Editing Barbie (section)

==Competition from Bratz dolls==
In May 2001, [[MGA Entertainment]] launched the ''[[Bratz]]'' series of dolls, a move that gave Barbie her first serious competition in the fashion doll market. In 2004, sales figures showed that Bratz dolls were outselling Barbie dolls in the United Kingdom, although [[Mattel]] maintained that in terms of the number of dolls, clothes, and accessories sold, Barbie remained the leading brand.<ref>{{Cite news| url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3640958.stm |work=[[BBC News]] | title=Bratz topple Barbie from top spot | date=September 9, 2004 | access-date=April 26, 2010}}</ref> In 2005, figures showed that sales of Barbie dolls had fallen by 30% in the United States, and by 18% worldwide, with much of the drop being attributed to the popularity of Bratz dolls.<ref>{{Cite news| url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4350846.stm |work=[[BBC News]] | title=Barbie blues for toy-maker Mattel | date=October 17, 2005 | access-date=April 26, 2010}}</ref>

In December 2006, Mattel sued MGA Entertainment for $1 billion, alleging that Bratz creator [[Carter Bryant]] was working for Mattel when he developed the idea for ''Bratz''.<ref>{{Cite news |title = Barbie sues Bratz for $1bn|url = https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/2601442/Barbie-sues-Bratz-for-1bn.html|work = [[The Daily Telegraph]]|location = London|date = August 22, 2008|access-date = December 7, 2015}}</ref> On July 17, 2008, a federal jury agreed that the Bratz line was created by Carter Bryant while he was working for Mattel and that MGA and its chief executive officer [[Isaac Larian]] were liable for converting Mattel property for their own use and intentionally interfering with the contractual duties owed by Bryant to Mattel.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/business/18toy.html?_r=1&ref=business&oref=slogin |title= Jury rules for Mattel in Bratz doll case |work=[[The New York Times]] |date=July 18, 2008 |access-date=December 7, 2008| archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20150623085951/http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/business/18toy.html?_r=1&ref=business&oref=slogin| archive-date=June 23, 2015| url-status= live}}</ref> On August 26, the jury found that Mattel would have to be paid $100 million in damages. On December 3, 2008, U.S. District Judge Stephen Larson banned MGA from selling Bratz. He allowed the company to continue selling the dolls until the winter holiday season ended.<ref>{{Cite news |title=Barbie beats back Bratz |url=https://money.cnn.com/2008/12/04/news/companies/bratz_dolls.ap/index.htm?postversion=2008120406 |publisher=[[CNN Money]] |date=December 4, 2008 |access-date=December 7, 2008| archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20081207083628/https://money.cnn.com/2008/12/04/news/companies/bratz_dolls.ap/index.htm?postversion=2008120406| archive-date= December 7, 2008 | url-status= live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |first=David |last=Colker |title=Bad day for the Bratz in L.A. court |url=http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/12/bad-day-for-the.html |work=[[Los Angeles Times]] |date=December 4, 2008 |access-date=December 7, 2008| archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20081207034354/http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/12/bad-day-for-the.html| archive-date= December 7, 2008 | url-status= live}}</ref> On appeal, a stay was granted by the [[U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit]]; the Court also overturned the District Court's original ruling for Mattel, where MGA Entertainment was ordered to forfeit the entire ''Bratz'' brand.<ref>{{Cite news |url=http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/wxxi/news.newsmain/article/0/0/1678979/US/Court.throws.out.Mattel.win.over.Bratz.doll |title=Court throws out Mattel win over Bratz doll |agency=[[Reuters]] |date=July 22, 2010 |access-date=July 22, 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110724024113/http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/wxxi/news.newsmain/article/0/0/1678979/US/Court.throws.out.Mattel.win.over.Bratz.doll |archive-date=July 24, 2011 |url-status=dead |df=mdy-all }}</ref><ref>[http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/07/22/09-55673.pdf ''Mattel Inc. v. MGA Entertainment, Inc.''] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100731162937/http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/07/22/09-55673.pdf |date=July 31, 2010 }}, no. 09-55763 (9th Cir. Jul 22, 2010)</ref>

[[Mattel|Mattel Inc.]] and [[MGA Entertainment|MGA Entertainment Inc.]] returned to court on January 18, 2011, to renew their battle over who owns ''Bratz'', which this time included accusations from both companies that the other side stole trade secrets.<ref>{{Cite news| url=https://latimes.com/business/la-fi-0119-bratz-trial-20110118,0,28631.story | work=[[Los Angeles Times]] | first=Andrea | last=Chang | date=January 18, 2011 | title=Mattel, MGA renew fight over Bratz dolls in court}}</ref> On April 21, 2011, a federal jury returned a verdict supporting MGA.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.scpr.org/news/2011/04/21/federal-jury-says-mga-not-mattel-owns-bratz-copyri/ | title=Federal jury says MGA, not Mattel, owns Bratz copyright|access-date=April 22, 2011|publisher=Southern California Public Radio}}</ref> On August 5, 2011, Mattel was also ordered to pay MGA $310 million for attorney fees, stealing trade secrets, and false claims rather than the $88.5 million issued in April.<ref name="Los Angeles Times">{{Cite news|last=Chang|first=Andrea|title=Mattel must pay MGA $310 million in Bratz case|url=https://www.latimes.com/business/la-xpm-2011-aug-05-la-fi-mattel-bratz-20110805-story.html|access-date=August 5, 2011|work=[[Los Angeles Times]]|date=August 5, 2011}}</ref>

In August 2009, MGA introduced a range of dolls called [[Moxie Girlz]], intended as a replacement for Bratz dolls.<ref>{{Cite news |first=Mae |last=Anderson |title=Bratz maker introduces new doll line|url=http://www.newsday.com/bratz-maker-introduces-new-doll-line-1.1343720 |agency=[[Associated Press]] |date=August 3, 2009 |access-date=October 29, 2009}}</ref>