Barbie v. Bratz

Springfield-area resident Carter Bryant's Bratz dolls creation was the centerpiece of a jury's decision in a highly publicized seven-year copyright infringement suit between his former employers, toy giant Mattel Inc. (NYSE: MAT) and MGA Entertainment Inc.

Mattel, based in El Segundo, Calif., emerged victorious in a 2008 trial against Van Nuys, Calif.-based MGA that claimed Carter developed the idea for Bratz while still employed as a designer by the makers of Barbie and Ken dolls. Mattel was awarded a $100 million judgment against privately owned MGA, but the case was later overturned by California’s 9th District Court of Appeals. That decision led to a January retrial, Mattel Inc. v. MGA Entertainment, in Santa Ana, Calif., which entered closing arguments April 8. (See the jury's decision in sidebar at right.)

Bryant reportedly got the idea for the voluptuous diva dolls driving past Kickapoo High School while on break with Mattel in 1998. He noticed girls wearing baggy jeans and wanted to create a doll that accurately represented modern teenagers, Bryant told the Wall Street Journal in 2008. He returned to work for Mattel in 1999, and stayed until 2000, but never shared the idea for the dolls that brought MGA $500 million in 2008 revenue alone.

The catfight
The Bratz line took off in 2001 and 2002 and cut into Barbie’s market share, setting the table for the legal battle, in which Mattel has spent $10.7 million in attorneys’ fees, the Los Angeles Times reported.

Bryant, who through his California attorney declined Springfield Business Journal’s interview request, testified in court in January after having previously settled with Mattel for $2 million on the eve of the first trial. While working for Mattel, Bryant signed a contract prohibiting him from taking ideas to or working on projects for competitors. MGA has argued that even if
Bryant worked on the dolls while he was a Mattel employee, he did so on his own time, outside of work.

When asked in court about the inventions agreement, Bryant said, “I don’t think I had a real clear concept of this contract during my employment. I don’t think it was ever explained to me fully. … I think I thought that the thoughts that I had on my own time were my thoughts and didn’t necessarily belong to anyone else,” according to a Los Angeles Times article that followed the testimony.

Bryant is not a defendant in the retrial.

Also testifying in the case was Kickapoo Assistant Principal Sara Odom. She flew to Los Angeles this year on behalf of Mattel as a neutral witness to testify in the retrial after having provided a deposition in the 2008 trial.

Odom worked as a Kickapoo teacher in the late 1990s, when Bryant was said to have hatched the Bratz idea.

“It’s my understanding that Mr. Bryant had indicated he had gotten the idea for the Bratz dolls when he was no longer employed by Mattel and that he was here in the Ozarks living with his parents,” Odom said. “He was driving by Kickapoo at dismissal time and saw how the kids were dressed and just had an idea for the dolls and, so, Kickapoo students are apparently the model for the Bratz dolls. The attorneys wanted to see what students looked like at the time in question.”

Odom supplied the courtroom Kickapoo yearbooks 1997–99.

Attempts to interview Mattel and MGA representatives were unsuccessful. Mattel spokeswoman Heather Wilson said the company was withholding comment until the jury reached its verdict.

In the last year, Barbie has remained a bright spot for Mattel. Revenue from the Barbie line was up 14 percent during first-quarter 2011, the doll’s sixth consecutive quarter of sales growth. Revenue for Mattel rose 8 percent to $951.9 million in the quarter, beating analyst predictions of $905.1 million, according to www.mattel.com.

Those who know him
Bryant’s attorney, Peter Bonis, of Walnut Creek, Calif., said his soft-spoken client spent five days on the stand, and the ordeal took a toll on him.

“It was horrible for him. He’s a very nice guy. He’s an artistic genius. That’s not to say he’s a prima donna, because he’s actually not,” Bonis said. “Let’s put it this way, you know the old quote about law and sausage – ‘You shouldn’t watch either one being made.’ This was just children behaving badly, and it was hard on him.”

He said the Bratz creator, who grew up in Orange County and moved to the Springfield area in 2007, is no longer working for MGA but has not given up on the doll business.

“He’s designing some other stuff, including another doll line,” Bonis said, declining to elaborate.

Gary Smith, owner of Springfield-based Nottingham Recording/Table Rock Records & Productions, said Bryant and his sister, Angie, have been working for two years on a blues and folk-rock album, called “Love Alive.” Smith said he and Bryant have never talked about the suit, and he enjoyed working with Bryant in the studio.

“This is not the place for that,” Smith said, adding that he’d meet with Bryant every three or four months to work on the album. “He’s a very busy person.”

Smith hasn’t spoken with Bryant in more than six months.
 
Decision awaits
If deliberating jurors in the civil case take a nod from those who reversed the 2008 decision, the result could please MGA.

In the Circuit Court opinion, Judge Alex Kozinski wrote that the law does not stand opposed to those who expand on a good idea.

“Assuming that Mattel owns Bryant’s preliminary drawings and sculpt, its copyrights in the works would cover only its particular expression of the bratty-doll idea, not the idea itself,” Konzinski wrote. “Otherwise, the first person to express any idea would have a monopoly over it. Degas can’t prohibit other artists from painting ballerinas, and Charlaine Harris can’t stop Stephenie Meyer from publishing “Twilight” just because Sookie came first. Similarly, MGA was free to look at Bryant’s sketches and say, ‘Good idea! We want to create bratty dolls too.’”[[In-content Ad]]