Laws of .com

Volume VI, Issue 20: December 11, 2008

Mattel Wins Permanent Injunction in Bratz Case

Court Says Baby Bought on Internet to be Taken into Care

Majority of UK Employers Censor Web Browsing

Quebec Software Pirate Fined for Disobeying Court

Colorado Man Faces Possible Prison Time for Craigslist Vent

Mattel Wins Permanent Injunction in Bratz Case

A judge of the United States District Court for the Central District of California granted a number of orders to Mattel, Inc. following Mattel’s motion for a permanent injunction against MGA Entertainment, Inc., its Hong Kong subsidiary and the CEO of MGA. The judge enjoined the defendants from manufacturing, distributing or selling certain Bratz fashion dolls or using the Bratz name for any goods or services. The judge also ordered MGA to transfer all trade-mark and domain name rights in the “Bratz” and “Jade” trade-marks to Mattel, to recall all infringing Bratz products from store shelves and to reimburse retailers for the recall.

Mattel instituted the motion for a permanent injunction after Mattel received a favourable jury verdict in its lawsuit against the defendants this past summer. The jury had found that Bratz designer Carter Bryant had created the name, the concept and the prototypical sculpt for the Bratz brand of female fashion dolls while he was an employee of Mattel and bound to an inventions agreement which provided that Mattel owned rights to such property and the property itself. The jury had awarded Mattel $10 million for copyright infringement as MGA infringed Mattel's copyrights in producing the dolls using Bryant's sketches. The jury had also awarded a total of $90 million to Mattel in causes of action related to the intentional interference of Bryant’s contractual relations with Mattel, breach of fiduciary duty and duty of loyalty, and unlawful conversion of certain property of Mattel. Mattel had originally sought two billion dollars in damages.

Bryant settled with Mattel on the eve of the trial with the terms of the settlement remaining confidential.

The court’s orders will not take effect until the court rules on the parties’ post-trial motions, which are scheduled to be heard in February.

For a copy of the decision (United States District Court Central District of California), visit:
http://investor.shareholder.com/mattel/

Back to Headlines

Court Says Baby Bought on Internet to be Taken into Care

A Dutch court recently ruled that a Dutch couple who bought a Belgian baby over the Internet for adoption had broken the laws for adopting foreign children, and had to hand the baby over to child welfare authorities.

According to one media report, the couple paid between €5,000 and €10,000 for the baby boy. However, the Dutch couple has denied these claims, stating that they only paid the pregnancy costs incurred by the parents.

The public prosecution office in the Netherlands has started an investigation into the case. Belgian authorities are also making inquiries.

For additional information, visit:
http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSTRE4AQ7DB20081127

Back to Headlines

Majority of UK Employers Censor Web Browsing

The Internet is becoming an increasingly important aspect of business. However, a recent survey indicates that two-thirds of UK employers are monitoring their employees’ use of the Internet or blocking access to certain websites.

This creates tension between tech savvy employees and their often less technology oriented managers. It is difficult for business to quantify the benefit that incidental Internet access brings to operations. Allowing employees free reign to surf social networking, gambling or other websites could be counterproductive, however, younger employees argue that the Internet enables efficient research and the ability to network professionally. The situation leaves employers with a difficult human rights balancing act in an ever-evolving context.

For additional information, visit:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/dec/02/workplace-internet-monitoring-blocked-access

Back to Headlines

Quebec Software Pirate Fined for Disobeying Court

In early December, 2008, the Federal Court of Canada imposed a $100,000 fine against Quebec-based retailer, Carmelo Cerrelli, who pled guilty to contempt of court after persisting in selling counterfeit copies of Microsoft software. The contempt of court ruling comes in the wake of a December 2006 judgment in which Mr. Cerrelli and two corporations controlled by him and operating under the name “Inter-Plus” were found to have distributed counterfeit copies of various Microsoft applications. Microsoft was awarded the maximum amount of statutory damages totaling $500,000, as well as punitive damages of $200,000, and Mr. Cerrelli was ordered not to continue selling the counterfeit software. However, despite the court order, in mid-2007 Microsoft began receiving reports that Mr. Cerrelli had resumed selling pirated software, and so they obtained and conducted a civil search and seizure under the authority of the Federal Court, discovering several hundred pieces of pirated Microsoft products. Microsoft then initiated contempt proceedings, leading to Cerrelli’s guilty plea. Should Mr. Cerrelli fail to pay the $100,000 fine, he could face a 60-day jail term.

Industry analysts say that the Cerrelli decisions show that Canadian courts are taking an increasingly hard line on the problem of counterfeiting and piracy in this country.

For additional information, visit:
http://www.brandonsun.com/story.php?story_id=114622
http://www.itbusiness.ca/it/client/en/Home/News.asp?id=51001&bSearch=True

Back to Headlines

Colorado Man Faces Possible Prison Time for Craigslist Vent

A man has been charged under Colorado’s criminal libel law for allegedly posting comments on Craigslist about his former girlfriend, suggesting that she traded sexual acts for legal services from her attorney. If convicted, the man could face up to 18 months in prison.

Similar to other States that have criminal libel laws which have historically been seldom used, there has been an increase in charges laid under these laws since the late 1990’s, many of which are tied to the easy and widespread access to, and false sense of anonymity of, the Internet. Some critics, including First Amendment advocates, argue that libel should only be a civil cause of action.

For additional information, visit:
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=6370213&page=1

Back to Headlines