Mattel Controversy
Mattel sued the band, saying they violated the Barbie trademark and turned Barbie into a sex object, referring to her as a "Blonde Bimbo."[1] They alleged the song had violated their copyrights and trademarks of Barbie, and that its lyrics had tarnished the reputation of their trademark and impinged on their marketing plan. Mattel also claimed that the cover packaging of the single used "Barbie pink", a trademarked color owned by Mattel.[2] Aqua claimed that Mattel injected their own meanings into the song's lyrics and MCA Records was not about to let their hit single be suppressed without a fight. They contested Mattel's claims and countersued for defamation after Mattel had likened MCA to a bank robber.[3]
The lawsuit filed by Mattel was dismissed by the lower courts, and this dismissal was upheld, though Mattel took their case up to the Supreme Court of the United States (Mattel's appeal was later rejected). In 2002, Judge Alex Kozinski ruled the song was protected as a parody under the trademark doctrine of nominative use and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. He also threw out the defamation lawsuit that Aqua's record company filed against Mattel. Kozinski concluded his ruling by saying, "The parties are advised to chill."[4][5] The case was dismissed, and in the process, it garnered lots …show more content…
of media attention for the song and the band.
The lawsuit filed by Mattel was dismissed by the lower courts, and this dismissal was upheld, though Mattel took their case up to the Supreme Court of the United States (Mattel's appeal was later rejected).
In 2002, Judge Alex Kozinski ruled the song was protected as a parody under the trademark doctrine of nominative use and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. He also threw out the defamation lawsuit that Aqua's record company filed against Mattel. Kozinski concluded his ruling by saying, "The parties are advised to chill."[4][5] The case was dismissed, and in the process, it garnered lots of media attention for the song and the
band.
Earlier, in February 2001, a court ruled that an American artist Tom Forsythe was within his rights to use Barbie dolls in his work. Some of Tom Forsythe's photographs depicted the doll in sexually compromising positions.[5] A court had ruled on that occasion too that parody of Barbie was an acceptable activity.
The lawsuit filed by Mattel was dismissed by the lower courts, and this dismissal was upheld, though Mattel took their case up to the Supreme Court of the United States (Mattel's appeal was later rejected). In 2002, Judge Alex Kozinski ruled the song was protected as a parody under the trademark doctrine of nominative use and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. He also threw out the defamation lawsuit that Aqua's record company filed against Mattel. Kozinski concluded his ruling by saying, "The parties are advised to chill."[4][5] The case was dismissed, and in the process, it garnered lots …show more content…
of media attention for the song and the band.
The lawsuit filed by Mattel was dismissed by the lower courts, and this dismissal was upheld, though Mattel took their case up to the Supreme Court of the United States (Mattel's appeal was later rejected).
In 2002, Judge Alex Kozinski ruled the song was protected as a parody under the trademark doctrine of nominative use and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. He also threw out the defamation lawsuit that Aqua's record company filed against Mattel. Kozinski concluded his ruling by saying, "The parties are advised to chill."[4][5] The case was dismissed, and in the process, it garnered lots of media attention for the song and the
band.
Earlier, in February 2001, a court ruled that an American artist Tom Forsythe was within his rights to use Barbie dolls in his work. Some of Tom Forsythe's photographs depicted the doll in sexually compromising positions.[5] A court had ruled on that occasion too that parody of Barbie was an acceptable activity.