A constructive trust is therefore “not appropriate to every case because it can overdo the job.” Id. This is because “the aim of restitution has been to avoid taking the defendant’s blood along with the pound of flesh.” Id. Dobbs, Dobbs Law of Remedies: Damages-Equity-Restitution § 6.6(3) (2d ed. “When the defendant profits from the wrong, it is necessary to identify the profits and to recapture them without capturing the fruits of the defendant’s own labors or legitimate efforts.” Dan B. It seems the Ninth Circuit took a similar view: I doubt any of the jurors were familiar with Learned Hand, but the core idea is well-accepted in America: expanding upon others’ ideas is a legitimate enterprize. I don’t believe the Bratz trial addressed laches and the suit was somewhat timely filed from what I can tell, perhaps two years after the infringement was discovered. Delay under such circumstances allows the owner to speculate without risk with the other’s money he cannot possibly lose, and he may win. It must be obvious to every one familiar with equitable principles that it is inequitable for the owner of a copyright, with full notice of an intended infringement, to stand inactive while the proposed infringer spends large sums of money in its exploitation, and to intervene only when his speculation has proved a success. Recall that excellent Learned Hand quote unearthed by the Eleventh Circuit (and discussed in my post on the Watchmen lawsuit: The Bratz empire has earned over $1 billion in profits a $10 million award - even a $100 million award - has only a fraction of the value to Mattel as a constructive trust or an injunction, both of which would cripple MGA and award the Bratz empire to Mattel.īack when the verdict came out, I thought the sort of windfall proposed by Mattel bothered the jury: The problem for Mattel is that, even they succeed the next time around, the Ninth Circuit has obliterated their two most powerful remedies: the constructive trust over the Bratz profits and the injunction prohibiting MGA from producing more Bratz dolls. Sure, Mattel gets another crack at showing misappropriation by Bryant and MGA, and it has decent odds of proving “the agreement assigned Bryant’s preliminary sketches and sculpt, either because the agreement assigns works made outside the scope of employment or because these works weren’t made outside of Bryant’s employment.” There was certainly evidence at trial supporting that.īut where will that get them? As I wrote back when the verdict came out, “The jury essentially found that MGA was entitled to 95% of the Bratz empire’s profits,” despite finding extensive wrongful conduct by Bryant and MGA. Even if they win on remand and retrial, they’ve lost their biggest weapons. There’s no two ways to slice it: the opinion is a major loss for Mattel. And, in order to justify a copyright injunction, Mattel will have to show that the Bratz sculpts are virtually identical to Bryant’s preliminary sculpt, or that the Bratz dolls are substantially similar to Bryant’s sketches disregarding similarities in unprotectable ideas. On remand, Mattel will have to convince a jury that the agreement assigned Bryant’s preliminary sketches and sculpt, either because the agreement assigns works made outside the scope of employment or because these works weren’t made outside of Bryant’s employment. We therefore vacate the copyright injunction. The district court also erred in holding, at summary judgment, that the employment agreement assigned works created outside the scope of Bryant’s employment. The district court may impose a narrower constructive trust on remand only if there’s a proper determination that Mattel owns Bryant’s ideas. We therefore vacate the constructive trust, UCL injunction and declaratory judgment concerning Mattel’s rights to the Bratz trademarks. Even if Bryant did assign his ideas, the district court abused its discretion in transferring the entire Bratz trademark portfolio to Mattel. Bryant’s employment agreement may not have assigned his ideas for the names “Bratz” and “Jade” to Mattel at all, and the district court erred by holding that it did so unambiguously. Unusually, the panel summed up its own findings at the end: Via the WSJ Law Blog, the Ninth Circuit, in a significant published opinion with ramifications for copyright litigators, vacated the $10 million verdict - and, more importantly, the constructive trust and injunction - that Mattel won against MGA.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |