Mattel vs. MGA Entertainment: The Battle Over Bratz and the Boundaries of IP Ownership in Employment Contracts
The Mattel vs. MGA Entertainment case, initiated in 2004, centered around a dispute over ownership rights to the Bratz doll line, which was developed by Carter Bryant, a former Mattel employee. Mattel claimed the intellectual property belonged to them under the “work made for hire” doctrine, as Bryant was employed by Mattel when the concept was allegedly created. The protracted litigation, which involved claims of trade secret misappropriation and contractual breaches, ultimately concluded with MGA prevailing, retaining rights to the Bratz brand.
Legal Takeaways:
- Work Made for Hire and Assignment Clauses: This case underscores the importance of well-drafted employment agreements that include explicit work-for-hire and assignment of IP rights provisions to ensure that any work created during employment is owned by the employer.
- Litigation Risks and Evidentiary Challenges: Mattel’s inability to conclusively prove that the Bratz concept was developed within the scope of Bryant’s employment at Mattel highlights the evidentiary challenges inherent in such disputes and the importance of thorough documentation of IP development processes.
- IP Asset Due Diligence: Companies must conduct rigorous due diligence when acquiring IP or when new creative works are developed by employees or contractors, to avoid costly disputes over ownership.
–Esraa Sadek, Dec.2024
Get in Touch
Let’s Protect Your Ideas