Bratz line could go to doll heaven, or live under license or new owner
LOS ANGELES — The fate of the hugely popular Bratz dolls is unclear following last week’s federal court order that handed the rights to the dolls and the Bratz name to the biggest toy maker of them all, Mattel Inc.
Also uncertain is the fate of MGA Entertainment Inc., the Van Nuys, Calif., company that manufactures Bratz and marketed them into an international phenomenon — illegally, as it turned out.
The 40-doll Bratz line, which debuted in 2001, is slated for recall and possible destruction in February unless U. S. District Judge Stephen G. Larson is swayed by further MGA arguments in the copyright infringement case, or an appeals court rules otherwise.
Larson made exceptions for a few Bratz dolls, including Cloe’s younger sister, the younger version of Yasmin, and the younger Alicia, if they are packaged separately from infringing dolls.
In July, a federal jury found that ex-Barbie designer Carter Bryant came up with the Bratz idea and made most of the original sketches for it while he was still at Mattel. It awarded Mattel $100 million in damages, 5 percent of the $2 billion the toy maker sought.
Larson said his order won’t go into effect until after he has ruled on both sides’ post-trial motions. A hearing on those motions is set for Feb. 11.
Barbie remained the top girls’ toy this year, the National Retail Federation said Nov. 19, and Bratz was in fourth place.
At ground zero for toys, a Toys “R” Us in Los Angeles three weeks before Christmas, you’d never know the Bratz were endangered. Half an aisle was devoted to the brand, including the Bratz Holiday Absolute Angel doll and Cloe the Bratz Play Sportz Xtreme Kickboxing doll, plus accessories.
Wandering through the pinkly glittering selection, Myra Villeda, 30, of Los Angeles, browsed for her 8-and 9- year-old daughters. She said they much prefer Bratz to the long-reigning queen of fashion dolls, Mattel’s Barbie.
“Bratz are just cooler, with their eyes and makeup done up more like how real women do it,” Villeda said. “Barbies are more old fashioned. Bratz are the ones with the cool clothes.”
Those clothes made Bratz the primary target of a 2007 American Psychological Association report from its Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls. Describing the Bratz as dressed “in sexualized clothing, such as miniskirts, fishnet stockings and feather boas,” the report said it was worrisome girls were being “associated with an objectified adult sexuality.”
One of the report’s authors, psychology professor Tomi-Ann Roberts of Colorado College, was hoping the Bratz might disappear.
“Dolls are very much about role playing,” Roberts said. “So what role are the Bratz supposed to be playing, prostitution?”
MGA executives have countered that the dolls are sometimes depicted in career garb.
Roberts wasn’t having it.
“If they are doctors,” she said, “they still look like streetwalkers.”
If MGA can’t win a reversal, the company could be doomed because its toy empire has few products not tied to the doll.
Mattel, if the court order stands, will own the brand, but the company hasn’t said if it would start making Bratz or drop the line altogether.
MGA Chief Executive Isaac Larian said the company would ask Larson to delay the punishment at least until the company has had a chance to go through the appeal process. That could keep MGA, which has 1,500 employees worldwide, in the Bratz business for some time.
But analyst Sean McGowan of Needham & Co. doubts the judge will grant that wish.
Larson tried to get the warring companies to settle the legal tangle that has cost them both tens of million of dollars. But he finally gave up on that, saying in Wednesday’s order that “the hostility between these parties is such that this form of remedy is unworkable.”
But McGowan said it’s time for the two sides to talk. Otherwise, the brand might be worthless to both of them.
“They have to come to a peaceful settlement,” McGowan said, “and I do mean immediately. Within days.” If they don’t, he said, wholesale buyers might drop Bratz.
“If you’re a vendor, you don’t know if you will be getting the dolls, where you will be getting them from,” he said. “You don’t know if the brand will be liquidated. It’s still a valuable brand, it’s still very profitable.”
McGowan suggested that the two companies come to a traditional royalty arrangement.
“The common royalty structure is, if you’re making something that is someone else’s intellectual property, 15 percent to 20 percent,” he said. “That would still be very profitable for both parties.”
Larian said he might go for that. “Everything is negotiable,” he said.
Meanwhile, the victory for Mattel, which owns Fisher-Price Toys in East Aurora, has boosted its stock price. The stock closed at $14.61 Friday, up $1.69 for the week.
Log into MyBuffalo to post a comment
MyBuffalo is the new social network from Buffalo.com. Your MyBuffalo account lets you comment on and rate stories at buffalonews.com. You can also head over to mybuffalo.com to share your blog posts, stories, photos, and videos with the community. Join now or learn more.
Reader comments