Related media:
Audio File, United States Ninth Circuit Court Of Appeals, MGA Entertainment Vs. Mattel
Oral Arguments, Phase 1:
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view_subpage.php?pk_id=0000004637

If above link expired, click link below to download audio file (requires Windows Media Player to listen).
*.ZIP file download size is 12 MB (requires WINZIP to unzip and extract):

http://cannellefraiche.bratzheaven.com/audio/audio-09-55673.zip

Related entries:
Fall 2009 Bratz Products And Collections: THE HUNT IS ON! (06.27.2009):
http://cannellefraiche.bratzheaven.com/b2evolution/blog1.php?p=37

Three Bratz Collections, Three Months Remaining.... (10.2.2009):
http://cannellefraiche.bratzheaven.com/b2evolution/blog1.php?p=56

There will be Bratz dolls under your Christmas tree on December 25, 2009. :-)

Just a quick update to inform everyone who is accessing my Bratz Heaven Blog that the United States Ninth Circuit Court Of Appeals in Pasadena, California has halted the transfer of the Bratz franchise to Mattel. The transfer of the franchise, which included the recall of all existing Bratz products and collections as well as all copyrights and trademarks of the Bratz brand, was scheduled for January 21, 2010.

According to MGA Entertainment, the Ninth Circuit Court Of Appeals issued a stay of the recall of all Bratz merchandise. Under the stay, it is business as usual for retailers, as they will be allowed to continue selling all Bratz products and collections manufactured by MGA Entertainment, through the Christmas holidays. This includes the Bratz Collector Series Fashion Capitals and Bratz World Hotspotz lines
(UPDATE 2/17/2010: In preparation for the 10th Anniversary of Bratz, MGA Entertainment will unveil a new product lineup for Bratz in Fall 2010. Unfortunately, neither the Bratz Collector Series Fashion Capitals, nor the Bratz World Hotspotz lines will be part of this new product lineup).

The court order stay was filed by Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski and associate Circuit Judges Stephen S. Trott and Kim McLane Wardlaw, following an appellate hearing on the case. Among the issues discussed during the hearing were the following:

1. Judge Stephen Larson's "Draconian" ruling when he awarded complete ownership of the Bratz franchise to Mattel, after MGA Entertainment lost the first phase of the lawsuit on July 17, 2008. In case you are wondering what the term Draconian means, it's akin to describing what type of corporate bureaucracy Mattel represents: Harsh, cruel, unforgiving, and downright malicious. Furthermore, the term Draconian implies that Mattel had played a significant role in sabotaging the litigation against MGA Entertainment over the rights and ownership of the Bratz franchise.

   Speaking of Draconian, consider this frightening fact about Larson: In 2005, Larson was nominated to the United States Ninth Circuit Federeal Court in Riverside, California by the most evil historical figure in modern history, none other than former President Of The United States, George W. Bush. Larson even bears an uncanny resemblance to George W. Bush's brother, Jeb Bush. Coincidence? You be the judge (pun somewhat intended):

   

   It's astounding how they look "substantially similar" to each other!

   SOURCE: Senate Confirms Judge Stephen G. Larson as District Judge for Central District of California (United States Courts for the Ninth Circuit, March 20, 2006)

2. Why Larson did not award Mattel a royalty or an ownership stake in Bratz, based on the jury's original $10 million damages award for copyright infringement and $90 million award for breach of contract.

   1. During the first phase of the lawsuit, Mattel reached a settlement with Carter Bryant, the individual credited for creating the Bratz dolls and who is the center of this entire legal imbroglio. Terms of the settlement were not disclosed.
   2. Later, one of the ten jurors was dismissed for making racist comments about MGA Entertainment President and CEO Isaac Larian, stating that people of his nationality were, "thieves who stole ideas from others." MGA Entertainment requested a mistrial in the case, but Larson denied such a request. It was one of many requests that Larson denied, since Larson allowed his personal dislike toward Bratz to interfere in the decisions he made from day one of the lawsuit up until his resignation from the United States Ninth Circuit Federal Court on November 2, 2009.
   3. As the first phase of the lawsuit was drawing to a close, the jury foreman Christopher Blazer handed Larson a note that stated, "Can we find that the first generation of Bratz dolls violate the copyright, but subsequent generations do not violate the copyright?" Larson said yes; based on that response, the jury reached its verdict in awarding Mattel $100 million for both the copyright infringement and breach of contract claims (although this figure is debatable because of "double counting" issues). The jury's verdict did NOT include transferring ownership of the entire Bratz franchise to Mattel, since the copyright infringement was not willful and the jury understood how MGA Entertainment was able to build the Bratz brand into the gigantic billion-dollar empire that it is today.

   Eventually, Larson took matters into his own hands. On December 3, 2008, Larson delivered a broad injunction that forced MGA Entertainment to not only cease all manufacturing and production of all Bratz products and collections, but also remove all Bratz entirely from all retailers by February 11, 2009. Larson modified the injunction on December 30, 2008 to allow retailers to continue selling Bratz for both the Spring 2009 and Fall 2009 sales seasons. At that point, the damage had been done and retailers shunned the brand. For example, Wal-Mart announced in March 2009 that it would no longer carry the Bratz License Modular Merchandise and "wanted to be completely out of Bratz branded merchandise" from the retailer's 4,200+ stores by July. It later changed its position on this and decided to sell Bratz through the end of 2009, although it did not cite my Bratz Heaven Blog as the reason for its about face. However, Wal-Mart did not order any Bratz products and collections for Fall 2009, exhausting whatever Bratz merchandise was in stock at all its stores until it was all depleted and gone.

3. The "inventions agreement" that Bryant signed with Mattel. According to Mattel, any ideas created under the company's corporate umbrella "at any time" during tenure of employment belongs exclusively to the company. That means, if you work for Mattel (and heaven forbid you will ever in your lifetime work for this Machiavellian organization) and you sign your name on the dotted line, you forfeit your life and livelihood with them. Anything you think of within the company's corporate perimeter — even if it's creating stick figures with toothpicks — Mattel owns it. This agreement has been at the heart of this lawsuit and is, as stated during the hearing at the Ninth Circuit Court Of Appeals, the "single piece of paper that became the engine of economic ruin for MGA." The agreement was vague in its language, however, particularly with the terms "at any time" and "any idea." For instance, Kozinski emphasized that "at any time" meant while at work. It did not mean "at any time" while employed at Mattel.

I also found it interesting that Larson's ruling did not require Mattel to manufacture its own Bratz dolls, despite Larson ordered MGA Entertainment to forefit materials and information about its Fall 2009 Bratz line to Mattel. Since Mattel assumed that this case was signed, sealed, and delivered, it went ahead and began manufacturing its own Bratz dolls for release in April 2010. Of course, we know what happens when you ass|u|me anything.

"The [Ninth Circuit] Court's stay is good news for all Bratz fans and for anyone who cares about fair competition," stated Mr. Larian, whose faith in the United States justice system has been restored as a result of the Ninth Circuit Court's ruling. "It keeps Bratz on the shelves, allows MGA Entertainment to continue meeting consumer demand for new Bratz products, and prevents Mattel from taking control of the billion-dollar international Bratz brand built by MGA Entertainment while the Court makes its final decision. We are gratified by the Court's decision and look forward to receiving the Court's decision on our appeal."

The stay should not be interpreted as a complete reversal of Larson's ruling during the ongoing litigation between MGA Entertainment and Mattel over the rights and ownership of the Bratz franchise. Anything is subject to change at any time (and we know Mattel is already preparing to take this entire case to the United States Supreme Court in Washington, D.C.....um, yeah, like Justice Sonia Sotomayor really cares?). However, the stay issued by the United States Ninth Circuit Court Of Appeals is not just good news....it is GREAT news, and a welcome sign that the Christmas holidays in 2009 will be shining brighter than ever for Bratz fans around the world and beyond. Moreover, it is proof that Mattel is not in business to dictate any consumer's shopping preferences and does not own every fashion doll line ever created.

I will definitely keep all of you updated with any news about the ongoing litigation as it emerges. But here is hoping that the ruling by the United States Ninth Circuit Court Of Appeals gives MGA Entertainment the momentum it needs to prevail in this damning lawsuit that should never have happened. And, here is hoping that Mr. Larian's fortune will prove he's bold enough to withstand any challenge he confronts — even if it's against a toy company whose fundamental mission is to eliminate any and all competition it designates as a credible threat to its 50-year-old blonde bitch.