Mattel goes all-out to try and protect their BARBIE trademark.
Nevertheless, Mattel has not been all that successful in its attempts to place Barbie on intellectual lockdown. For example, in 2002, Mattel tried to rid the world of the Aqua song âBarbie Girl.â Mattel lost
that case. Mattel also lost a case against artist Tom Forsythe who parodied barbie in a series of artistic works like
Cutting Board Barbie and
Barbie Enchilada (source). Mattel eventually had to reimburse Forsythe $1.8 million in attorneysâ fees. (
source). The
Case is here. Mattel also lost in a case with an artist who made âBondage Barbie.â See Mattel, Inc. v. Pitt, 229 F. Supp. 2d 315, 324 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (âThe sale or display of âadultâ dolls does not appear to be a use Mattel would likely develop or license others to develop.â). Finally, in a recent case involving an Alberta, Canada sex shop called âBarbieâs Shop,â Mattel lost on jurisdictional grounds. (
source). Mattel said that it considers the case to be ongoing, since they didnât lose on the merits. Nevertheless, in that case, the owner of the shopâs name? Wait for itâ¦.
Barbie Anderson-Walley. Mattelâs reaction to that little âbad fact?â
We own the Barbie name, clothing and dolls. Even if your name happens to be Tommy, Ralph or Barbie, in some areas thatâs already a trademark. (
source)
My take on that one is that Mattel is lucky that it
only lost on jurisdictional grounds. They should have been sanctioned for filing that case.
But, if you look at this UDRP case, it is nice to see that Mr. Zournas won without representation. I am cheering for him in that respect.
However, he has a new problem. These "Barbi Twins" that he claims he had in mind when he registered the domain (and I believe him) now have their own claim against
him.
http://randazza.wordpress.com/2008/08/30/wrong-barbie-mattel-lives-up-to-its-dolls-airhead-image/