Fans of Bratz are given a glimmer of hope

The Bratz doll maker had another bad day in federal court Tuesday, but fans of the sassy dolls were given hope that the girls will live to see another Christmas.

Bratz manufacturer MGA Entertainment Inc. lost a bid to remain in the Bratz business past Feb. 11, the date of a hearing set earlier in U.S. District Court in Riverside.

As of that date, MGA -- which lost an acrimonious court battle over the copyright of the doll known for its platform shoes, hip-hugging outfits and bare midriffs -- has to give up the dolls and name to archrival Mattel Inc. of El Segundo. The court also ordered MGA to recall almost all Bratz products in stores and give them to Mattel, even while the Van Nuys company appealed various rulings.

But Judge Stephen G. Larson, who has on several occasions expressed worry that retailers could be adversely affected by the case, gave MGA a glimmer of hope. He wrote in an order Tuesday that the company had convinced him that “a modification” might be made “to address the concerns regarding the 2009 retail buying season.”

He told both MGA and Mattel to propose solutions that would allow the manufacture and sale of Bratz dolls to continue through that time.

MGA’s outspoken chief executive, Isaac Larian, celebrated by sending a note to his staff saying it was a “good day” for the 1,500-employee company and Bratz and that the judge’s action would allow for “the continued manufacture, sale and license of Bratz products.”

But even if it does happen, Larson hasn’t indicated that MGA will be the company allowed to do it.

Mattel had successfully argued in a jury trial that the upstart Bratz dolls were created by one of its own Barbie designers and that it thus owned basic copyrights.

On Monday, the two companies will be back in Larson’s court. Mattel has asked that a receiver be appointed to monitor the financial dealings of MGA.

In court documents, Mattel charged that MGA might be so fiscally unhealthy that it couldn’t “maintain and preserve the Bratz intellectual property” that the court had determined belongs to Mattel.

Attorney Tom Nolan, who represents MGA, said that Mattel’s charges were baseless and that the company would “vigorously oppose” the appointment of a receiver. Mattel executives declined to comment.

Mattel’s court filing calls into question several recent MGA financial matters.

* The toy giant charges that Omni 808 International, a company that recently provided funding to MGA, is a “newly formed offshore corporation that appears to be a shell.”

Nolan said Omni 808, registered in the Caribbean island of Nevis, was reputable. He said he couldn’t provide specifics because those details were given to the court by MGA under seal.

* Mattel charges that “MGA has funneled millions of dollars to Isaac Larian’s relatives.”

MGA is a private company, Nolan said, and doesn’t have to disclose those matters.

--

david.colker@latimes.com