Why wasn’t Aqua’s “Barbie Girl” part of the Barbie movie soundtrack?

Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc.: The Barbie Girl Case

In 1997, Mattel, Inc., the maker of the Barbie doll, sued MCA Records, Inc., the record label that released the song “Barbie Girl” by Aqua. Mattel claimed that the song infringed on its trademark rights to the Barbie brand.

The song “Barbie Girl” is a satirical pop song that pokes fun at the Barbie doll and the values that it represents. The song’s lyrics include the line “I’m a Barbie girl, in a Barbie world.” Mattel argued that this line infringed on its trademark rights because it used the Barbie name without permission.

MCA Records argued that the song was a parody of the Barbie doll and that it was protected by the fair use doctrine. The fair use doctrine allows for the limited use of copyrighted material without permission for purposes such as criticism, commentary, or parody.

The district court ruled in favor of MCA Records, finding that the song “Barbie Girl” was a parody and that it was protected by the fair use doctrine. Mattel appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision, finding that the song “Barbie Girl” was a “transformative” work that was “clearly recognizable as a parody.” The court also found that the song did not harm the Barbie brand and that it was unlikely to confuse consumers.

The Mattel v. MCA Records case is a landmark decision that established the legal framework for parody under the fair use doctrine. The case also shows that even well-known trademarks are not immune to parody.

In addition to the fair use defense, MCA Records also argued that the song “Barbie Girl” was not likely to confuse consumers. The court agreed, finding that the song was clearly a parody and that it was unlikely that consumers would mistake it for an official Barbie product.

The Mattel v. MCA Records case is an important precedent for the fair use doctrine. The case shows that parody is a protected form of expression and that it can be used to criticize or comment on even well-known trademarks. The case also shows that the fair use doctrine is a flexible tool that can be used to balance the rights of copyright owners with the public interest in free speech.

If you have any questions about whether your use of a popular phrase is lawful under the fair use doctrine, please give WINTER LLP a call today.