Bratz is back.

A federal appeals court ruled that a trial court erred in finding that Mattel, Inc. is entitled to a constructive trust over the doll and the trial court was wrong to enjoin further production and sales of the doll. (For article on trial court decision, click here.)  The appellate court found that the Bratz dolls are not substantially similar to Barbie dolls “simply because the dolls and sketches depict young, stylish girls with big heads and an attitude. Yet this appears to be how the district court reasoned.”

Mattel sued MGA Entertainment, Inc. for copyright infringement relating to the Bratz dolls. The dolls were created by Carter Bryant, an employee of Mattel while he was still at Mattel. After a finding of copyright infringement, the trial court enjoined MGA from further production and sales of Bratz dolls and turned over the entire Bratz portfolio to Mattel. The appellate court said the order went too far. “Even assuming that MGA took some ideas wrongfully, it added tremendous value by turning the ideas into products and, eventually, a popular and highly profitable brand. The value added by MGA’s hard work and creativity dwarfs the value of the original ideas Bryant brought with him, even recognizing the significance of those ideas.” As a result, it was “not equitable to transfer this billion dollar brand” to Mattel.

The appellate court found that, even if Mattel owned the preliminary drawings and sculpt of the dolls because they were created by an employee of Mattel, “its copyrights in the works would cover only its particular expression of the bratty-doll idea, not the idea itself. Otherwise, the first person to express any idea would have a monopoly over it. . . . MGA was free to look at Bryant’s sketches and say, ‘Good idea! We want to create bratty dolls too.’”

While the trial court used the appropriate “substantial similarity” standard to compare the dolls, the court erred in allowing the jury to consider unprotectable elements. “Mattel can’t claim a monopoly over fashion dolls with a bratty look or attitude, or dolls sporting trendy clothing—these are all unprotectable ideas.” In the end, the appellate court wrote, “America thrives on competition; Barbie, the all-American girl, will too.”

Mattel, Inc. v. MGA Entertainment, Inc., Ninth Circuit No. 09-55673, filed July 22, 2010.