Mattel, Inc. v. Greiner & Hausser GmbH

Good Law
354 F.3d 857·2003 WL 22994555·69 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1397·2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 25899
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 22, 200302-56272California5,964 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Clifton, J.

Barbie, the ubiquitous doll produced by Mattel, has been a regular visitor to our court. 1 This time she brings with her an issue of personal jurisdiction — not over her, but over a German toy company which has questioned her ancestry by asserting that Barbie was a copy of its doll and that Mattel had infringed its patent and other intellectual property rights. The German company, Greiner & Hausser GmbH (“G&H”), previously asserted claims to that effect in a lawsuit filed in federal district court in Los Angeles in 1961, more than 40 years ago. That lawsuit was resolved by a dismissal with prejudice of those and other claims. Today, Barbie generates over $2 billion in wholesale revenues each year, a sum which helps to explain why Barbie comes to visit us so frequently. It presumably also helps to explain why a lawsuit was filed in Germany in May 2001 by G&H, claiming that it had been defrauded by Mattel when it entered into a set of related agreements with Mattel in 1964, shortly after the dismissal of the previous California litigation, and seeking damages in the form of a royalty on every Barbie doll sold since that time.

Mattel responded by filing its own lawsuit in…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.