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

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

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

4. 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

5. 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!

6. 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.)

7. 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!

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