# BOYCOTT MATTEL (lawsuit hurts special needs kids)



## BethSLP

I am a speech pathologist who thinks a boycott of Mattel is in order until they cease and desist harrassing a small company that makes therapy materials for special needs children. This is really unbelievable to sue over the use of the word "SAY."

Here is a link to Super Duper's legal battle with Mattel to protect the right of educational publishers to use the word "SAY" in the titles of their products:

http://www.mmdnewswire.com/special-e...ttel-3326.html

Here's a letter I sent to Mattel at the following email addresses:

[email protected] Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer
[email protected] President - Mattel Brands
[email protected] Chief Financial Officer
[email protected] Senior VP General Counsel, Secretary
[email protected] VP-Intellectual Property for Mattel
[email protected] Senior VP Investor Relations, Treasurer
[email protected] Senior VP Corporate Responsibility
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

To whom it may concern,

I recently learned about a lawsuit between your company and Super Duper regarding the use of the word "SAY." As a parent and speech language pathologist, I am extremely disappointed that your company would engage in legal battles with Super Duper over such an insignificant (and in my view, petty) issue. Super Duper is a small company and their products are the most fun, innovative, and affordably priced on the marketplace today for those of us doing speech therapy with young children. It has never crossed my mind that any of these products have a relationship or resemble your products in any way. I had a SEE N SAY when I was a kid. Its an electronic toy, not flash cards to be used in therapy with special needs children. To ever think you can claim the word "SAY" as a copyright makes no sense to me as a speech pathologist. Further, the materials Super Duper provide are helping children all over the U.S. For Mattel, a company that should want to benefit children, to attack a specialized therapy business that is a fraction of your size is very discouraging.

My husband and I are both elementary school speech pathologists, as well as the parent of a 2 yr old. She has many Fisher Price toys. Until this issue is resolved, we are no longer going to buy your products. Further, we will see to it that other parents (especially those whose children are benefitting from the therapy products Super Duper offers) know about this as well. I am planning to post this information on my parenting forums online, and share them with our daughter's school and playgroup moms.

I look forward to a response.

Sincerely,
M. Beth Williams, M.A. CCC-SLP and mom


----------



## mamaverdi

This is revolting.


----------



## bdavis337

What? That's just ridiculous.







:


----------



## kchoffmann

omg, I just scrolled down and found this thread. Thanks for posting. It's despicable.


----------



## JamSamMom

Count me into a boycott!!


----------



## lactationlady

That is disgusting! It is unreal that the jury actually ruled in Matel's favor at the first trial. I will be writing my letters in the morning, when I am more coherent and can sound intelligent.


----------



## CherryBomb

Uggh, how horrible! I sent an email-

To Whom It May Concern,

I recently learned of your lawsuit aimed at Super Duper Publications regarding usage of the phrase "AND SAY." As the parent of a child with special needs, I'm shocked and extremely upset that your company would go after a small company providing such a valuable resource to children with special needs. I find it perplexing that your company believes they are more deserving of using the word "SAY" than a company specializing in products utilized in speech therapy. The products in no way resemble your own and I can't in anyway see how a parent or therapist could confuse Super Duper's products for your own. While it's mildly irritating that you would seek to prevent another company from using the phrase "AND SAY," it's outright disturbing that you would seek $10 million in "damages." Super Duper Publications is a small company and I'm sure you realize that they can not afford even the 400K that you were "awarded." To go after a company that is seeking to improve the lives of our most vulnerable children for such a petty reason is reprehensible to me.

I currently have three children and will cease buying your products until the lawsuit is dropped. I am forwarding this information to all the parents I know, particularly the parents of children with special needs and urging them to do the same. I will also be giving this information to my daughter's 3 therapists and urging them to pass this along to their employers and other therapists. As well, I will be contacting my local media outfit and encouraging them to cover this story.

Sincerely,

Catherine H.

(btw some of the emails didn't go through)


----------



## theretohere




----------



## Debbieslp

Here is another letter -- I wrote this one and forwarded it to about 90 parents and teachers/therapists in my email list when I first heard of this lawsuit:

Dear investors and board members,

I know that I speak for all of my colleagues in speech-language pathology and special education, as well as for the many parents of children with disabilities we have worked with over the years, in expressing an outrage against the lawsuit that has been filed by Mattel against Super Duper Publications.

I use products from Super Duper, including most of their therapy tools and cards that have the word "SAY" in the title, AND Mattel toys, including "SEE N SAY" toys, in my practice. Most of my colleagues, and many of the parents of children with disabilities I have served, would be able to say the same thing.

Buying a set of FISH & SAY materials to help a late-talking preschooler learn to articulate speech sounds, or FOLD & SAY photocopy books to teach kindergarteners with mental retardation the meaning of prepositions, or SORT & SAY magnets to help a third grader with autism learn to answer questions, did not dissuade me or prevent me from also buying Mattel toys and games for my waiting room, nor for my friends' children.

Just this afternoon I used a wonderful flip-chart book aptly called SEE IT, SAY IT with a 14 year old girl who has Down Syndrome and a severe speech disorder called verbal apraxia. Using this book, she practiced pronouncing the /m/ and /ah/ sounds. With the help of these and other therapy materials, this young lady's mother can finally hear the gratifying sound of her daughter calling her "Mom."

Using SEE IT, SAY IT did not hinder this girl from enjoying Mattel High School Musical or Hannah Montana games, the UNO game and View-Master in my office, and any number of other Mattel products in her home and school.

I would urge all investors and board members to put pressure on the Mattel legal team to drop this meaningless and unnecessary lawsuit.

If Mattel continues to pursue legal action against Super Duper, I assure you that word will travel fast from speech and language pathologists and special education teachers, to general education teachers, to school principals and administrators, and support staff at all levels of education from daycare centers to universities; word will travel just as quickly from parents, grandparents, uncles and aunts of children with disabilities, to their friends, neighbors, co-workers, and the managers of the toy stores they patronize.

Consumers will respond and participate in righting a wrong done to a small company whose mission is to make creative, colorful and effective educational materials for those children in our world -- you may know some! -- who need a little extra help in learning.

Respectfully Submitted,

Deborah L. Bennett, M.S., CCC-SLP
Speech and Language Pathologist


----------



## [email protected]

Has anyone had problems sending emails to the above address? I tried to send emails and they are being returned. I tried to send both as a group and individually and the addresses were rejected. Here is what I sent:

Dear Mattel:

As a Speech Pathologist working with children who have special needs, I am completely disappointed in your decision to further pursue this lawsuit. The idea that Mattel feels that it owns the rights to the word "Say" is ridiculous. Often within our practice, we ask children to "say" words for phonological and articulation therapy. I am certain that Super Duper intended these products for use with special populations for therapeutic use. I hope that Mattel realizes that if it bankrupts this small specialty company there will be repercussions. Those who work with special needs children and the parents of special needs children are a tight knit group. Word is spreading across the Internet like a wildfire.
If Mattel continues to pursue this frivolous lawsuit, I like many parent/SLPs will no longer purchase Mattel products for my children or for my practice.

Thank you for your time and attention,

Janet Kennedy
Chicago, IL

I suppose that I will have to print and send snail mail. If anyone else is having similar problems let me know!


----------



## mmmummy

One annoyed mama to a special needs little guy over here -
count me in, we are joining in this boycott!!


----------



## Christine&men

Thanks for putting up all the email addresses, they all got an email...


----------



## Neth Naneth

Thanks for posting this.


----------



## Christine&men

Got a reply from Mattel:

Thank you for your recent email to Mattel. We appreciate your taking time to write to us about your concerns. We'd like to provide you with some additional information to clear up any confusion and misimpressions you may have about the lawsuit that Super Duper filed in South Carolina against Mattel.

1. This case arose when Super Duper tried to register trademarks in the toy category which are very similar to Mattel's famous SEE 'N SAY and THE FARMER SAYS trademarks.
2. Mattel has used these trademarks for more than 40 years and they are registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
3. Mattel did NOT sue Super Duper. Super Duper filed suit against Mattel in South Carolina and requested a jury trial to decide the issue. Under the circumstances, Mattel had no choice but to protect its famous trademarks at trial.
4. Mattel did not claim the exclusive right to use or to register the word "say" at any time. In fact, Mattel did not challenge every name that Super Duper uses which includes the work "say".
5. During the course of this dispute, Mattel presented several reasonable options to resolve this case outside of the courtroom so that both companies could continue in the normal course of business without an expensive trial. Mattel's goal was to find resolution through procedures that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has in place to address such conflicts around trademark registration. Super Duper rejected all these options.
6. The jury in South Carolina found that several of Super Duper's trademarks infringed Mattel's trademarks and that Super Duper had intentionally diluted Mattel's famous trademarks. The jury's verdict protects Mattel's long-held rights in its famous See'n Say trademark and does not threaten Super Duper's business in any way. The Super Duper trademarks at issue represent less than 8% of Super Duper's sales, and the $400,000 jury verdict represents less than 2% of Super Duper's approximate annual revenues of $25 million.
7. Super Duper can continue to sell the products at issue, as long as it uses trademarks that do not infringe or dilute other company's trademarks.

Mattel takes its commitment to integrity and fairness in the marketplace very seriously and works hard to protect its business and intellectual property rights, such as trademarks. Mattel made every effort to settle this issue on terms that would have been beneficial to both companies. Instead, Super Duper chose to seek a jury trial in South Carolina and is now objecting to the verdict reached by a jury of citizens which was selected from its very own community.

While Mattel is pleased that the jury recognized the facts of this case, we want to again emphasize that Mattel neither wanted nor sought a trial on this matter. Super Duper can continue to sell these products, the judgement requires that they select other names.

Thanks you again for your letter to us. We hope that this communication has provided some clarity.

Sincerely,
Mattel Consumer Relations


----------



## ShaggyDaddy

Wow, that is the least evasive, most direct response I have ever seen from a company regarding a legal matter.

Not saying anything about Super Duper specifically, because I am not familiar with them (browsed their price list though) But there is a special place in hell for the many many special needs profiteers out there.


----------



## tboroson

If I'm not mistaken, an entity holding a trademark is legally required to aggressively protect it; they may, in fact, have been advised that if they didn't, they could lose their trademark.


----------



## ilovegardening

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Debbieslp* 
...I wrote this one and forwarded it to about 90 parents and teachers/therapists in my email list when I first heard of this lawsuit:

Just curious, did you receive a response from Mattel similar to the one that another member posted here? Are you going to post the reply you received? Did you forward the reply you received to the above mentioned 90 parents and teachers/therapists in your e-mail list?

If anyone is interested in an unbiased media story on this topic, here is a link to a story in the Greenville, SC newspaper. Remember, there are always two sides to every story, we all could use a lesson in learning to think for ourselves.
http://www.greenvilleonline.com/apps...-1/YOURUPSTATE


----------



## aja-belly

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ilovegardening* 
Just curious, did you receive a response from Mattel similar to the one that another member posted here? Are you going to post the reply you received? Did you forward the reply you received to the above mentioned 90 parents and teachers/therapists in your e-mail list?

If anyone is interested in an unbiased media story on this topic, here is a link to a story in the Greenville, SC newspaper. Remember, there are always two sides to every story, we all could use a lesson in learning to think for ourselves.
http://www.greenvilleonline.com/apps...-1/YOURUPSTATE

i'm really turned off by the number of one-posters on this thread. not helping your cause any dudes....


----------



## Sugermama

Mattel's reply is very interesting and I would like to know much more about this story before I boycott anything.


----------



## MilkTrance

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aja-belly* 
i'm really turned off by the number of one-posters on this thread. not helping your cause any dudes....

I SAY, it is very "interesting", isn't it?


----------



## MattBronsil

The original article was clearly a biased one. That should be apparent to anyone that read it.

Always look into these things before you go off encouraging people to boycott.

Even from the original article, it seemed that the company did indeed try to infringe on copyrighted material. The article seems to hint at that in a way that seemed like they were trying to avoid it.

Matt


----------



## BethSLP

Ummm, I did look into that reply. There is of course a response from Super Duper. I understand what you are talking about in not just jumping on a bandwagon, but the fact of the matter is there is a dispute over patenting the words "and say" which is ridiculous. And Mattel's story seems ridiculous. Much easier to believe Super Duper's position IMO. But anyhow, judge for yourself. Here is their reply.

_________________________________

Mattel's "Spin" - Blame Small Special Education Company Super Duper

They Made Us Sue Them!

Mattel, in its ongoing effort to take the SAY word away from small special education publisher Super Duper Publications and make Super Duper pay $2.8 million dollars in Mattel's attorney fees and costs, has its "spin control" doctors out in full force. The $5.6 billion dollars a year company, under fire from outraged parents and teachers of special needs children across America, is responding to complaints by attempting to make Super Duper look like the "bad guy" in this dispute.

Claiming "it had no choice but to protect its famous trademarks" (does anyone really believe that Mattel had no choice but to sue Super Duper for $10 million dollars and try to stop Super Duper from using 15 SAY marks on its special needs books, games, and cards just because Mattel has a pull toy named SEE 'N SAY?), Mattel is now sending the following responses to people that have complained to it about its frivolous actions against Super Duper. (Super Duper's answers to Mattel's "spin" follow each of Mattel's responses).

1. Mattel This case arose when Super Duper tried to register trademarks in the toy category which are very similar to Mattel's famous SEE 'N SAY and THE FARMER SAYS trademarks. "

Super Duper Answer: As Mattel is well aware, ALL games that are registered with the Trademark Office, including special needs educational games and card decks made by Super Duper, MUST be filed in trademark Category 28. It is entirely misleading for Mattel to suggest otherwise. Further, there is nothing similar between the books, games, and card decks made by Super Duper for trained professionals and parents of special needs children, and Mattel's pull toy.

2. Mattel has used these trademarks for more than 40 years and they are registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

SD Answer: Super Duper started using its first SAY mark 22 years ago, in 1987. Like Mattel, its SAY marks are also registered with this same USPTO. Until 2004, Mattel never objected to the registration of ANY of Super Duper's SAY marks (and to this day, it is the only company that has ever objected to any of these marks).

3. Mattel: Mattel did NOT sue Super Duper. Super Duper filed suit against Mattel in South Carolina and requested a jury trial to decide the issue. Under the circumstances, Mattel had no choice but to protect its famous trademarks at trial.

SD Answer: This is absolutely untrue. Mattel did sue Super Duper for $10 million dollars and asked the court to permanently prevent SD from publishing any of its special needs products that had any of 15 SAY marks in the product titles.

Mattel did NOT have to try and take the SAY word away from a small special needs educational publisher. It could have, and should have, done nothing when Super Duper filed to register SORT AND SAY, because there is no basis to claim that anything that Super Duper does for special education students in ANY way infringes or dilutes Mattel's marks.

Mattel has never had a good reason for trying to keep Super Duper from using the SORT AND SAY name (or for that matter any of its SAY names). Mattel makes an electronic pull toy that people buy at Wal-Mart and Target for their very young children to play with. Super Duper makes special needs books, games, and card decks that professionals and parents of autistic and special needs children use to improve their speech and language. Super Duper's products are never in mass market stores; in fact, the only way to purchase a Super Duper product is through its catalog, on the web, or through two other special needs publishers.

Super Duper has never had a problem with the many SAY products that other companies have published for educators and parents. It has never had a problem with the name of any Mattel product. It is Mattel that began this fight by trying to keep Super Duper from using the SAY word.

Mattel began this dispute in early 2004 when it filed an opposition proceeding with the Trademark Office opposing Super Duper's application to register the trade name "SORT AND SAY" on a line of magnetic board games for special needs students

After delaying this matter for a year, Mattel filed to cancel three other Super Duper registered trademarks - "FOLD AND SAY " , " FISH AND SAY ", and " SEE IT! SAY IT! "

The only choice Super Duper had was to either spend a lot of money fighting the four Trademark Office proceedings (with the very real possibility that Mattel would file more cancellation proceedings against other marks), or bring one action in federal court seeking to resolve this dispute once and for all. Super Duper does not make $5.6 billion dollars a year like Mattel. It could not afford to fight a number of separate trademark proceedings over each of its SAY marks. Since so much of Super Duper's business depends on using the SAY word, Super Duper needed to know whether or not it had done anything improper by using its 15 SAY names without going bankrupt in the process.

So, Super Duper brought an action in court asking the court to determine whether or not it had done anything wrong in putting the SAY word on the title of its special needs products. Mattel then sued Super Duper for $10 million dollars and asked the court to stop Super Duper from selling any of its special needs products that had the SAY word as contained in 15 of Super Duper's trade names.

(It is important to note that even if Super Duper had been successful on all of the Trademark Office proceedings, Mattel still could have brought an action in court claiming Super Duper had infringed and diluted its mark.)

It is Super Duper, and not Mattel, that was put in the position of protecting its good name.

4. Mattel: Mattel did not claim the exclusive right to use or to register the word "say" at anytime. In fact, Mattel did not challenge every name that Super Duper uses which includes the work "say".

SD Answer: Mattel challenged 15 of the 16 Super Duper marks that have SAY in them, including EVERY Super Duper name that had AND SAY or SAY AND in them, claiming they infringed and diluted Mattel's mark.

5. Mattel: During the course of this dispute, Mattel presented several reasonable options to resolve this case outside of the courtroom so that both companies could continue in the normal course of business without an expensive trial. Mattel's goal was to find resolution through procedures that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has in place to address such conflicts around trademark registration. Super Duper rejected all these options.

SD Answer: Mattel never made ANY reasonable settlement proposals to resolve this dispute. Mattel's goal was take the SAY word away from Super Duper and make Super Duper spend as much money as it could in the process of defending itself. Mattel's actions throughout the case seriously disrupted Super Duper's business.

6. Mattel: The jury in South Carolina found that several of Super Duper's trademarks infringed Mattel's trademarks and that Super Duper had intentionally diluted Mattel's famous trademarks. The jury's verdict protects Mattel's long-held rights in its famous See'n Say trademark and does not threaten Super Duper's business in any way. The Super Duper trademarks at issue represent less than 8% of Super Duper's sales, and the $400,000 jury verdict represents less than 2% of Super Duper's approximate annual revenues of $25 million.

SD Answer: ABOSOLUTELY FALSE. In addition to the $400,000 judgment, Mattel wants Super Duper top pay its $2.8 million dollars in attorney's fees and costs, and stop selling any of the 7 lines of "infringing" SAY products permanently until it changes the names of these products. To do this, Super Duper would have to destroy hundreds of thousands of dollars of special needs product inventory, stop selling these products while it has new products made, and spend hundreds of thousands of more dollars printing replacement products. This would have a tremendously negative effect upon Super Duper's ability to help special needs children.

7. Mattel: Super Duper can continue to sell the products at issue, as long as it uses trademarks that do not infringe or dilute other company's trademarks. See Answer 6.

Mattel takes its commitment to integrity and fairness in the marketplace very seriously and works hard to protect its business and intellectual property rights, such as trademarks. Mattel made every effort to settle this issue on terms that would have been beneficial to both companies. Instead, Super Duper chose to seek a jury trial in South Carolina and is now objecting to the verdict reached by a jury of citizens which was selected from its very own community.

SD Answer: There is NOTHING Mattel did in this case that was beneficial to Super Duper. During the case, Mattel was sanctioned for misrepresentations it made to the court and was ordered to pay Super Duper money for its misconduct. Mattel did everything it could to make this case as long, expensive, and difficult upon Super Duper as possible.

Super Duper believes it will win this case on appeal because Mattel presented no credible evidence at trial that Super Duper has ever done anything in developing its educational products for autistic and special needs children that infringe upon or dilute Mattel's pull toy trademark.

8. Mattel: While Mattel is pleased that the jury recognized the facts of this case, we want to again emphasize that Mattel neither wanted nor sought a trial on this matter. Super Duper can continue to sell these products, the judgment requires that they select other names.

Mattel must wait until the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals hears this case until it can claim victory over Super Duper and all the professionals, parents, and special needs children it serves. Super Duper believes when the Appeals Court hears this case, the Court will protect the right of educational companies like Super Duper and "little guys" everywhere to use common language words like SAY without fear of interference from monster-sized companies like Mattel that choose to spend their resources bringing frivolous lawsuits rather investing in safe, reliable toys for America's children.

Media Contact: Thomas Webber, Chairman/CEO at [email protected] or his cell 864.918.4373


----------



## BethSLP

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MattBronsil* 
The original article was clearly a biased one. That should be apparent to anyone that read it.

Always look into these things before you go off encouraging people to boycott.

Even from the original article, it seemed that the company did indeed try to infringe on copyrighted material. The article seems to hint at that in a way that seemed like they were trying to avoid it.

Matt

I find myself a little annoyed with this post. I did look into this (see above post) and I'm very familiar with the Super Duper company. No doubt the original "article" was biased. Its a press release written by the CEO of Super Duper who was clearly pissed off.

How exactly do you think they "did indeed try to infringe on copyrighted material"? I'm seriously confused with any argument made to that effect. These products are not even in the same marketplace. I cannot understand how it could dilute the trademark for products sold by totally different means for totally different purposes. Clearly the word SAY is going to be integral to a catalog for speech and language materials. How do you make a product that's meant to assist people's speech and language and omit the word SAY? We're not talking about calling your product the Popeil or something. Its the word SAY. They are speech and language products. And like the response says they have been around and had products with this word in them for many years. Super Duper sells a lot of products. Having 16 products with the word SAY in them seems pretty inevitable to me. Its ludicrous to think they are trying to dilute See N Say.

The way Mattel worded that response is pitiful. Like claiming they didn't challenge all the products with SAY in them (when they challenged 15 out of 16). Or that they gave them options to settle out of court (when none of them were remotely reasonable).

Sorry, but I'm wondering why you are critical of the first press release but trust the one from Mattel. Did you look into it further and know more than I do?

XOXO
Beth


----------



## BethSLP

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ShaggyDaddy* 

Not saying anything about Super Duper specifically, because I am not familiar with them (browsed their price list though) But there is a special place in hell for the many many special needs profiteers out there.

????
Am I considered a "profiteer" by making a living doing therapy with special needs kids? Just wondering.

Of all the companies out there, Super Duper is by far the most affordable I've found and the materials are very durable. I was kind of against them at first because I thought their stuff was cheesy when I was in graduate school. But I started working in elementary schools, and my Super Duper stuff was by far the most user friendly and a HUGE HIT with the kids.

What is wrong with making products that assist therapists and families help special needs kids?
XOXO
B


----------

