding this case, but what exactly was Mattel suing MGA over? Did they violate some marketing rule? Or was it that Mattel simply couldn't stand having any serious competition and just wanted the Bratz to be taken out of the running?

They were suing for breach of contract and copyright infringement. It would seem that there was a clause in the contract that says that any concept that Carter Bryant came up with while working for Mattel is the property of Mattel. It would also appear that the sculpt for the Bratz dolls were based on Mattel's design.

MonkeyFunk

12-04-2008, 12:44 PM

Woo, that's a big chunk of kiddie culture out the window. Wonder what'll take their place?

Temple Fugate

12-04-2008, 04:21 PM

Of all the reasons to ban Bratz...this is one I never thought of.

At least it's comforting to know that sometimes, our legal system actually works.

Draft

12-04-2008, 04:24 PM

lol

wish I had a little cousin to tell this to to film her reaction, oh well

but ya, this is a huge win for Mattel, as if they needed to get more people to buy their dolls

J'onn J'onzz

12-04-2008, 04:39 PM

Yes! Bratz is awful... it encourages kids to be shallow idiots, and it's an incredibly unoriginal franchise. So I'm really glad it's gone.

veemonjosh

12-04-2008, 04:41 PM

I have another theory as to why they did this...

http://content.answers.com/main/content/img/amg/games/drg100/g122/g12258f4iah.jpg

^This Mattel toyline preceded the Bratz by a full year. It was pretty much identical to Bratz in every way, except that it (IIRC) portrayed girls in a POSITIVE light, as opposed to the slutty nature of the Bratz.

Considering I noticed the eerie similarity between the two right away back in 2001, it's nice to see things come full-circle.

Ishtar

12-04-2008, 04:43 PM

Personally, I always thought that Bratz dolls looked odd and kinda creepy. I'm glad they will no longer be in the market.

Jave

12-04-2008, 04:52 PM

They banned Bratz?

Good.

mowub

12-04-2008, 05:37 PM

Great news. Now there won't be any more 8-year-old girls being convinced to dress like hookers.

SSJPabs

12-04-2008, 05:41 PM

They were suing for breach of contract and copyright infringement. It would seem that there was a clause in the contract that says that any concept that Carter Bryant came up with while working for Mattel is the property of Mattel. It would also appear that the sculpt for the Bratz dolls were based on Mattel's design.
So it's a non-compete clause with a little spice of the Ty beanie baby case with the cow/pigs? Hmm, might have to read up on that one then sounds interesting.

Dr.Pepper

12-04-2008, 07:49 PM

I am actually surprised that Bratz weren't banned eariler because they encourage girls to dress like hookers.

Chykin

12-04-2008, 07:57 PM

This video explains all: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvZBFP46yvw
And Dr. Pepper, I agree.

Czar Gato

12-04-2008, 10:19 PM

THANK GOD. Those things were ugly as sin.

Anyone00

12-04-2008, 10:51 PM

I've always thought Bratz were a plot by the Greys to normalize their infiltration of the human gene pool to today's youth.

http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/6460/linzabl8.gif (http://www.preschoollearningonline.com/Coloringpages/Bratz_a.gif)
'Linz: A passion for abduction.

Zeonic Freak

12-05-2008, 12:47 AM

Sweet, now i can clean my Wal Mart shelves off of bratz dolls, then hide them for 50 years and take them on ebay.

Another reason to be rich when im old...

sdp

12-05-2008, 12:54 AM

This legal battle has been going on for a LONG time. I don't see why people are so happy, big bully Mattel didn't like Barbie not being relevant and through a 'loophole' they are able to do this.

Its retarded if you think the dolls are "perverting" the youth.

Super Leviathan

12-05-2008, 12:58 AM

Wasn't there another concurrent thread that discussed this? EDIT: Yes we do.
(http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?t=220963&page=2)
In any case, MGA will be back on the market with a new doll line before too long. This time, they'll just crib the idea form a less powerful and litigious toymaker.

Light Lucario

12-05-2008, 02:37 AM

};3075076']This legal battle has been going on for a LONG time. I don't see why people are so happy, big bully Mattel didn't like Barbie not being relevant and through a 'loophole' they are able to do this.

Its retarded if you think the dolls are "perverting" the youth.

I think that's kind of harsh. I don't think a person's opinion about how dolls affect kids makes them mentally challenged. Besides that, I believe that there have been studies where people found how much Barbie affect girls' self-image. Obviously, that doesn't happen to every girl with a Barbie, or a Bratz doll for that matter, but it can happen. Anyway, I'm glad that those dolls are banned. They were so unbelievably ugly with their make-up, terrible clothes and lip-injected lips.

Daxdiv

12-05-2008, 02:44 AM

They banned Bratz?

Good.

I feel like putting this my sig for some reason. Forget it is so going in my sig.

As for the banning of Bratz, let me just say. "YOU JUST GOT PWNED FTW!!!" They were the ugliest dolls I have ever seen, wonder if that means that they're going to be on the cheap so store can get rid of them?

Scorpio_G

12-05-2008, 02:56 AM

Cant really say much about the ruling since I'm kind of out of the demographic for dolls now. But too bad for Bratz.

Despite it's...uhh...choice of clothing for young girls at least the company wanted the availability of ethnic dolls easy for parents to buy, and was relevant for the times we live in, for their girls and I liked that.

Unlike their competitor who started making dolls of color 25 to 30 years later and even then supplies for these dolls of color was few and far to get. :shrug:

But whatever. They'll find a way to make dolls again. That's what lawyers are for. :)

EinBebop

12-05-2008, 03:02 AM

The corporate giant Mattel has crushed its only competition to Barbie's throne in a courtroom! Whatever you think becomes the intellectual property of your employer! My avatar approves.

J'onn J'onzz

12-05-2008, 08:27 AM

That Diva Starz thing looks awful and just like Bratz, Josh. Are you sure it "portrayed girls in a positive light"?

Toon Capone

12-05-2008, 10:01 AM

So I guess Mattel thinks they are the only company that can make dolls for girls?

It seems to me that Mattel just didn't like the fact that they had competition.

dendawg

12-05-2008, 11:04 AM

It seems to me that Mattel just didn't like the fact that they had competition.

That, and the fact that the guy who designed Bratz was working for Mattel at the time he came up with the initial designs for them. :shrug:

Zeonic Freak

12-05-2008, 12:51 PM

Well, Mattel has lost lawsuits before.

Mattel sued Aqua over the Barbie Girl song, only to find the judge went in favor for Aqua and threw the case out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbie_Girl#Mattel.27s_lawsuit

Mattel's lawsuit

Mattel sued the band, saying they violated the Barbie trademark and turned Barbie into a sex object, referring to her as a "Blonde (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumb_blonde) Bimbo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bimbo)."[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbie_Girl#cite_note-2) They alleged the song had violated their copyrights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright) and trademarks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark) of Barbie, and that its lyrics had tarnished the reputation of their trademark and impinged on their marketing plan. Aqua claimed that Mattel injected their own meanings into the song's lyrics and MCA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_Corporation_of_America) Records was not about to let their hit single be suppressed without a fight. They contested Mattel's claims and countersued for defamation after Mattel had likened MCA to a bank robber.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbie_Girl#cite_note-3)
Aqua - Barbie Girl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Barbie_girl_aqua.ogg) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/extensions/OggHandler/play.png

listen to a clip from the song.
Problems listening to the files? See media help (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Media_help). The lawsuit filed by Mattel was dismissed by the lower courts, and this dismissal was upheld, though Mattel took their case up to the Supreme Court of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) (Mattel's appeal was later rejected). In 2002, Judge Alex Kozinski (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Kozinski) ruled the song was protected as a parody (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parody) under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution), and also threw out the defamation lawsuit that Aqua's record company filed against Mattel. Kozinski concluded his ruling by saying, "The parties are advised to chill."[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbie_Girl#cite_note-4) The case was dismissed, and in the process, it garnered lots of media attention for the song and the band.
Seriously, i like to hear a judge say "Chill out" to both parties in a courtroom...

veemonjosh

12-05-2008, 04:51 PM

That Diva Starz thing looks awful and just like Bratz, Josh. Are you sure it "portrayed girls in a positive light"?

Well, much more positive than Bratz, but that wasn't exactly hard to do.

I still find it hilarious how one of the Diva Starz was basically written off the toyline as having say "Screw you guys, I'm going to go help some dolphins" and was never heard from again. Seriously, that's the most hilariously random way to write off a character since Poochie.

zimbach

12-05-2008, 08:31 PM

This is why, as a creative professional, whether you're a toy designer or comic book artist or whatever, you must do whatever you can to keep out of a "work for hire" situation.

Stick with creator-owned properties. It's the right thing to do.

tdifan88

12-05-2008, 10:45 PM

All Star Blitz

12-06-2008, 12:36 AM

So it's a non-compete clause with a little spice of the Ty beanie baby case with the cow/pigs?

What was this about?

Mek

12-06-2008, 08:10 PM

Wow.

That was certainly unexpected.

KPTitan

12-07-2008, 06:51 PM

Bratz are going away forever and infinity and beyond?....YES!!!:D :D Those dolls were SO annoying....and little sluts too. Does this mean that they'll remove other Bratz merchandise other than the dolls themselves, like the games and movies?

Bratz dolls with their huge lips give Angelina Jolie a bad name....IMO.

Master Moron

12-08-2008, 01:19 AM

I think that's kind of harsh. I don't think a person's opinion about how dolls affect kids makes them mentally challenged. Besides that, I believe that there have been studies where people found how much Barbie affect girls' self-image. Obviously, that doesn't happen to every girl with a Barbie, or a Bratz doll for that matter, but it can happen. Anyway, I'm glad that those dolls are banned. They were so unbelievably ugly with their make-up, terrible clothes and lip-injected lips.

Wait a minute, you're constantly saying how you don't want companies to lose money and go under because of all the poor workers who will lose their jobs, but you're glad the dolls are banned? Do you have any idea how much money MGA could lose from this?

Jtaylor1

12-08-2008, 10:42 PM

Doesn't that mean there's going to be a recall on Bratz, since they're now banned?

Light Lucario

12-08-2008, 11:01 PM

Wait a minute, you're constantly saying how you don't want companies to lose money and go under because of all the poor workers who will lose their jobs, but you're glad the dolls are banned? Do you have any idea how much money MGA could lose from this?

That's true and I actually didn't think of that when I first heard of the news. I just went with my immediate reaction. Like most others here, I always thought that the dolls were creepy and ugly. I've often thought that they were worse than Barbie in terms of . It is a shame that MGA could lose a lot of money from this and I hope that people don't lose their jobs over this. I'm also in favor of companies changing instead of going under and losing people's jobs. Perhaps this will give MGA the chance to develop a better idea for a doll line, even though that will take time as well, but change doesn't happen overnight either.

Yash

12-08-2008, 11:28 PM

Federal Judge Sides With Mattel, Bans Bratz
http://s6.photobucket.com/albums/y217/Yashouzoid/th_servingupsmiles.jpg

Jave

12-09-2008, 12:54 AM

That's true and I actually didn't think of that when I first heard of the news. I just went with my immediate reaction. Like most others here, I always thought that the dolls were creepy and ugly. I've often thought that they were worse than Barbie in terms of . It is a shame that MGA could lose a lot of money from this and I hope that people don't lose their jobs over this. I'm also in favor of companies changing instead of going under and losing people's jobs. Perhaps this will give MGA the chance to develop a better idea for a doll line, even though that will take time as well, but change doesn't happen overnight either.Make a bad product, and you deserve to lose your job. It's how business works everywhere.

Daxdiv

12-09-2008, 01:03 AM

Make a bad product, and you deserve to lose your job. It's how business works everywhere.

That how you learn from your mistake. You don't tip 15% the waitress if she was incompetent, she needs to learn her lesson.

Bubblegum Girl

12-09-2008, 01:21 AM

Good. I never like those dolls. It just screamed "Slutz" to me. And why would anyone use a term that refers to spoiled rotten kids(I'm talking about the word "Bratz") as a name for a toy?

EinBebop

12-09-2008, 06:33 AM

Make a bad product, and you deserve to lose your job. It's how business works everywhere.If it was a bad product, it never would have gotten off the ground and those people wouldn't have had jobs in the first place. It was a good product; that's why Mattel literally sued their @@@ off- to keep it out of competition.

Silverstar

12-09-2008, 08:31 AM

If (Bratz) was a bad product, it never would have gotten off the ground and those people wouldn't have had jobs in the first place. It was a good product; that's why Mattel literally sued their @@@ off- to keep it out of competition.

That's why I don't think that the Bratz are truly gone for good; too much was sank into the franchise for it just go away in a puff of smoke like that. In truth, Bratz dolls disappearing off the face of the Earth is really a worst case scenario. Knowing capitalism, it's likely that MGA will make some sort of side deal with Mattel so that the dolls can continue to be made, but with Mattel receiving the profit.

Matt Hazuda

12-09-2008, 08:58 AM

Make a bad product, and you deserve to lose your job. It's how business works everywhere.So what you're saying is that all those employees who will be laid off as a result of bad decision making way above them should be punished for the sins of their bosses?

Wow, you're a monster.

Jave

12-09-2008, 09:45 AM

My reply to Light Lucario was more of a general statement rather than in regards to the Bratz dolls, and I'm perfectly aware of Bratz's success. I never said that employees should be punished for others' mistakes (in this case, they were more than likely simply following orders), but I do believe that when a person makes a mistake for a company, said person needs to be fired and replaced with someone more competent.

Wow, you're a monster.I'll take that as a compliment. ;)

Kitschensyngk

12-10-2008, 10:34 AM

Moral of the story?

DON'T SCREW WITH BARBIE.

Lavenderpaw

12-10-2008, 11:59 AM

I thought that this was interesting and I wanted to post it here (http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/04/news/companies/bratz_dolls.ap/index.htm?postversion=2008120406). Mattel just won their case against MGA Entertainment and a federal judge has ordered production of Bratz to cease and that all of the dolls be taken off of the shelves after the holiday season. It appears that Barbie is going to have less competition next year.

What brats. :sweat:

Radical Raven

12-10-2008, 03:56 PM

Wow. The amount of negative responses here is hilarious. I am so amazed that the adults on this board are glad that a childrens toy has been canceled:sad: .

Seriouslyy people, it;s a TOY. The most intelligent thing I've seen in this thread was that the dolls dressed inappropriately, but even thats a pretty weak argument. And if the doll was so ugly, then wouldn't that discourage children from getting depressed and self-conscious?

If any toy deserves a ban (on MORAl grounds, I mean) it's Barbie. It seems like I've heard of a lot stories about children getting self-conscious due to the "perfect girl" that Barbie has come to be synonomus with. The Bratz were always highly unrealistic-like a cartoon character.

Scorpio_G

12-10-2008, 06:22 PM

Wow...

Co Freaking sign. If I can rep you I would. :)

Master Moron

12-10-2008, 10:14 PM

Co Freaking sign. If I can rep you I would. :)

Hmmmm...ToonZone should get a rep system. I'm going to suggest that in the Feedback and Suggestions forum.

Jave

12-10-2008, 11:48 PM

Wow. The amount of negative responses here is hilarious. I am so amazed that the adults on this board are glad that a childrens toy has been canceled:sad: .You know, I can understand why an adult would be glad they're banned. The dolls don't send the best message, and while I wouldn't participate on anything to get them banned, I wouldn't want my kids with one of those.

Seriouslyy people, it;s a TOY. The most intelligent thing I've seen in this thread was that the dolls dressed inappropriately, but even thats a pretty weak argument. And if the doll was so ugly, then wouldn't that discourage children from getting depressed and self-conscious?No, I don't think so.

If any toy deserves a ban (on MORAl grounds, I mean) it's Barbie. It seems like I've heard of a lot stories about children getting self-conscious due to the "perfect girl" that Barbie has come to be synonomus with. The Bratz were always highly unrealistic-like a cartoon character.So you find it hilarious that people are happy because a TOY got banned, yet you have no problem claiming why another TOY should be banned as well?

http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff133/onionethan/onion_Emoticons/052_.gif
See what I did there?

Zeonic Freak

12-11-2008, 01:20 PM

Make a bad product, and you deserve to lose your job. It's how business works everywhere.

I think if you make something bad, people lose their jobs, but they shouldnt "deserve" to lose their jobs.

If you get paid to make some god awful toy, at least that slutty toy is putting food on the table, running electricity, and paying a roof over your head.

Where im at now, theres a good portion of the population in this county are unemployed since certain factories here have laid off people. You just take what you can get.

I think if someone really did deserve to lose their job, it would be the worker, not the product themselves...

Radical Raven

12-11-2008, 05:01 PM

You know, I can understand why an adult would be glad they're banned. The dolls don't send the best message, and while I wouldn't participate on anything to get them banned, I wouldn't want my kids with one of those.

No, I don't think so.

So you find it hilarious that people are happy because a TOY got banned, yet you have no problem claiming why another TOY should be banned as well?

http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff133/onionethan/onion_Emoticons/052_.gif
See what I did there?

Indeed:sweat: . Obviously, I should have phrased myself better.

...O.K, after some thinking:

I don't think Barbie should be banned. It's not hurting anyone by existing; any child that is made too self-conscious by a doll simply needs to be talked to, needs someone to explain that it (Barbie) is a toy, it's plastic (I'm going to try to avoid the word "therapy" here) and that she (or he, maybe) is beatiful in a way Barbie will never be able to be (or, y'know, something along those lines). I hate to sound like a Freud here, but I think parents might just deserve to be blamed a bit more.

Regarding Bratz; I definitly understand that the franchise was started on a terrible premise. The name summarizes it; I remember there was a time during.... my 5th grade, I think, when children constantly bragged about being spoiled, and about how they could get their parents to buy them anything they wanted. The Bratz dolls were based solely on these spoiled girls, a fact that was half-assedly covered up by replacing an "s" with a "Z"

But as it became more mainstream, the company took steps to change this view. The dolls became more mainstream, an explanation was given for the ridiculous name, and the franchise slowly evolved into something that, rather then encouraging sluttiness and greed, encouraged individuality. At this point, by the time it is getting banned, the dolls have almost no connection with actual "brats" (except for the fact that a couple brats may beg for a couple Bratz, but thats the problem with every toyline).

Plus, a lot of the responses in this thread showed none of your reasoning in being happy over the dolls getting banned; it seems like a whole lot of eight year old boys, happy because their little sister's gonna lose her favorite toy.

O.K., I'm done.

Jave

12-11-2008, 05:51 PM

But as it became more mainstream, the company took steps to change this view. The dolls became more mainstream, an explanation was given for the ridiculous name, and the franchise slowly evolved into something that, rather then encouraging sluttiness and greed, encouraged individuality. At this point, by the time it is getting banned, the dolls have almost no connection with actual "brats" (except for the fact that a couple brats may beg for a couple Bratz, but thats the problem with every toyline).They did? I've seen the dolls in the shelves quite some times and I never noticed any real difference through the years. But this is likely because I'm not interested personally in dolls, so I'll take your word for it.

But even then, if they wanted to get away from that image, wouldn't have it been wiser to just change the name and rebrand the doll line? What was the explanation thay gave for the name?

Radical Raven

12-11-2008, 06:21 PM

They did? I've seen the dolls in the shelves quite some times and I never noticed any real difference through the years. But this is likely because I'm not interested personally in dolls, so I'll take your word for it.

But even then, if they wanted to get away from that image, wouldn't have it been wiser to just change the name and rebrand the doll line? What was the explanation thay gave for the name?

I have a younger sister*, and we share a room, so every other saturday the channel flipped to 4KidsTV. The explanation given for the name, and it's sorta contrived, was that two mean girls called the girls brats, so they decided to be shakespearean and adopt that as their official name, in an act of defiance. Y'know, sorta like homosexuals did with the word gay. It was a little weird, but the fact that they tried to change the meaning of the name at all says something, at least. And after they gave that explanation, it would'nt have made much sense to rebrand the doll line.

*I repeat YOUNGER SISTER. I-a fourteen year old male- have no personal interest whatsoever in the dolls. NONE.

Oh, leave me alone.