Mattel, Inc. v. MGA Entertainment, Inc. Barbie vs. Bratz Mattel, Inc. v. MGA Entertainment, Inc.

Non-Compete Clause Anything created during time of employment belonged to employer. Prohibits employee from working with competitor Must be fair to employee

Intellectual Property Creations of the mind Intangible property Inventions Artistic works Symbols Names Images Designs

Facts of Case Carter Brant was a Mattel employee He designed Barbie clothing He signed an employment contract with a non-compete clause He designed Bratz dolls and sold the design to MGA Mattel claimed ownership to Bratz because Brant was a Mattel employee when he designed the Bratz doll

Facts Continues In 2004 Mattel sued MGA & Brant for the rights to Bratz Brant settled with Mattel for $2 Million before the first trial was finished. Case was in and out of the court system for 8 years!

Court Decision Trial Court (1st round): Mattel won Appeal (2nd round): MGA won and case was sent back to trial court Round 3: Mattel won Case went back and forth several times between the 2 companies for 8 years! (Brant settled and was out of the court cases.)

Final Outcome Mattel was awarded $10,000 Mattel spent $700 million in court costs Executives from Mattel were more interested in sending out a message to employees THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO GOT RICH WERE THE LAWYERS!

Lesson Learned: Employment contract must have specific terms! Encourage employees to present new ideas/inventions!