A federal judge tentatively ruled on Jan. 6 against T.I. and Tiny Harris in a watched intellectual property dispute, overturning $53.6 million in punitive damages awarded by a jury last year.
The Harris’ have appealed the reduction.
The couple had accused MGA Entertainment of infringing on the OMG Girlz’s trademark by creating L.O.L. Surprise! O.M.G. dolls that allegedly mimicked the group’s distinctive style. While the court upheld $17.8 million in compensatory damages, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Judge James Selna found insufficient evidence to prove the toy company intentionally copied the OMG Girlz’s likeness.
The original verdict, delivered on Sept. 23, included $17.8 million in real damages and $53.6 million in punitive damages. The couple alleged that MGA’s dolls bore a striking resemblance to the OMG Girlz, a girl group founded by Tiny Harris and featuring her daughter. However, Judge Selna determined that the evidence presented did not meet the requirements of the Lanham Act to justify such punitive damages.
The OMG Girlz, formed in 2009, gained prominence as a girl group under Tiny Harris’s guidance. The group featured bold, colorful fashion choices that became a defining part of their image. The Harrises argued that MGA Entertainment’s L.O.L. Surprise! O.M.G. dolls appropriated the group’s unique aesthetic without permission, leading to the lawsuit.
Lanham Act and Trademark Infringement
The court suggested reduced the lawsuit amount was primarily because the evidence presented did not satisfy the legal standard required for awarding punitive damages under the Lanham Act.
Under the Lanham Act, plaintiffs must provide clear proof of intentional trademark infringement to secure punitive damages. While the law allows plaintiffs to recover a defendant’s profits from trademark violations, it also grants courts significant discretion in determining awards. Judge Selna’s ruling emphasized that the $53.6 million in punitive damages awarded by the jury lacked sufficient legal backing.
The case marks the third trial attempt in the long-running legal dispute. Two previous trials ended in mistrials before the jury in the third case sided with the Harrises, awarding the substantial sum that has now been significantly reduced.
