Judge upholds $100M Mattel verdict over Bratz
Business Law
A federal judge upheld a $100 million jury verdict Monday for Mattel Inc. in a lengthy legal battle over rights to the Bratz doll, a rival to Mattel's Barbie.
U.S. District Judge Stephen Larson also confirmed in his ruling late Monday that the Bratz doll — marketed by MGA Entertainment Inc. since 2001 — is Mattel property. He appointed a temporary federal receiver to take control of the Bratz brand and MGA's assets.
The receiver will decide who produces the doll and under what terms, but the order authorizes the receiver to maximize profits by "selling Bratz-branded dolls and other goods through appropriate channels of trade and distribution."
Mattel attorneys have said in court that the company is willing and able to produce Bratz dolls once receivership issues are sorted.
MGA President Isaac Larian said his company will appeal the ruling.
Mattel sued MGA in 2004, alleging that Bratz designer Carter Bryant developed the concept for the pouty-lipped doll while working for Mattel.
After a four-year legal dispute, a jury last year awarded Mattel $10 million for copyright infringement and $90 million for breach of contract.
After the verdict, Mattel sought to block MGA from ever making the Bratz dolls, and Larson ordered the company in December to end its sales in early 2009.
MGA argued that retailers would not order the toys unless the court could guarantee they would remain in stores through most of this year. MGA got a reprieve in January when Larson ruled that the dolls could remain in stores for the rest of the year.
He left open the possibility that Mattel or a court-appointed receiver could ultimately market the dolls this year.
A hearing is scheduled for May 18 to discuss whether the receivership should be made permanent.
Related listings
-
Industrial production drops more than expected
Business Law 04/15/2009Industrial production fell for the fifth straight month in March, the government said Wednesday, as companies cut output in order to clear stockpiles of goods. But economists expect that trend to moderate soon, as businesses bring inventories in line...
-
Ex-Qwest exec asks high court to delay prison term
Business Law 04/14/2009Former Qwest CEO Joseph Nacchio asked the Supreme Court on Monday to put off the start of his prison term for his conviction on insider-trading charges. His lawyers filed an emergency appeal with Justice Stephen Breyer after the federal appeals court...
-
US stocks surge on bank plan, rise in home sales
Business Law 03/23/2009Wall Street got the news it wanted and responded with a tremendous rally that propelled the Dow Jones industrials up nearly 500 points. Investors reignited the market's two-week rally, cheering the government's plan to help banks remove bad assets fr...
Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC
A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party
Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party
However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.