Talk:Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc.

Merge?
The content here is almost exactly the same as that on the Barbie Girl article. It's not even condensed there. Is this article needed? Fixer23 (talk) 09:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No, they're distinctly different subjects. One article is about a song, one article is about a case on U.S. trademark law.  Each should have their own edit pattern.  This article may change depending on how the case is cited in the future.  The article on the song probably ought to have less in it about the trademark case if it really is the same content. TJRC (talk) 21:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, this article is needed. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Dates?
The Background section opens,, using the date the case was argued in front of the Ninth Circuit (according to the infobox). But the citation at the end of the sentence (to an archived MTV News posting) indicates that the suit was originally filed on Thursday, 11 September 1997 in LA District Court, initiating the series of dismissals referenced later in the timeline. I'm not up on such things and will defer to editors more familiar with the norms of both legal coverage and Wikipedia articles about court cases, but should the timeline in § Background instead open on the initiating 1997-09-11 date? -- FeRD_NYC (talk) 16:44, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Barbie girl vs Life in the dream house
I just have to ask how Mattel could sue MCA in 1997 claiming the song harmed their product line, then turn around in 2012 and create a web series called "Life in the dream house" which ridicules that same product line? Or taking it farther, greenlights the production of a movie in 2023 that does the same thing to their product line? 97.107.37.1 (talk) 01:48, 11 June 2023 (UTC)