February 7, 2012

Bratz Hitz Back at Mattel

It’s football season, so apparently it’s time to trot out the old adage about the best defense being a good offense. This time in the ever-lasting Barbie vs. Bratz fight that we’ve reported on most recently here.

 
According to an article in Law.com, defendant MGA Entertainment, Inc. (the Bratz company), has filed a new counterclaim against Mattel (Barbie’s company) claiming racketeering and theft of trade secrets in connection with an alleged corporate espionage ring.
 
Among the claims is that Mattel executives used fake business cards to gain access to private toy showrooms of competitors. Those actions, according to MGA, allowed Mattel to assemble an “unparalleled library” of competitors’ plans and products, including products not yet on the market.
 
Mattel’s lawyers are understandably dismissive, calling MGA’s filing “second-rate tactics by desperate lawyers” and indicating that the counterclaim won’t survive the pleading stage.
 
At first blush, although styled a counterclaim, it’s hard to see how these counterclaims relate to the case at hand concerning MGA’s stealing the idea for Bratz dolls from Mattel.

Reprinted with permission from Womble Carlyle's Trade Secret's Blog located at:http://wombletradesecrets.blogspot.com/2010/08/bratz-hitz-back-at-mattel.html

 

Copyright © 2012 Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC. All Rights Reserved.

About the Author

Press is a trial attorney who has litigated a wide variety of antitrust and other complex business cases, including class actions, in federal and state courts throughout the United States. He has represented clients in numerous industries including pharmaceuticals, software, telecom, and retail. He achieves success for his clients in litigation by being ready, willing and able to take those cases to trial. Press has been named by Business North Carolina as one of its Legal Elite in both Antitrust and Litigation.

Press has represented both defendants and...

919-755-2135

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.