Pop group wins $71.4M in trade dress case against MGA's dolls

A federal jury rendered a $53.6 million punitive verdict Monday against MGA Entertainment Inc. on top of $17.8 million in damages for infringing the trade dress of a teenage pop group by selling a line of flashy dolls.

The eight-person jury unanimously found MGA infringed on $17.8 million worth of trade dress claims - the whole profit MGA's attorneys say was made on the dolls - which an Atlanta-based teenage pop group claimed had copied their look, years after the group stopped performing. The group's attorney said they have not disbanded, though, and recently released a song and performed a show.

The case, in its third trial stint, was limited by the group to seven of what was originally 32 dolls in question. The jury found MGA infringed the OMG Girlz's trade dress and likeness on all seven. However, for the remaining 25 dolls, the jury found MGA infringed the group's likeness on some but not all.

It is the first time the group, along with artists Tameka "Tiny" Harris and Clifford "T.I." Harris, prevailed on any of the counterclaims after the first two trials ended in a mistrial and complete win for MGA, which was later reversed.

The group and the Harris family were represented by Sheppard Mullin partner John R. Keville and Winston & Strawn LLP.

During arguments for punitive damages, Keville suggested the jury penalize MGA an extra $35 million to $72 million "to send them a message." He thanked the jurors for finding MGA liable for infringing his clients and "standing up to MGA's bullying and misrepresentations."

"You found seven, plus about seven more, I think," he said, saying they copied from the OMG Girlz as well as other artists such as Beyonce and Lady Gaga.

MGA's counsel argued that if the jury were to award any extra penalty, a range of $500,000 and $1 million was most appropriate because the $17 million verdict was already substantial and reflected 100% of the dolls' profits. "In light of that, we believe that is a substantial amount ... a message is being sent," Loh said.

After the $53.6 million punitive damages verdict was rendered, the case ended and Loh left, declining to comment. He had contended that the evidence in the case showed that by the time the original lawsuit was filed, the company had never heard any complaints from its customers about OMG Girlz brand confusion. "This case took a while to resolve ... but we had the absolute right and good faith belief that what we were doing was fine because we had not received any complaints," Loh said.

MGA launched its "L.O.L. Surprise! O.M.G." doll series in 2019. A year later, the company was sent a cease-and-desist letter from the Harris family. MGA then filed a lawsuit in 2020 seeking a declaratory judgment that its dolls did not misappropriate the identity of the music group. The Harris family, along with their record labels and the OMG Girlz, then countersued.

Loh added that the evidence showed there was no actual harm against OMG Girlz, which included no lost business opportunities.

However, in rebuttal, Keville argued that there were plenty of instances of consumer confusion, such as the social media feedback, and the companies release of the dolls had long ago ruined any opportunity for the Harris family to manufacture OMG Girlz dolls of their own.

The verdict followed nearly a day of deliberation that began Friday afternoon. U.S. District James V. Selna began reading the jury's findings at around 2:30 p.m. on Monday. *MGA Entertainment Inc. v. Clifford T.I. Harris et al.*, 2:20-cv-11548 (C.D. Cal., filed Dec. 22, 2020).

Following the three-week trial that began Sept. 3, the jurors concluded that some of MGA's "L.O.L. Surprise! O.M.G." doll series did infringe the trade dress of the OMG Girlz image that Keville argued included the "OMG" name combined with colorful hair and outfits that he described as "edgy" and "vibrant."

MGA's counsel argued the group did not own the OMG acronym or invent the concept of colorful performer attire. The company also argued the OMG Girlz were not popular or active enough to warrant trade dress claims under the infringement law.

However, Keville was able to successfully argue these associations were proven through several "reasonable purchaser" individuals who testified that they came to the determination that they wasted their money on the dolls after finding out the band was not directly correlated.

Several social media comments from fans who conveyed similar comments to Tameka Harris' Instagram were also shown throughout the trial.

MGA's counsel argued the plaintiffs' findings were not strong enough because trade dress goes beyond a "cherry-picked" group of people who associate themselves with the OMG Girlz and their defined trade dress was not specific enough. He said a group of everyday people who weren't fans would have been a better test group.