Tabberone is pronounced tab ber won
not tay ber own

Tabbers Temptations     www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/ Home | Site Index | Disclaimer | Email Me!

Tabberone Logo
The latest Hartsel weather.

  "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"
Edmund Burke


MGA Entertainment
Hall Of Shame Member

MGA Entertainment, somehow though it would be a good idea to terminate an auction for a fleece hat with a licensed Bratz appliqué on it. Click here to view the auction lising for "Girl's Fleece Hat w/Bratz Applique of Sasha". No one looking at the title of the auction, or the auction listing itself, would be deceived into believing the hat was a licensed product.

So, what happened? MGA Entertainment, decided to have their Hollywood lawyer, some swaggering POS named Larry W. McFarland, fight it. Screaming into the telephone, Larry W. McFarland actually threatened us with the Supreme Court, somewhat like a schoolyard taunt except in a high-pitched assault on our ears. The issue here revolved around a licensed appliqué! MGA Entertainment says we can't put the applique on a hat and then sell it.

We filed our complaint on December 10, 2003. We were new at this sort of thing and we did poorly. Our complaint was flawed and did not really address the right issues. But we had fun. MGA responded on March 4, 2004by submitting nine pages of nothing significant. Generally, they denied everything while saying very little. We promptly filed a Motion For Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative Declaratory Judgment, on March 17, 2004. The beauty of this sort of motion is that instead of the snotty nine pages of nothing significant, MGA Entertainment would have to answer claims made or the court would rule in our favor. Larry W. McFarland about had a kitten when we filed the motion.

Of course, the Motion failed but we had yanked up McFarland's knickers. We know he was enjoying the sport. Not only was the case against a pro se opponent, but everything that went on meant more billable hours for him and his firm. Considering the extent of the sparring, filings, the discovery and the depositions, winning this case over one licensed applique had to cost MGA Entertainment $100,000. Over an issue that they would have lost had we been better prepared and more experienced. FYI, our costs were a total of maybe $2,200.

On October 14th and 15th, depositions were held in Colorado Springs. A major joke as far as we were concerned. Larry W. McFarland stayed at the Broadmoor Hotel in Colorado Springs, the most expensive hotel in Colorado. Larry W. McFarland, of the law firm Keats, McFarland & Wilson, insisted on two full days for the depositions even after we told them that was silly. We told them they did not have two days worth of questions and they knew it. The total actual deposition time for the two of us was about six hours, total. Over two days. Why two days? More billable hours for Larry W. McFarland, of the law firm Keats, McFarland & Wilson of Beverly Hills. Someone has to pay for his yacht.

On December 21, 2004, MGA filed a Motion For Summary Judgment. We were caught off guard. We actually thought this one would go to trial. We lost on peripheral issues. MGA Entertainment, through its attorney, Larry W. McFarland, of the law firm Keats, McFarland & Wilson of Beverly Hills, took the cowardly avenue of getting the complaint dismissed on issues not related to whether or not we had the right to sell the hat. Magistrate Judge Patricia Coan is, in our opinion, lacking. She also has a pro se bias. She ruled that education, background, and training has no bearing on a good faith belief and found for MGA. What she is saying is that any jerk, Oakes included, can claim "Gee, I thought it was so", with no basis for the "belief", and there is nothing anyone can do about it. She is saying they do not have to justify their claim, just make the claim.

MGA Entertainment never addressed the legal issues of whether or not is was legal to use the appliqué. They couldn't fight the case on the issues so they fought to get it tossed on technicalities. Way to go MGA. Your lawyers milked you and boy do you look dumb.

And after all that, it turns out that The Bratz never belonged to MGA in the first place. They belonged to Mattel. From the court decision where MGA was sued, it appears that MGA stole the idea some years ago and they have to give it back.

Want more? Read about the law firm that represents MGA Entertainment, Keats, McFarland & Wilson. You will find it informative and possibly amusing.

 

 

Rebuttals

In an effort to provide a balanced view, we make the following offer to anyone who feels they have been wrongly accused on this web site.

If you, or your company, have been referenced on these pages, and you would like the chance to post a rebuttal, we will post your rebuttal (provided it is in good taste) so others can read it. The rebuttal must be submitted in a format that can easily be converted into HTML. We reserve the right to alter the rebuttal to make it more readable. However, we will not alter the content (unless there is offensive material to be removed). We also reserve the right to comment on any rebuttal received. Emails protesting the content of this web site may be treated as rebuttals by us at our discretion.

General
Articles | Cease and Desist Letters | Federal Court Cases | FAQs & Whines | Glossary | Hall Of Shame | Contributions

Corporate Lawyers
Cartoons | Code Of Ethics | Courtroom Remarks | Definition Of A Lie | Jokes | Lawyers | Lying | Who Have Lied

eBay - Land The Game

Definitions

Trademark Definitions
Blurring   |   Confusion   |   Damages   |   Dilution   |   History   |   Initial Interest Confusion   |   Likelihood Of Confusion   |   Material Difference Standard
Parallel Imports   |   Post-sale Confusion   |   Puffery   |   Secondary Meaning   |   Subsequent Confusion   |   Trademark Abuse
Unauthorized Use   |   Unfair Competition   |   What is a Trademark?
Copyright Definitions
Angel Policies   |   Contributory Infringement   |   Copyrightability   |   Copyright Extortion   |   Copyright Misuse Doctrine
; Derivative   |   The Digital Millennium Copyright Act   |   EULA   |   Fair Use   |   First Sale Doctrine   |   Product Description   |   Registration
Registration Denied   |   What is a Copyright?   |   What is not Copyrightable?
Other Issues
Embroidery Designs   |   FAQs & Whines   |   Image and Text Theft   |   Licensed Fabric   |   Licensing & Licenses   |   Patterns
Patterns Index   |   Profit   |   Quilting   |   Selvage   |   Stanford School of Law Case Outline
Tabberone Disclaimer   |   Trademark Extortion   |   Urban Myths   |   What To Do If You Are Veroed

Federal Court Cases
Alphabetically | by Federal Circuit | by Subject | by Court Quotations

Federal Statutes
Copyright Act 17 U.S.C. 5 | Digital Millenium Copyright Act 17 U.S.C. 12 | Lanham Act 15 U.S.C. 22
<

VeRO (Verified Right's Owner Program)
VeRO Commandments | VeRO-Verified Rights Owners Program | Counter Notice Letter
Counter Notice (pre-2003) | Counter Notice present | On-Line Survey from 2004 | Articles about VeRO | What To Do If You Are Veroed

Original material by Karen Dudnikov & Michael Meadors is © 1999-2016

 

  [an error occurred while processing this directive]