Short answer: in Mattel v. MGA (9th Cir. 2010), the sketches were not really in dispute as “inventions” – the court said they plainly were. The fight over ideas mattered because Mattel’s biggest remedy, a constructive trust over the Bratz trademarks, rested on Carter Bryant’s ideas for the names “Bratz” and “Jade”, not on his drawings. For the sketches, the harder questions were when they were made under his contract and how much of them copyright actually protects. For designers, the lesson is that the date a drawing was made, and which agreement you were under at that date, can decide who owns it.
Disclosure: I’m Inna Hall, co-founder of TimeBinder, a tool that timestamps files. This page is general information, not legal advice. Talk to an employment or IP lawyer about your own agreement.
Table of Contents
What happened in the Bratz case
Carter Bryant worked as a designer in Mattel’s Barbie Collectibles department. In August 2000, while still employed by Mattel, he pitched the Bratz concept to MGA. He signed a consulting agreement with MGA in October 2000 and left Mattel later that month. His 1999 Mattel employment agreement assigned to Mattel “inventions” he “conceived or reduced to practice” at any time during his employment.
At the first trial, the jury found that Bryant came up with the Bratz and Jade names, and made the preliminary sketches and a sculpt, while he was employed by Mattel. The district court then imposed a constructive trust that effectively transferred the Bratz trademarks to Mattel and enjoined MGA from selling most Bratz dolls.
In July 2010 the Ninth Circuit (Chief Judge Kozinski, 616 F.3d 904) vacated those remedies and sent the case back. On retrial in April 2011, a jury rejected Mattel’s claims to own the Bratz ideas, sketches and early models.
Why the court focused on ideas
The constructive trust over the Bratz trademarks only made sense if Mattel owned the names. A name idea isn’t a drawing, so Mattel needed the word “inventions” in Bryant’s contract to cover ideas. The court held the term was ambiguous on that point. It noted that other Mattel agreements expressly assigned “ideas” and this one didn’t, which was extrinsic evidence a jury should weigh. Because the trial judge had told the jury that ideas were covered, the instruction was wrong and the trademark trust couldn’t stand.
So the “ideas” focus wasn’t the court ignoring the sketches. It was the court addressing the part of the judgment that depended on ideas alone, which was also the part that handed over the brand.
What the court said about the sketches
The court said the drawings and the sculpt “clearly were inventions”. Its problems with the sketch side were different:
- Timing. The contract covered work done “at any time during my employment”. The court found that ambiguous: it could mean the whole calendar period, including nights and weekends, or only work done in the course of the job. That was a question for the jury.
- Scope of copyright. Copyright protects expression, not ideas. The court said MGA was free to look at the sketches and decide to make “bratty” dolls too. Only the protectable expression in the sketches could be infringed, and the sculpt got only “thin” protection against virtually identical copies.
Why timing decided so much
Bryant had worked at Mattel before, left, and then returned. Whether a given sketch or idea fell inside the assignment depended on when it was made and under which agreement. The case shows how much weight dates carry in an ownership fight: the same drawing can belong to you or to an employer depending on the month it was created.
California also limits invention-assignment clauses. Labor Code §2870, which the Ninth Circuit mentioned, says an employee can’t be made to assign inventions developed entirely on their own time without the employer’s equipment or trade secrets, unless they relate to the employer’s business or result from work for the employer. Many other states have similar laws.
What designers with side projects can do
- Read the assignment clause. Check whether it says “ideas”, “inventions”, “works” or all three, and whether it covers “during employment” or “in the course of employment”.
- List prior work when you join. Many agreements let you list excluded prior inventions or designs. Use it.
- Keep dated records. Save sketches, files and notes for a side project with dates, made on your own equipment and time.
- Don’t pitch while employed without advice, if the work is close to your employer’s business.
Our design file timestamping guide and invention records guide cover record-keeping in more detail.
What a timestamp does and doesn’t do
TimeBinder hashes your files locally in your browser, so the files are never uploaded. It anchors that fingerprint to Bitcoin and issues a Proof of Time Certificate. That gives you verifiable evidence of when a file existed: you can show that the file existed no later than the anchor date.
That helps with the timing question, for example showing a design existed before you started a job. It doesn’t show who made the file, whether you made it on your own time, or what your contract means. Those still depend on your agreement, your other records and the facts.
The free plan includes 1 Token a month, and one TimeBind covers up to 10 files. See pricing.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did Mattel end up owning Bratz?
No. The 2010 appeal vacated the trademark trust and injunction, and the 2011 retrial jury rejected Mattel’s ownership claims. The Ninth Circuit affirmed that copyright verdict in 2013.
Are ideas covered by my employment agreement?
It depends on the wording. The Bratz court treated “inventions” as ambiguous about ideas. Contracts that expressly say “ideas” are harder to argue with.
Does work on nights and weekends belong to my employer?
Sometimes. It depends on the clause and on state law such as California Labor Code §2870.
Can a timestamp prove I made a design before a job?
It can show the file existed no later than a given date. It doesn’t show who made it.
Sources were checked on 28 October 2026: Mattel, Inc. v. MGA Entertainment, Inc., 616 F.3d 904 (9th Cir. 2010); Mattel v. MGA, No. 11-56357 (9th Cir. 2013); California Labor Code §2870.
