Mattel, Inc. v. Mca Records, Inc.
Decision Date | 24 July 2002 |
Docket Number | No. 98-56453.,No. 98-56577.,98-56453.,98-56577. |
Citation | 296 F.3d 894 |
Parties | MATTEL, INC., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff-counter-defendant-Appellant, v. MCA RECORDS, INC., a California corporation, Defendant-counter-claimant-Appellee, and Universal Music International Ltd., a British company; Universal Music A/S, a Danish business entity; MCA Music Scandinavia AB, a Swedish business entity; Universal Music & Video Distribution, Inc., a New York corporation; DOES 1 through 20, Defendants-Appellees. Mattel, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff-counter-defendant-Appellee, v. Universal Music International Ltd., a British company; Universal Music A/S, a Danish business entity; MCA Music Scandinavia AB, a Swedish business entity; Universal Music & Video Distribution, Inc., a New York corporation; DOES 1 through 20, Defendants-Appellants, and MCA Records, Inc., a California corporation, Defendant-counter-claimant-Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Adrian Mary Pruetz, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, argued for the plaintiff-appellant.
Russell J. Frackman, George M. Borkowski, Jeffrey D. Goldman, Brent Rabowsky, Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP, Los Angeles, CA, argued for the defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California William Matthew Byrne, Jr., Senior District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-97-06791-WMB-Mcx.
Before D.W. NELSON, BRUNETTI and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.
If this were a sci-fi melodrama, it might be called Speech-Zilla meets Trademark Kong.
Barbie was born in Germany in the 1950s as an adult collector's item. Over the years, Mattel transformed her from a doll that resembled a "German street walker,"1 as she originally appeared, into a glamorous, long-legged blonde. Barbie has been labeled both the ideal American woman and a bimbo. She has survived attacks both psychic (from feminists critical of her fictitious figure) and physical (more than 500 professional makeovers). She remains a symbol of American girlhood, a public figure who graces the aisles of toy stores throughout the country and beyond. With Barbie, Mattel created not just a toy but a cultural icon.
With fame often comes unwanted attention. Aqua is a Danish band that has, as yet, only dreamed of attaining Barbie-like status. In 1997, Aqua produced the song Barbie Girl on the album Aquarium. In the song, one bandmember impersonates Barbie, singing in a high-pitched, doll-like voice; another bandmember, calling himself Ken, entices Barbie to "go party." (The lyrics are in the Appendix.) Barbie Girl singles sold well and, to Mattel's dismay, the song made it onto Top 40 music charts.
Mattel brought this lawsuit against the music companies who produced, marketed and sold Barbie Girl: MCA Records, Inc., Universal Music International Ltd., Universal Music A/S, Universal Music & Video Distribution, Inc. and MCA Music Scandinavia AB (collectively, "MCA"). MCA in turn challenged the district court's jurisdiction under the Lanham Act and its personal jurisdiction over the foreign defendants, Universal Music International Ltd., Universal Music A/S and MCA Music Scandinavia AB (hereinafter "foreign defendants"); MCA also brought a defamation claim against Mattel for statements Mattel made about MCA while this lawsuit was pending. The district court concluded it had jurisdiction over the foreign defendants and under the Lanham Act, and granted MCA's motion for summary judgment on Mattel's federal and state-law claims for trademark infringement and dilution. The district court also granted Mattel's motion for summary judgment on MCA's defamation claim.
Mattel appeals the district court's ruling that Barbie Girl is a parody of Barbie and a nominative fair use; that MCA's use of the term Barbie is not likely to confuse consumers as to Mattel's affiliation with Barbie Girl or dilute the Barbie mark; and that Mattel cannot assert an unfair competition claim under the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property. MCA cross-appeals the grant of summary judgment on its defamation claim as well as the district court's jurisdictional holdings.
A. All three foreign defendants are affiliated members of Universal Music Group and have an active relationship with each other and with domestic members of the Group. Defendants entered into cross-licensing agreements and developed a coordinated plan to distribute the Barbie Girl song in the United States (including California), and sent promotional copies of the Barbie Girl single and the Aquarium album to the United States (including California). This conduct was expressly aimed at, and allegedly caused harm in, California, Mattel's principal place of business. See Panavision Int'l, L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316, 1321 (9th Cir.1998). Mattel's trademark claims would not have arisen "but for" the conduct foreign defendants purposefully directed toward California, and jurisdiction over the foreign defendants, who are represented by the same counsel and closely associated with the domestic defendants, is reasonable. See id. at 1321-22. The district court did not err in asserting specific personal jurisdiction over the foreign defendants.
B. Sales of the Aquarium album worldwide had a sufficient effect on American foreign commerce, and Mattel suffered monetary injury in the United States from those sales. See Ocean Garden, Inc. v. Marktrade Co., 953 F.2d 500, 503 (9th Cir.1991). Moreover, Mattel's claim is more closely tied to interests of American foreign commerce than it is to the commercial interests of other nations: Mattel's principal place of business is in California, the foreign defendants are closely related to the domestic defendants, and Mattel sought relief only for defendants' sales in the United States. See Star-Kist Foods, Inc. v. P.J. Rhodes & Co., 769 F.2d 1393, 1395-96 (9th Cir.1985). The district court properly exercised extraterritorial jurisdiction under the Lanham Act.
A. A trademark is a word, phrase or symbol that is used to identify a manufacturer or sponsor of a good or the provider of a service. See New Kids on the Block v. News Am. Publ'g, Inc., 971 F.2d 302, 305 (9th Cir.1992). It's the owner's way of preventing others from duping consumers into buying a product they mistakenly believe is sponsored by the trademark owner. A trademark "inform[s] people that trademarked products come from the same source." Id. at 305 n. 2. Limited to this core purpose — avoiding confusion in the marketplace — a trademark owner's property rights play well with the First Amendment. "Whatever first amendment rights you may have in calling the brew you make in your bathtub `Pepsi' are easily outweighed by the buyer's interest in not being fooled into buying it." Trademarks Unplugged, 68 N.Y.U. L.Rev. 960, 973 (1993).
The problem arises when trademarks transcend their identifying purpose. Some trademarks enter our public discourse and become an integral part of our vocabulary. How else do you say that something's "the Rolls Royce of its class"? What else is a quick fix, but a Band-Aid? Does the average consumer know to ask for aspirin as "acetyl salicylic acid"? See Bayer Co. v. United Drug Co., 272 F. 505, 510 (S.D.N.Y. 1921). Trademarks often fill in gaps in our vocabulary and add a contemporary flavor to our expressions. Once imbued with such expressive value, the trademark becomes a word in our language and assumes a role outside the bounds of trademark law.
Our likelihood-of-confusion test, see AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341, 348-49 (9th Cir.1979), generally strikes a comfortable balance between the trademark owner's property rights and the public's expressive interests. But when a trademark owner asserts a right to control how we express ourselves — when we'd find it difficult to describe the product any other way (as in the case of aspirin), or when the mark (like Rolls Royce) has taken on an expressive meaning apart from its source-identifying function — applying the traditional test fails to account for the full weight of the public's interest in free expression.
The First Amendment may offer little protection for a competitor who labels its commercial good with a confusingly similar mark, but "[t]rademark rights do not entitle the owner to quash an unauthorized use of the mark by another who is communicating ideas or expressing points of view." L.L. Bean, Inc. v. Drake Publishers, Inc., 811 F.2d 26, 29 (1st Cir.1987). Were we to ignore the expressive value that some marks assume, trademark rights would grow to encroach upon the zone protected by the First Amendment. See Yankee Publ'g, Inc. v. News Am. Publ'g, Inc., 809 F.Supp. 267, 276 (S.D.N.Y.1992) (). Simply put, the trademark owner does not have the right to control public discourse whenever the public imbues his mark with a meaning beyond its source-identifying function. See Anti-Monopoly, Inc. v. Gen. Mills Fun Group, 611 F.2d 296, 301 (9th Cir.1979) ().
B. There is no doubt that MCA uses Mattel's mark: Barbie is one half of Barbie Girl. But Barbie Girl is the title of a song about Barbie and Ken, a reference that — at least today — can only be to Mattel's famous couple. We expect a title to describe the underlying work, not to identify the producer, and Barbie Girl does just that.
The Barbie Girl title presages a song about Barbie, or at least a girl like Barbie. The title conveys a message to consumers about what they can expect to discover in the song itself; it's a quick...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kellman v. Whole Foods Mkt., Inc.
...the plaintiffs cite Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc. , 465 U.S. 770, 104 S.Ct. 1473, 79 L.Ed.2d 790 (1984), Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc. , 296 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2002), World–Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson , 444 U.S. 286, 100 S.Ct. 559, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980), Plant Food Co–Op v. Wolf......
-
Stone Brewing Co. v. Millercoors LLC
..."refers to the ‘whittling away of the value of a trademark’ when it's used to identify different products." Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc. , 296 F.3d 894, 903 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting McCarthy, supra , § 24:67). "For example, Tylenol snowboards, Netscape sex shops and Harry Potter dry cl......
-
Aurora World Inc. v. Ty Inc.
......v. Cash Money Records Inc., 394 F.3d 357, 365 (5th Cir.2004) (“Although some circuits require that a plaintiff actually obtain a certificate from the Copyright Office ...v. Mattel, Inc., 518 F.3d 628, 637 (9th Cir.2008) (noting that the extrinsic test has evolved, and stating: “[T]he extrinsic prong was a test for similarity ......
-
Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.
...be for Samsung.SourceAdapted from ABA 3.4.1.Authorities15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(2)(1); 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(2)(B); Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc., 296 F.3d 894, 905 (9th Cir. 2002); Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763, 765 n.1 (1992).[DISPUTED] FINAL JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 53TRADE......
-
Not All Is Fair (Use) In Trademarks And Copyrights
...Hot Diggity Dog, LLC, 507 F.3d 252, 260 (4th Cir. 2007) ("Chewy Vuitton" dog toys were not infringing); Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc., 296 F.3d 894, 902 (9th Cir. 2002) (use of "Barbie" in the song "Barbie Girl" by the band Aqua was Fair Use of Copyrights Even if use of a third-party tr......
-
Ninth Circuit Assesses Use Of Player Likenesses In Video Games
...or the content of the work." Id. at 999. The Ninth Circuit had previously adopted the Rogers test in Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc., 296 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2002), and applied it specifically in the video game context in E.S.S. Entertainment 2000, Inc. v. Rock Star Videos, Inc., 547 F.3d ......
-
Supreme Court Decision Strengthens Brand Holders' Ability To Protect Their Trademarks Against Alleged Parodies
...is used solely to perform some other expressive function, not to designate a work's source. See, e.g., Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc., 296 F. 3d 894, 901 (2002) (use of the Barbie name in band's song "Barbie Girl" was "not [as] a source identifier"). By contrast, the Court explained that......
-
GoldieBlox Fair Use
...these claims on the grounds of fair use, it finds strong footing in existing Ninth Circuit law. In Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc., 296 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2002), Mattel sued MCA for the band Aqua's song "Barbie Girl," which poked fun at the Barbie doll's materialism. The Ninth Circuit aff......
-
The First Amendment and the Right(s) of Publicity.
...15 U.S.C. [section] 1125(c) (2018); Radiance Found, v. NAACP, 786 F.3d 316, 331-32 (4th Cir. 2015); Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc., 296 F.3d 894, 906 (9th Cir. 2002); H.R. REP. NO. 104374, at 8 (1995), as reprinted in 1996 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1029, 1035 (indicating that the dilution provision o......
-
The Public Policy Argument Against Trademark Licensee Estoppel and Naked Licensing.
...F.2d 302, 308-10 (9th Cir. 1992). (190.) Smith v. Chanel, Inc., 402 F.2d 562, 565-67 (9th Cir. 1968). (191.) Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, 296 F.3d 894, 901-03 (9th Cir. (192.) RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF UNFAIR COMPETITION [section] 33 cmt. d (AM. L. INST. 1995). (193.) Beer Nuts, Inc. v. King N......
-
The Limited Copyright Protection for Playing Cards
...Rogers test is reserved for expressive works.”); 1 McCarthy, supra note 8, §§ 31:144.50, 31:153. 14. Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc., 296 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2002). 15. Brown , 724 F.3d 1235. 16. Gordon , 909 F.3d 257. 17. Mattel , 296 F.3d at 901. 18. VIP Prods., LLC v. Jack Daniel’s Prop......
-
Game Over: Trade Barrier Impacts on Intellectual Property in the Toy and Game Industry
...Rogers test is reserved for expressive works.”); 1 McCarthy, supra note 8, §§ 31:144.50, 31:153. 14. Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc., 296 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2002). 15. Brown , 724 F.3d 1235. 16. Gordon , 909 F.3d 257. 17. Mattel , 296 F.3d at 901. 18. VIP Prods., LLC v. Jack Daniel’s Prop......