## Facts

- Mattel, Inc. created and owned copyrights in multiple Barbie doll face sculptures, including “Neptune’s Daughter Barbie” (1992) and “CEO Barbie” (1999).
- Radio City operated Radio City Music Hall and, with co-defendants, produced a “Rockettes 2000” doll modeled on the Rockettes.
- Mattel alleged Radio City copied central facial features—eyes, nose, and mouth—from the copyrighted Barbie face sculptures when designing the Rockette doll.
- The dolls’ faces were visibly similar in several respects, including central facial features.
- In the district court, Radio City sought summary judgment on the copyright claim.
- For purposes of the summary-judgment motion, the district court assumed copying of the eyes, nose, and mouth.
- The district court nonetheless held these features were not copyright-protectable because they were common elements of a youthful female doll, excluded them from the substantial-similarity comparison, and granted summary judgment to Radio City.
- Mattel appealed; claims against the other defendants had been settled, leaving only Radio City in the appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court erred in concluding that the eyes, nose, and mouth of Mattel’s registered Barbie face sculptures are categorically unprotectable because they are “common” doll features.
2. Whether, assuming copying, the district court erred by excluding those facial features from the substantial-similarity analysis instead of evaluating protectable expression in the facial configuration as a whole.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit vacated the summary judgment for Radio City and remanded.
- The court held the district court’s conclusion that the eyes, nose, and mouth of the registered Barbie faces were not protected by copyright was erroneous.
- The court rejected the district court’s broad reading of prior precedent as stripping protection from central doll facial features.
- The court directed reconsideration of substantial similarity under an approach that accounts for protectable expression in the Barbie faces, including how facial elements are artistically configured.

## Legal Principles

- Even if individual elements are commonplace, copyright may protect original expression embodied in a creator’s particular sculptural rendering and arrangement of those elements.
- A substantial-similarity inquiry must compare the defendant’s work to the plaintiff’s protectable expression; courts may not eliminate central features wholesale merely because they are found in other works.
- Prior cases addressing doll similarities do not establish a categorical rule that central facial features are unprotectable; protectability turns on original expressive choices in the specific work at issue.
- When copying is assumed for summary judgment, the remaining question is whether protectable expression, considered appropriately, is substantially similar.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit vacated summary judgment because the district court improperly treated Barbie’s eyes, nose, and mouth as entirely unprotectable, thereby distorting the substantial-similarity analysis; the case was remanded for comparison that includes protectable aspects of Mattel’s sculptural facial expression.


Mattel, Inc. v. Goldberger Doll Mfg. Co., 365 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2004)