Home | Site Index | Disclaimer | Email Me!

MGA Entertainment Hall Of Shame Member

MGA Entertainment, the folks who stole the idea of the Bratz Girls from Mattel, somehow though it would be a good idea to terminate an auction for a fleece hat with a licensed Bratz applique 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, ot the auction listing, would be decieved into believing the hat was a licensed product.

So, what happened? MGA Entertainment, the folks who stole the idea of the Bratz Girls from Mattel, 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 assult on our ears. The issue here revolved around a licensed applique! MGA Entertainment, the folks who stole the idea of the Bratz Girls from Mattel, 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, the folks who stole the idea of the Bratz Girls from Mattel, 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 (the folks who stole the idea of the Bratz Girls from Mattel) $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. 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 (the folks who stole the idea of the Bratz Girls from Mattel), 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 though 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 (the folks who stole the idea of the Bratz Girls from Mattel) never addressed the legal issues of whether or not is was legal to use the applique. 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.

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