Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc.

Mattel v. MCA Records, 296 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2002), was a series of lawsuits between Mattel and MCA Records that resulted from the 1997 Aqua song, "Barbie Girl".[1] The case was ultimately dismissed.

Mattel v. MCA Records
CourtUnited States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Full case nameMattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc.
ArguedDecember 5, 2000
DecidedJuly 24, 2002
Citation(s)296 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2002)
Case history
Prior action(s)Appeal from C.D. Cal. (28 F.Supp.2d 1120)
Subsequent action(s)Request for certiorari, S.Ct.; denied (537 U.S. 1171).
Holding
Barbie Girl is protected as a parody under the trademark doctrine of nominative use and under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Court membership
Judge(s) sittingDorothy Nelson, Melvin Brunetti, Alex Kozinski
Case opinions
MajorityKozinski, joined by unanimous court
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend I; Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq)

Background

On December 5th 2000, Mattel sued MCA Records, the recording company of Aqua, saying the song violated the Barbie trademark and turned Barbie into a sex object, referring to her as a "Blonde Bimbo."[2] They alleged the song had violated their copyrights and trademarks of Barbie, and that its lyrics had tarnished the reputation of their trademark and impinged on their marketing plan. Mattel also claimed that the cover packaging of the single used "Barbie pink", a trademarked color owned by Mattel.[3] MCA contested Mattel's claims and countersued for defamation after Mattel had likened MCA to a bank robber.[4]

The lawsuit filed by Mattel was dismissed by the lower courts, and this dismissal was upheld. Mattel requested review by the Supreme Court of the United States, but its petition for certiorari was denied.[5] In 2002, Judge Alex Kozinski ruled the song was protected as a parody under the trademark doctrine of nominative use and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. He also threw out the defamation lawsuit that Aqua's record company filed against Mattel. Kozinski concluded his ruling by saying, "The parties are advised to chill."[6][7]

Response

This controversy was used by journalist Naomi Klein to make a political point in her book No Logo, where she stated that the monopolies created by copyrights and trademarks are unfairly and differently enforced based on the legal budgets of the conflicting parties and their ability to defend their expressions by hiring lawyers.

Judge Alex Kozinski, writing for the panel, opened the opinion by saying:

If this were a sci-fi melodrama, it might be called Speech-Zilla meets Trademark Kong.[6]

Mattel has since released a promotional music video of the song (with modified lyrics) on the official Barbie web site in 2009,[8] as part of a marketing strategy introduced to revive sales.[9]

See also
  • Tom Forsythe, a Utah artist unsuccessfully sued by Mattel over his controversial works featuring Barbie dolls

References
  1. AquaVEVO (2010-08-20). "Aqua - Barbie Girl". Retrieved 2017-12-07.
  2. "Aqua Now Faces Lawsuit Over "Barbie Girl"". MTV News. Viacom International Inc. 12 September 1997. Retrieved 2020-02-21.
  3. "Cover Midge's Ears. Mattel Isn't Happy With The Racy Lyrics From A Danish Band". Orlando Sentinel. 17 September 1997. Retrieved 2012-02-26.
  4. "Supreme Court rejects ugly fight over Barbie doll". Associated Press. 27 January 2003. Retrieved 2007-08-08 – via Billings Gazette.
  5. Mattel Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc., no. 02-633, U.S. Supreme Court (Jan. 27, 2003)(order)
  6. Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc., 296 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2002).
  7. "Barbie loses battle over bimbo image". BBC News. 25 July 2002. Retrieved 2007-08-08.
  8. "Official Barbie Web Site". Mattel. Retrieved 2009-09-04.
  9. Elliott, Stuart (26 August 2009). "Years Later, Mattel Embraces Barbie Girl". The New York Times. Retrieved 2010-07-11.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.