Lawsuit Against Hasbro because of Water Cuties

[scarletjul]

It also depends on her contract.  Like, was there a clause in there saying all her ideas belonged to Hasbro while she was working for them? 

When I was working at Disney World, they had us sign a contract that stated any ideas we came up with during our employment were property of the Disney Company.  So if I had submitted an idea or design for a toy or a ride, Disney could have used it without any compensation.  It wouldn't surprise me if Hasbro has a similar clause. 

I remember having to sign something similar for one of my (retail) jobs.  Which I thought was kind of silly - still do, actually.  How do they prove you thought of something during their time or your's?

As for *this* case....  Yeah, I don't think we have enough info to decide if she has a viable lawsuit.  I wouldn't put it past Hasbro to "borrow" her concept/idea or even how to make it work.  And it's pretty slimy if they did so.  But if they made it *just* different enough, then she probably won't have a strong enough case to prove it was her's first and her's alone.     

[BlushingBlue]

You can read the original suit from April of last year on Scribd here. The new one seems to drop the copyright infringement claim and add violation of the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016.

I don't really understand what's considered a trade secret in this case, but it does seem shady that Hasbro would invite a designer's pitch, pass on it for one toy line, then produce something very similar in another toy line. Hasbro claims that they were already in the process of developing the snowglobe ponies before they received Ms Shapiro's submission --- and they appear to have produced corroborating evidence of that at the preliminary injunction hearing(s) -- but it definitely looks suspicious on the surface of things, and I don't blame Ms Shapiro for feeling robbed.

[Pokeyonekenobie]

You can read the original suit from April of last year on Scribd here. The new one seems to drop the copyright infringement claim and add violation of the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016.

I don't really understand what's considered a trade secret in this case, but it does seem shady that Hasbro would invite a designer's pitch, pass on it for one toy line, then produce something very similar in another toy line. Hasbro claims that they were already in the process of developing the snowglobe ponies before they received Ms Shapiro's submission --- and they appear to have produced corroborating evidence of that at the preliminary injunction hearing(s) -- but it definitely looks suspicious on the surface of things, and I don't blame Ms Shapiro for feeling robbed.

If Hasbro had been working on the snowglobe ponies before hearing her pitch, I can see why they would have rejected her submission.  But the only people who would know for sure are the Hasbro employees that were in charge of that project.

[LadyMoondancer]

But if they were already working on snowglobe ponies, why specifically ask her to do a presentation on snowglobe toys?  It does sound fishy.

They might have already had the idea in progress but wanted to glean some of her technical experience, especially since with snowglobe toys you would have to make absolutely sure they couldn't leak while on store shelves or in transit to stores.

[Pokeyonekenobie]

Did they ask her specifically for snowglobe style toys or just ideas in general?  If it was just ideas in general then there's no guarantee that someone else hadn't already submitted the idea and maybe the "wishables" were just included as part of her pitch.

[Taxel]

But if they were already working on snowglobe ponies, why specifically ask her to do a presentation on snowglobe toys?  It does sound fishy.

They might have already had the idea in progress but wanted to glean some of her technical experience, especially since with snowglobe toys you would have to make absolutely sure they couldn't leak while on store shelves or in transit to stores.

This was my thought as well. The "totally made first" pony sets could have been a cover to help them "save money" by cheating the designer out of her money. It wouldn't surprise me.


Do toy inventors still approach companies with pitches they came up with on their own? If it was that kind of situation it would be a different story.

[Wardah]

The saddest thing about all of this is that we could have had water globe LPS.

[BerylBreeze]

What makes this case specifically different from older snowglobe-type toys like Krystal Princess or Novi Stars, just how it's sealed?

[lovesbabysquirmy]

What makes this case specifically different from older snowglobe-type toys like Krystal Princess or Novi Stars, just how it's sealed?

Probably nothing.  This lady probably received legal advice that there was something fishy about the process and procedure of how Hasbro did what they did to her, and she's hoping to get them on a technicality.  Maybe they DID send her a communication on a particular date that proves something else was going on at a certain point in the process.  Clearly her lawyer feels there is a chance to present the case, though; usually these types of consulting relationships with toy designers are very cut and dry and the contracts have been the same since 1912.  ;-p  As above posters have mentioned.... 

[hathorcat]

Very interesting...but considering the $$ value probably something that happens more than we ever hear.

Although I cant help but feel...I have seen snowglobe toys in the past (I loved the G4 releases but dont remember thinking of them as particularly unique in concept).

Guess I just ... hope she wins if she is in the right ... hope Hasbro win if they are And with no more knowledge I cant comment further.