Feeds

back to article Mattel gets litigious on chinabarbie.com

Mattel yesterday filed suit in Manhattan federal court against www.chinabarbie.com for "using the toymaker's famed 'Barbie' trademark as part of the name for a pornographic website", Reuters reports. The suit, which is seeking unspecified damages, says the site is operated by Florida-based Global China Networks using a New York …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Article

I'm quite glad the article mentioned it was a pornographic website.

...i nearly went to try and get a bargain.....

Honest!

Chris

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Now that's a statistic

"American girls aged between 3 and 11 own an average of eight Barbie dolls each".

I bet they didn't say how many of those barbie dolls suffer loss of head or limbs by the brothers of said 3 - 11 year olds.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Why?

This gives them the marketing oppotunity of a life time, they could produce asian-looking barbies which speak

"Me luv you long time!"

"sukky sukky, only five dollah!"

"Soul daddy too big!"

Any takers?!

0
0

Re: Article - Chris

Chris, how many do you already own?

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Mattel have been doing this for years

One of our hosting customers asked me to change her domain name from one that referenced the word Barbie to a slightly different variation.

I asked her why and apparently they took her to some kind of tribunal and managed to get the domain transferred into their own names.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Site broken :(

Bah, the alleged pr0n site seems to be malfunctioning. It has a completely innocent front page with an "Enter" link, which points to a page the server doesn't find.

Does anybody have a working link to the site's real contents? Or is it really completely offline now?

0
0

American justice

You've just got to love it when an American corporation can appropriate a common name (Barbie) and then prevent anyone else from ever using that name again. It's not like they created a new name for their doll, they used a name that was already in use. That would be like a corporation today making a "Jennifer" doll and then suing anyone who tried to use that name. It's ridiculous.

0
0
This topic is closed for new posts.