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

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc. article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes, this article is needed. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dates?

The Background section opens, On December 5th 2000, Mattel sued MCA Records..., 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)[reply]

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)[reply]