Mattel Case Study

1441 Words 6 Pages
Register to read the introduction… All finished toy produced are tested before they get to the customers.
As we can see, that a very strict check system but why those harmful toys could still pass through and went to the market? It’s clearly that using lead paint is bad but let those toys get to the customer isn’t it worst? If I own a car toy factory and I allow my neighbor to produce my car and my neighbor use toxic paint to paint them then we are both in the wrong. So both Mattel and the Chinese contractor are equally to blame.
Mattel also have problems with their design, the magnet fall out too easy.
As they are losing their reputation and subcontractors, Mattel should really do something to avoid these issues. In my opinion, firstly, Mattel should improve its design and carefully exam the toy before launch them out. Secondly, they should also improve their supervisor over the products and make sure all of them pass the high standards request. Thirdly, Mattel should investigate contractors and audit the subcontractor and if necessary, provide them the information about their product high standard and safety.

IV. SHOULD MATTEL RECEIVE CONTROL OF MGA’S BRAZT DOLLS? IF SO, WHAT ACTIONS SHOULD MATTEL TAKE REGARDING
…show more content…
MGA was then faced a critical situation: they are forced to collect and destroy all Brazt dolls that are in the market. MGA had investigated it would have to spent about $10 million or $20 million to do …show more content…
The court ruled the MGA can continue to sell their Brazt dolls that are currently on the market until the next judgment is made. The court also indicated that the order transferring ownership of the Bratz trademark and copyright from MGA to Mattel was "drastic," and questioned why Mattel wasn't simply given a royalty or ownership stake in MGA's Bratz franchise. The appellate judges also ordered Mattel and MGA to mediation. In other words, the two companies should try to sort it out themselves.
MGA then paid US $100 million (instead of US$500 million as Mattel sued MGA for) in damages, citing that only the first generation of Bratz had infringed on Mattel property and that MGA had innovated and evolved the product significantly enough that subsequent generations of Bratz could not be conclusively found to be infringing.

I think that would be the best solution for both Mattel and MGA because Brazt has been in the market for a long time and is going to celebrate its 10th anniversary. Customers love Brazt and they don’t want to lose them or changed them. After this affair some customers say they don’t want Barbie anymore because Mattel was just being selfish and it seems like they simply trying to stop competition. As so, in my opinion, Mattel should work out a deal with MGA in which MGA can continue sell Brazt dolls as long as Mattel share in some of the profits.

Related Documents