Barbie® v. China Barbie

Comments:

  1. […] Note: Andrew Contiguglia linked to this site from his Entertainment Law blog, where he wrote: [M]aybe Mattel is just being vindictive of anything Chinese because of all the lead paint incidents (source) […]

    Pingback by Barbie® v. China Barbie « The Legal Satyricon on August 23, 2007 at 11:15 am

  2. Well put Andrew, I have a similar point on my blog here, at http://beckandlee.wordpress.com/2007/08/22/mattel-sues-china-chinabarbiecom-that-is/

    Comment by Jared Beck on August 23, 2007 at 4:22 pm

  3. I think that big corporations now-a-days have so much claim to whatever they think they can have claim to, that the smaller people in the world have no choice but to fall in line. When your parents decided to name you, they didn’t check any sources to find out if that name was copyrighted or if they were infringing on any copyrights. Why should people have to defend their choice of name, or even go to court if they themselves should by right of the 1st amendment have freedom of expression. If you think about it, choosing a name is a right of freedom of expression and the small fish in a big pond should not have to fight for the right to rename themselves.

    Comment by Michelle Hahn on August 29, 2007 at 1:33 am

  4. i think Matel is just pulling a copycat at this point. i’ll bet if Nautica clothing company had never found out about Nautica Thorn, then none of this would have ever happened. Of course, since Nautica is a household brand name, then of course somebody from matel or barbie saw it and said, “Hey, i’m sure there’s a porn star out there with barbie somewhere in their name. Maybe we can sue them and makes some money of them!”

    Comment by Thomas Rodgers on August 29, 2007 at 7:11 am

Submit a comment: