Paris court dismisses Mattel's copyright infringement lawsuit over Barbie doll

On 25 September, the Tribunal judiciaire de Paris ruled in case 20/10053 on a dispute concerning Barbie dolls between the US company Mattel, the creator of Barbie, and the Dutch toy distributor Toi-Toys.

The conflict arose when Toi-Toys began to commercialise its "Lauren" dolls, which were marketed alongside toys such as a pink scooter and a pink car. This led Mattel to accuse the Dutch company of copyright infringement, unfair competition and parasitism. Mattel claimed that the head of the Lauren doll closely resembled that of its "Barbie CEO" doll. On the other hand, Toi-Toys stated that Mattel was attempting to monopolise a common design in the doll industry.

The characteristics attributed to Barbie's head include an oval face, a broad and flat forehead, almond-shaped eyes with the outer corners higher than the inner corners, a small straight nose and a smile with slightly visible teeth. She also has rounded cheeks, high cheekbones and a soft chin with no pronounced jawline. According to the court, these elements give Barbie a harmonious appearance and a pleasant expression that reflected the creative choices of her creator, meaning that the Barbie doll’s face is protected by copyright.

However, the Court held that the Lauren doll was not a counterfeit of Barbie. Although there were similarities, the Lauren doll's head had notable differences such as a narrower base, more prominent chin and ears, and a flatter forehead. This led the Court to dismiss Mattel's claims of copyright infringement.

As regards the claim of unfair competition, the Paris Court pointed out that commercial freedom allows the reproduction of products not protected by intellectual property rights, as long as there is no confusion about the origin of the product. In this case, the Court considered that there was neither unfair competition nor parasitism, as the differences between the dolls were sufficient to avoid confusion. Furthermore, although Toi-Toys sold similar toys, such as a pink scooter and a pink car with a black interior, these were presented alongside other products in packaging that did not mislead consumers as to their origin. Moreover, these products refer to the American culture of the 1950s and 1960s, which is very common in the toy market.

To sum up, the Paris Court recognised that Mattel owns the copyright on the head of the Barbie doll because of the creative choices made in its design. However, the Lauren doll does not infringe these rights and there was no unfair competition, as the mere sale of similar products does not constitute unfair competition, but rather legitimate competition.