Therefore, the judge granted MGA Entertainment permission to persist with the sale and manufacture of these lines as long as they were promoted under a brand other than Bratz. MGA Entertainment were also required to remove all Bratz products from retailers’ shelves and reimburse the retailers for the merchandise removed. Furthermore, the judge ordered that MGA Entertainment hand over all recalled merchandise to Mattel so it could be disposed accordingly. Moreover, all molds, marketing materials, and other merchandise associated with the Bratz line had to be destroyed. As a result of this ruling, MGA Entertainment filed for a permanent stay of the injunction which was granted in February 2009. The stay remained effective until December 2009. However, the court granted MGA an immediate stay of the injunction. This lifted the recall on the Bratz product line which would have taken effect in January 2010. The reason for the ban lift was due in part to the draconian ruling that the judge had previously issued which required MGA Entertainment to hand over the Bratz product line to Mattel.
Section 505 of the Copyright Act allows for the award of full costs and reasonable attorney’s fees to the prevailing party. Noting that the prevailing party is not always entitled to recover its costs, the court reasoned that that the exercise of its discretion in this case is guided by a single equitable inquiry: did the successful prosecution or defense further the purposes of the Copyright Act?