Intellectual property rights is among the many legal status formulated with the intention of promoting fair play in business environment as well as encouraging invention and innovation that have proved critical aspects in the business setup especially related to competition. The other critical law is the antitrust law that has both encouraged fair competition in the market and business environment that have proved relevant that benefits and takes care of the consumers interest as well as the businesses whether small or big. Intellectual property has provided legal statutes that have encouraged innovation and invention by individuals and businesses that have enhanced competition and creativity in the business environment (Hylton, 2016). The two legal statutes of the antitrust law and intellectual property laws have, thus, complemented each other improving the business environment despite the fact that some have pointed out and analyzed some factors between the two legal business concepts that have contrasted each other. Intellectual property is displayed through a variety of options recognized by the legal statutes that include the copyright, patents, trademarks, industrial designs, trade secrets as well as the geographical indication are among the most common legal attributes in which intellectual property rights is executed in the business environment (Andersen, 2006). They have impacted businesses positively encouraging invention and innovation due to the many business benefits related to them that are backed by legal statutes.
2. Nature of Case
The case involved two companies that manufacture dolls and related entertainment gadgets. It is among the few cases that have spent much time in the corridors of justice each party claiming legal damages and related compensation that are guided by the intellectual propriety rights statutes. The nature of the case between MGA Entertainment and Mattel involved trade secrets as well as copyright issues in the intellectual property legal status. The MGA Entertainment (Bratz) vs. Mattel (Barbie) involves two rival companies created at different times. A former employee of Mattel created the Bratz dolls after leaving the company and started his own company that offered the real competition to the Mattel that was initially dominant player in the doll market commanding a large proportion of the market. Mattel claimed that the Bratz idea and dolls was its original idea and owned it as the employee at the time that designed and came up with the concept was still employed by the company. On the contrary, Carter Bryant claims that he made the drawings and designs of the multi-ethnic and hip-hop inspired dolls after he had left the company and it is not as the Mattel puts it. The case, thus, notes Mattel arguing that Bryant violated the trade secrets under the intellectual property rights as he was the employee of the company at the time that he designed the Bratz dolls and the idea, thus, is fully owned and belongs to the company (Mattel). The Brats designs and name according to Mattel, thus, are considered trade secrets that Carter Bryant of MGA created while still in the payroll of Mattel. The case has been going on for many years close to decade that has also witnessed strange legal rulings and decisions regarding the case that the latest verdicts and ruling have only seen the lawyers involved emerging victorious with hefty legal compensation as opposed to the two parties that had the legal battle (Cushing, 2013).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
3. Facts of Case
Mattel Company is a leading player in the doll market that commands a huge market base. Carter Bryant of MGA once worked for Mattel Company. It is difficult to say the exact time that the idea was developed and generated either by Mattel or MGA making the lawsuit challenging in giving a ruling and making decisions because of the failure of the Plaintiff- Appellant to provide enough evidence about the case. The case has revolved around the corridors of justice for many years, noting counter claims flying from both ends (Weinberg, 2013). There are several courts involved in the case that has made contrasting legal decisions in relation to the case that some have been reversed or altered at one time or the other by superior courts as well as initial junior courts Making and prolonging the legal case for that long.
4. Held or Analysis (Rationale, Court Holding, etc.)
At one time in the case, the court rule for the Plaintiff- Appellant and ordered the MGA company to provide all the future lines plans about the Bratz dolls line of their business. The decisions were reversed by the lower court and later re-reversed by the original court that has made what some have described as a legal drama that involved the intellectual property rights in the in contemporary times. The alteration and reversing the decision and re-reversing the decision has left many puzzled on the legal statutes and clauses that allow such decisions made. The final decisions made and reached by the U.S Court of appeal on the ninth circuit awarded MGA $ 170 million trade secret award. Also, the attorney fees as had been reached at in the previous rulings were left intact and untouched making the attorney legal fees described as the largest in the US history related to copyrights infringement (Bostwick, 2009). The main reasons the case was against the Plaintiff- Appellant Mattel Company was because it was difficult to prove that the idea and concept were stolen from them because they had no proof or any evidence to support such claims. If they had produced or started the production of the Bratz earlier and were in their chains of business, the copyright infringement case would have been easier to link and point out the legal facts with supported evidence. However, because they had not taken any actions prior to that, linking MGA with infringement as noted in the case becomes challenging. Secondly, there as high likelihood and possibility of the company to retaliate against the employee who left the company and ventured into their business that has provided rivalry and competition. It gives the Defendant–Cross–Appellant more room to maneuver and present counter legal claims and defense because of the rivalry and competition that business has brought as well as the retaliation that the company might have as a result of losing the employee. It is also imperative to note that the market for dolls had not been liberated and more competitive prior to such actions and start of the legal case.
5. Conclusion
The intellectual property rights vary in many forms that are legally supported by law that has provided a broad spectrum in which such legal rights can be expressed as noted in the case above. It, hence, requires enough proof and evidence for one party to come up successful and, thus, get the legal rights and benefits that come with the intellectual property rights. In the above-noted case, there were legal gaps that made it difficult for the case and in particular the Plaintiff- Appellant Mattel Company to successfully present their intellectual property rights case that touched on the trade secrets (trade name and product designs). It is, thus, imperative for companies or individuals that present intellectual property rights cases in courts to draw an extensive evidence and proof in order to increase the chance of such legal cases ending up successful.
References
Andersen, B. (2006). Intellectual Property Rights: Innovation, Governance and the Institutional Environment. C heltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Bostwick, H. (2009). “Top 5 Intellectual Property Disputes.” LEGAL ZOOM . July, nd. Retrieved from https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/top-5-intellectual-property-disputes
Cushing, T. (2013). “It's Finally Over: 8 Years Of Mattel vs. Bratz And No One's Getting Paid But The Lawyers.” Jan 29. TECHDIRT . Retrieved from https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121019/17344420768/its-finally-over-8-years-mattel-vs-bratz-no-ones-getting-paid-lawyers.shtml
Hylton, K. N. (2016). Roger Blair and Intellectual Property. Antitrust Bulletin , 61(3), 376-381
Weinberg, D. ( 2013). “Barbie v. Bratz: The never-ending court battle.” Jan 25. MARKET PLACE.ORG . Retrieved from https://www.marketplace.org/2013/01/25/business/barbie-v-bratz-never-ending-court-battle
