Pornographers Infringe Emily Trademark and Mattel Is Silent — How Swell Is That?

Legal Rage, Media Rage, Pure Rage

Barbie’s Neglected Cousin Lacks A Champion

Will the real Emily Doll please stand up?

Remember the slogan, “You can tell it’s Matell — It’s Swell!”  Well, it doesn’t seem very swell that young girls who do an online search for “Emily Doll” on Google, get this result — after the one paid spot, the first three entries are for porn sites!

The first two Google links go to the website, that is owned by the same guy who owns

The website is the mothership for and other sites like it -- and This image below has been modified with a couple of clouds to conceal what is revealed at, and it would take only a few clicks for a young girl curious enough to explore the mysteries of to discover a new role model.

I’ve got to say John Albright has more nerve than sense.  After all, there’s a Federal law, the The Truth In Domain Names Act of 2003, authored by no less an eminence than Senator Orrin Hatch, that seems to address this sort of conduct.  Thinking perhaps this might be of importance to Mattel, I sent the following email to Mattel’s trademark lawyer:

Strangely enough, this email drew no response from Mr. Moore.  Two weeks later, I called and left a message with his secretary, one of those detailed messages whereby you communicate the gravity of your concerns.  But like a coin dropped down an exceedingly deep well, my inquiries werereciprocated by the silence of the tomb.  Finally, I put my blogger’s hat on, and sent him a letter with a few questions, explicitly referencing the cybersquatting law and Truth In Domain Names Act:

I was particularly surprised by Mattel’s laissez faire attitude to the infringement of its registered trademark, because Barbie has always been such an aggressive litigator.  Like in that case — it’s a landmark case, and Mattel’s rep for kicking the stuffing out of any clown stupid enough to play porn games with the Barbie name is legendary.  See Ellen Rony’s comments on the topic in the Domain Name Handbook.  But when I looked on the US Patent & Trademark website and found that Mr. Moore was the trademark godfather for both of these young ladies — Emily and Barbie — I couldn’t help but wonder — why doesn’t Emily merit any protection?  Is it only the slender-hipped, bullet-bra type that gets any respect in Hollywood?  Is a little girl not worthy of a little trademark muscle from the company legal department?

Well, if Mattel’s just going to play Humpty Dumpty

and sit on the wall while unscrupulous operators lure little girls into the skin trade, you might want to give them a hand to get off it.  Adult websites certainly have their place in our world, but not at the top of a search page for “Emily Doll,” with a design and typestyle that is clearly meant to lure young girls into viewing what the law classes as harmful material.  I can’t seem to get Michael Moore’s interest, but if some other people, like angry moms, started filling his inbox with complaints, it might make a difference.

And there’s always the government. A quick search of “enforcement of truth in domain name act of 2003″ lead me to a link where I found this:


WASHINGTON, DC – April 20, 2004As part of an ongoing effort to crack down on websites that deceive minors into viewing pornographic and obscene materials, the U.S. Department of Justice and the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC) announced today that the National Center’s CyberTipline, a reporting mechanism for child sexual exploitation, will now feature the ability to receive reports from the public on misleading Internet domain names.

The new reporting feature was added today to the National Center’s CyberTipline, accessible at, or by calling 1-800-THE LOST (1-800-843-5678). The addition was prompted by a DOJ initiative, led by the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section of the Criminal Division, to crack down on misleading domain names following enactment of the Prosecutorial Remedies and Tools Against the Exploitation of Children Today Act (the “PROTECT Act”) on April 30, 2003. Read More Here

And Don’t Forget The Importance of Statistics

If anyone asks you how you know that young people under the age of 18 are being lured into, tell them that according to, 11% of the thirty-five hundred visitors to every month are between the ages of 12 and 17.  That would be 350 a month, or more than ten per day, or one every couple of hours.  See the chart below and click it for more information at the main website.

No Comments

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.