Jump to content

Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mattel v. MCA Records
CourtUnited States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Full case name Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc.
ArguedDecember 5, 2000
DecidedJuly 24, 2002
Citation296 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2002)
Case history
Prior historyAppeal from C.D. Cal. (28 F.Supp.2d 1120)
Subsequent historyRequest 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
Judges 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)

Mattel v. MCA Records, 296 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2002),[1] was a series of lawsuits between Mattel and MCA Records that resulted from the 1997 hit single "Barbie Girl" by Danish-Norwegian group Aqua.[2] The case was ultimately dismissed.

Background

[edit]

On September 11, 1997, Mattel filed suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, bringing 11 claims against MCA (Aqua's American record label) and others.[3] Mattel claimed the song violated the Barbie trademark and turned Barbie into a sex object, referring to her as a "Blonde Bimbo."[4] 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 registered trademark owned by Mattel.[5] MCA contested Mattel's claims and filed a counterclaim for defamation after Mattel had likened MCA to a bank robber.[6] MCA's lawyers also cited the earlier Bild Lilli doll – a German adult novelty toy which served as the basis for the original Barbie dolls – in their defense against Mattel's claims that Aqua sexualized the doll.[7]

MCA moved to dismiss Mattel's complaint for failure to state a claim, which the Central District of California granted. Mattel then appealed to the Ninth Circuit. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit ruled the song was protected as a parody under the trademark doctrine of nominative use and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, in an opinion penned by Judge Alex Kozinski; in reaching that result the court adopted the Rogers test set out by the Second Circuit in Rogers v. Grimaldi for use of trademarks in expressive works. The Ninth Circuit also dismissed MCA's defamation counterclaim. Kozinski concluded his ruling by saying, "The parties are advised to chill."[8][9] Mattel sought certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States, but its petition was denied.[10]

Response

[edit]

The controversy was used as an example by journalist Naomi Klein 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.

In 2009, as part of a marketing strategy to revive sales, Mattel released a promotional video featuring a version of "Barbie Girl" with modified lyrics.[11][12] In 2023, the soundtrack of the Mattel-produced film Barbie included the song "Barbie World" by rappers Nicki Minaj and Ice Spice, which samples Aqua's single.[13]

In a 2023 interview with Rolling Stone, the band recalled how the controversy only served to provide free publicity to both sides of the case despite Mattel's attempts to suppress the song on the grounds of trademark infringement.[7] When asked about Mattel licensing the song to promote the Barbie brand, Aqua's lawyer Russell Frackman saw the irony in Mattel demanding the band to license the rights to use the brand for the song, only for Mattel themselves to license the rights to use the song from MCA. Nystrøm agreed, opining that "that's what they should have done from the start."[14] Mattel has also since spoken positively about the song, stating that "We love the song and seeing the brand celebrated in pop culture."[7]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ "Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc., 296 F.3d 894 | Casetext Search + Citator". casetext.com. Retrieved March 23, 2021.
  2. ^ AquaVEVO (August 20, 2010). "Aqua - Barbie Girl". YouTube. Archived from the original on December 20, 2021. Retrieved December 7, 2017.
  3. ^ "Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc". September 12, 1997.
  4. ^ "Aqua Now Faces Lawsuit Over 'Barbie Girl'". MTV News. Viacom International Inc. September 12, 1997. Archived from the original on June 14, 2015. Retrieved February 21, 2020.
  5. ^ "Cover Midge's Ears. Mattel Isn't Happy With The Racy Lyrics From A Danish Band". Orlando Sentinel. September 17, 1997. Archived from the original on October 6, 2013. Retrieved February 26, 2012.
  6. ^ "Supreme Court rejects ugly fight over Barbie doll". Associated Press. January 27, 2003. Retrieved August 8, 2007 – via Billings Gazette.
  7. ^ a b c Hassan, Jennifer (June 26, 2023). "Remember the 'Barbie Girl' song? Mattel actually sued, but was told 'to chill.'". Washington Post. Retrieved August 14, 2023.
  8. ^ Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc., 296 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2002).
  9. ^ "Barbie loses battle over bimbo image". BBC News. July 25, 2002. Retrieved August 8, 2007.
  10. ^ Mattel Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc., no. 02-633, U.S. Supreme Court (Jan. 27, 2003)(order)
  11. ^ "Official Barbie Web Site". Mattel. Retrieved September 4, 2009.
  12. ^ Elliott, Stuart (August 26, 2009). "Years Later, Mattel Embraces Barbie Girl". The New York Times. Retrieved July 11, 2010.
  13. ^ Dean, Grace (July 18, 2023). "Mattel Hated the 1997 Song 'Barbie Girl' So Much That It Sued. Now, the Song is Making a Return Thanks to Greta Gerwig". Business Insider. Retrieved July 20, 2023.
  14. ^ Greene, Andy (April 1, 2022). "'People Probably Want to Kill Us': The Oral History of Aqua's 'Barbie Girl'". Rolling Stone. Retrieved August 14, 2023.
[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mattel,_Inc._v._MCA_Records,_Inc.&oldid=1247411552"