The big news last month was everywhere: A California judge passed an injunction against MGA Entertainment, prohibiting them from making or selling Bratz items by mid-February of this year. Mattel (owner of the Barbie line) had brought suit against MGA for copyright infringement four years ago, and this had been the long-awaited outcome.
But no sooner had the dust settled than another decision was passed down, last week. Now the AP is reporting that the judge in this case has granted MGA another ten months to comply:
The judge who barred MGA Entertainment Inc. from selling or making its popular Bratz dolls agreed Tuesday to extend a deadline he set for the company to take the products off store shelves.
MGA, which was initially told to stop selling Bratz by Feb. 11, had argued in court that retailers would not order the toys unless the court could guarantee they would remain in stores through most of 2009. U.S. District Judge Stephen Larson obliged, and allowed MGA to file a motion for a later deadline by next week.
“Given the clear importance of the Bratz line to MGA’s financial health, it’s not a big leap to see that (the February deadline) would have significant economic impact on the viability of MGA,” Larson said.
I’m… confused. MGA was found guilty of copyright infringement. Mattel was awarded $100 million in damages, and an injunction was passed. But now MGA is being given extra time because the order as originally given would impact them financially?
There’s a lesson here, I’m sure of it. But I have no idea what it is.