| litigating barbie | 2-jan-1998 |
For some time now, there's been a great deal of discussion regarding a certain toy manufacturer, Mattel, and their multiple lawsuits against anyone using the name "Barbie," or making any wisecracks or off-colour remarks about their "product."
They're suing Artists who've composed artwork, which may or may not actually portray a Mattel product. Collectors, even, who have made trade magazines dedicated to the buying, selling and trading of some of the more classic forms of the product. Writers and Musicians who have material using the word "Barbie." Yes, and even Internet content providers, even after multiple precedents that they are not liable for the actions of their users, whose server contain user websites which mention the name "Barbie."
I suppose, perhaps, that some of Mattel's lesser-educated-in-law-and-more-about-the-wanton-need-of-American-consumers-to-buy-expensive-plastic-toys-for-the-holidays Lawyers may actually think they have a legal foundation for these cases.
But it would be very difficult, of course, to have any foundation to a case where Mattel's Number One Complaint is that people are "defaming the pristine image" of Barbie.
Suffice it to say, I can't help but wonder if Yahoo! has been notified that they are in jeopardy of receiving one of these notifications of legal action for their section entitled "Barbie as a Pop Icon" (Which was gone as of February 1999, but they still have this whole section). And of course, Mattel should thank me for this link, as it gives them plenty more people to attempt to bring litigation against.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but the Artists, Collectors, Musicians and Fans who've contributed so very much to the very hysteria that makes Barbie so popular shouldn't be sued, should they? After all, if anything, they've helped to make the name "Barbie" synonymous with any abnormally proportioned plastic doll, much the same as the "Frigidaire" (later shortened to "fridge," of course) became the popular name for a refrigerator.
Yes, Mattel should, in fact, be suing the estate of Marilyn Monroe for portraying a sort of Bimbo, an abnormally proportioned Dumb Blonde.
And all of the high-cost plastic surgeons --- Oh, no... The manufacturers of breast implants! Even better! --- such that any woman has the ability to have the kind of chest with which Barbie was so endowed.
And how about all those parents and grandparents who, being filled with the wonderful Spirit of Christmas (you know, that birthday celebration for one of the first guys to say "Can't we all just get along?"), trample and demolish one another, in a manner befitting of wild warthogs in heat, as they run to the toy store shelves to be the first to get the new Barbie of the Year?
"Defaming the pristine image," indeed. It wasn't these violators of what shall be historically looked upon as "Barbie Law" who gave the silly little creation size 39F boobs, now was it?
Yes, silly Lawyers, indeed. It only makes sense that for the Christmas of 1997, Mattel released the "Lawyer" Barbie.
Perhaps this litigation-happy shtick that so many people have been on as of late is only because they realise that it is, after all, 1998, and since the world may be coming to an end in only two more years, they may well be running out of time to file any more frivolous lawsuits.
Isn't it fortunate that a retail company like Macy's never bothered to get a trademark on Santa Claus?
| updated: 10-mar-2000 | copyright © mark steel publishing ltd. |