Bratz dolls banned

I never heard of Bratz until now, but evidently Bratz is a line of dolls produced by MGA Entertainment which are sort of like Mattel's Barbie, only edgier.

Apparently, however, Mattel thinks it's the only company that should be allowed to make toy dolls. So it sued MGA to court over Bratz.

Mattel's complaint is that Bratz was conceived by a former employee while he was still working for Mattel, so MGA is illegally competing with them by making Bratz. According to the suit, MGA violated "contractual duties" that Mattel's former employee owed to Mattel.

The key word here of course is former. If you're no longer working for Mattel, how can you still be bound by a contract you made with the toy making giant?

Believe it or not, a federal court has ruled in favor of Mattel - and now the judge has ordered a ban on selling Bratz. This despite the fact that the current Bratz dolls bear no resemblance to Barbie strong enough to be considered copyright infringement.

That's right, folks, Bratz are banned. All because courts think it's their duty to protect Mattel from competition. It's almost like a bailout for Barbie.

Mattel seems to argue that because its employee thought of Bratz during the time he was working there, Bratz should belong to Mattel. That's like if the Campbell County Public Library files a suit claiming it owns The Last Word.

It's pretty sad when there's so much constipation over a toy doll that we have to be reduced to discussing it here. Blame Mattel for filing such a ridiculous suit, and the court for outlawing MGA's doll.

Incidentally this is not the first Barbie-related lawsuit by Mattel. They sued the band Aqua over its song "Barbie Girl", claiming trademark infringement - but Mattel lost. Mattel also lost when it sued an artist who created photographs of a Barbie doll in a blender.

But winning a suit just to quash competition sure is corporatism at its near-worst.

(Source: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6146368.html)