‘Mothers Don’t Lie’ and Other Conclusions From the Barbie-Bratz Closings
Ending a six-week doll-fight that included a lawyer-squabble over historic hotel rooms, lawyers from Quinn Emanuel and Skadden Arps faced off for the final time yesterday in the case of Mattel v. MGA (a/k/a Barbie v. Bratz) — a litigation that stretches back to 2004. In today’s LAT, David Colker covers the closing arguments.
Mattel, represented by Quinn Emanuel’s John Quinn, accuses MGA of essentially stealing the idea for Bratz dolls, and is trying to seize ownership of the Bratz line. Mattel says Carter Bryant, the designer who sold the Bratz idea to MGA, dreamed up the doll while still under contract with Mattel. MGA says Bryant conceived Bratz between two stints at Mattel. MGA, rep’d by Skadden’s Tom Nolan, denies wrongdoing, and accuses Mattel in a separate suit of copying Bratz. (Before the trial began, Bryant and Mattel reached an undisclosed settlement. Bryant has reportedly earned more than $30 million on the Bratz line.)
“For 40 years Barbie was the only doll in town,” said Skadden’s Nolan (pictured, right) in his closing. “And then Bratz came in and knocked her off her pedestal.”
Quinn (pictured, left) countered that MGA knew of Bryant’s contract when it committed to developing the Bratz line. “They helped him because they needed a successful product,” Quinn said. “MGA was with him every step of the way.”
Nolan, referring to Mattel’s attempt to discredit the honesty of Bryant’s mother and his life partner, both of whom testified that the designer showed them Bratz drawings in 1998, told the jury: “That’s not evidence,” MGA’s Nolan snarled at one point. “That’s drama.” He reportedly added: “Mothers don’t lie.”
Then Quinn: “Mr. Bryant’s mom sees him through the filter of the greatest love you can have for someone. We are saying her testimony should not change yours.”
After this case, maybe Mattel should use Barbie’s full name, Barbed Wire. Mattel does not play nice.
Hey Faustus, if they’re making the doll after the Barbed Wire movie with Pamela Anderson, I’ll have two!!
Well the case is simple isn’t it since Mattel told at least one expert witness to leave out relevant facts that did not help Mattel, who knows what other nasty stuff they did. I wouldn’t believe any of their “proof”. They are disgusting people who are throwing jealous hissy fit.
Mother’s will do ANYTHING to protect their offspring!
Can anyone honestly say they know of no mother that has lied to protect her children?… I agree Sue… this entire case sounds like Carter tried to scam Mattel and make some money on the side. Disgruntled employee’s never cease to amaze me at how low they will go. Why didn’t he just promote the idea with Mattel? If they refused, then he had the right to promote it elsewhere. Why didn’t he get a patent for his designs if they were so “original” and not done on Mattel’s dime? I don’t trust this guy. I am sure the jury will see right thru him.
“his life partner”
Shocking!
Wow you lie like Mattel. Mattel is the bully. Oh you probably work for Mattel if you are employed at all.
Anonymous, Mga is a bully who ruthlessly manipulated the market? It was Mattel who bought up all the doll hair from MGA’s suppliers so there would be no hair available for Bratz. They had to scramble for doll hair. Then Mattel copied Bratz by putting out the “My Scene” dolls and sent e-mail around saying they were going to litigate MGA to death.
Besides, if you’ve had a look at the original sketches, it’s clear that the final product does not look like the sketches. The clothes do, but not the doll. No big lips and eyes. MGA did some original stuff here.
I completely agree with Anonymous. Had MGA ever played by the rules, Mr. Bratz wouldn’t be SO about to lose his shirt right now. How the dolls turned out is irrelevant. That’s like saying if you gank someone’s car, paint it, then sell it, it wasn’t really his car in the first place. Please.
find friends that aren’t imaginary
MATTEL IS SLOWLY, NOW QICKLY, PUSHING THE SMALL DEALERS OUT WITH THEIR RAISING OF THE WHOLESALE BARBIE PRICES AND LOWERING THE RETAIL THROUGH THEIR FREE NATIONWIDE BARBIE COLLECTORS PLUS THEIR ONLINE BARBIE COLLECORS. THEY ARE BULLYING THE DEALERS, SO WHY NOT BULLY MGA TO MAKE MORE MONEY. BYLLY FOR YOU FOR EXPOSING THEM ALL!!!!!
GOOD LUCK TO THE CREDITABLE!!!
I would be surprised if Mattel didn’t win this round…
isaac larian is a modest, generous, and hard working man. Mattel is banging on the wrong door. They think they can bully this family owned company because they have the leverage of money and power, which they have used to their advantage before…but now the titan will fall.
I like how you pretend to be more than one person. You are truly insane. THANK YOU FOR GOING DOWN IN HISTORY AS WHAT NOT TO BE.
I beleive this all comes down to common sense… If there wasn’t something wrong with the origination of the “Bratz” idea, why did Carter have to sneak aroundin the design phase? I am very suspicious about his intentions and if I were on the jury, I would vote in favor of Mattel. I agre with an earlier post here that said, IF this was not done on Mattel’s clock, why didn’t Carter Bryant get lawyers and patent his ideas? He is in the industry, he knows the rules, and I beleive he did this intentionally behind the back of his employer to make a quick buck.
They are very correct whatever they say. Its like Glyphius while dealing with moms when the and can be compared with website maintenance.
i
Mattel is HORRIBLE. They will do anything that they can to take over the Bratz. That’s not going to happen. MGA has better products and Mattel cannot handle competition. Instead of trying to sue, they should just concentrate on creating more princess dolls to bombard the toy shelves with. MGA will WIN!
You make as much sense as Mattel
Clean this mess up. This is a disgrace.
After reading all these articles, the case is clear. Mattel wants to claim ownership of something that is not theirs. They never had to deal with doll competition until Bratz dolls came into the market, and this litigation became their only solution. This is a classic example of a huge corporation taking any steps necessary to eliminate another company and the people who dare to compete with them. Mattel is just trying to eliminate competition and the consumers’ choices. I read an article that said Mattel’s CEO, Bob Eckert, recruited employees from other toy companies and had no problem with it. What a double standard. Mattel really is a bully and what kind of fun is that for a toy company to be?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=n–J-JGrXgU
Enough said.
Mattel is a horrible place to work. They slave their employees to death, have horrendous turn-over and live in constant fear of the Bratz line and MGA. They are trying to make $$$ to which they are not deserved of. Go MGA, you will win this one.
Woohooo! Victory!!!!!!!!
Justice is sweet! BTW - Fortune magazine named Mattel as 1 of the 100 best companies to work for. There is a reason for this prestigious distinction.
There are laws in the US that protect businesses from saboteurs like Carter Bryant. Perhaps MGA CEO should go back to Iran and market his dolls there. I’m sure the government there would love his chaste dolls.
the last comment shows the level of I’ll be nice, mental thinking some people have
HA HA! SKADDEN LOSES!!! HA HA!!!!
Isaac Larian is notorious for having no ethics or morals. He will sign a contract and breach it the next day, and then question your gullibility for being stupid enough to believe him. Just ask the HUNDREDS of people who have sued him… word is he may be brought up on personal fraud charges for all the shenanigans relating to this case and others.
Larian is nothing but a common thief. He pulled the same thing with his cousins in the electronics business, in order to avoid fraud charges he agreed to get out of that business and started MGEA, after he realized what he had on his hands he kicked his brother out and they were in a nasty lawsuit. He is a immoral common thief, he has never had one original idea in his life and he uses and abuses anyone he can for personal gain. He got and will continue to get what he deserves.
