Whether you are a Bratz fan or not, you have to admit that the dolls have become an iconic part of our culture. As with most other popular products, the dolls are also subject to intellectual property issues. If you are planning to buy a Bratz doll head for your child, you must take into account the fact that you might be sued if you use it without permission.
Be-Bratz
Using a USB key, owners can customize their Be-Bratz doll’s look. They can choose to name their doll, play games with it, and even create an online social homepage for it.
Bratz is a fashion doll line created by MGA Entertainment. The original dolls were introduced in May 2001 and have since sold more than 125 million units worldwide. They were designed for younger girls and sold in themed environments.
The doll line also features accessories such as a pet, Petz. These accessories have a range of personalities and resemble the dolls.
They are also an educational tool for children. They have an estimated 1.7 trillion views on user-generated content. This is more than 12 times the amount generated by the Barbie brand.
In 2005, Bratz sales topped $2 billion. The brand’s popularity soared, especially among the elementary school crowd. However, Mattel sued MGA for $500 million in December 2006. MGA Entertainment and CEO Isaac Larian were found liable in court for converting the property of Mattel.
Yasmin Styling Head
Touted as a brat by the masses, the Bratz sextet (stexts) have migrated on to bigger and better pastures. The novelty has lasted the test of time. The most notable departed are Yasmin and Raya. The other dudes have gotten a bit sexier since their sextet days. A few new additions have joined the gang. In the grand scheme of things, one of them is probably the most eligible bachelors in the house. The others are the more mature types. The most obvious offspring is the sibling of the original pair, who in turn is responsible for the newest member of the family. Having said that, the thorny issue is the question of when to start dating. The best time of year to start your quest is summertime. The best time of day to start your dating life is early evening. To avoid a tumultuous relationship, a small amount of sex education may be in order.
Re-Bratz
Initially, Bratz dolls were meant to compete with Barbie. Their big heads and pouty lips made them stand out from the rest. They were also made of bendable vinyl, allowing them to move their legs and limbs. They came in skimpy outfits, chunky-heeled shoes, and shiny eye shadows.
But they were met with mixed reactions. They failed to get good ratings, and they were discontinued in 2008. In 2015, Mattel decided to put the Bratz line on hiatus for a year. It was later relaunched in July 2015. The line is being sold through Amazon.
They also launched a line of nice girls, including a set of twins. They also released supplements to promote the line.
The dolls have various skin colors, which give them a unique look. They are often described as “urban”. They are 10 inches tall, with big lips and eyelashes. They are shaped like a V.
Eventually, they were able to attract a variety of markets, including a DVD version of their CGI-animated TV series, Bratz: Rock Angelz. The series was later re-released by Lionsgate.
Intellectual-property issues
Several years ago, Mattel Inc. faced a difficult situation: Its famous Barbie doll was losing ground to a rival company. It alleged that the competitor had stolen Mattel’s ideas and trade secrets.
Mattel accused MGA Entertainment of violating a contract signed by Carter Bryant, a former designer for the company. The company said that MGA stole Bratz doll concepts while Bryant was working for the company.
The case lasted nearly a decade, with hundreds of millions of dollars involved. The case centered on whether the Bratz dolls infringed Mattel’s intellectual property rights. It was also a battle over gender issues.
A key issue arose regarding the extent of copyright protection for the prototype. The lower court concluded that the dolls were not infringing.
In the appeal, the Ninth Circuit remanded the case for a new trial. It found that the lower court’s construction of the agreement was erroneous. It ruled that the concept of the doll was not protected as a trade secret.