I used to work for Mattel. From 1984 to 1988 I was a communicator at the company’s headquarters, then located in Hawthorne, California. I started out managing employee communications and was director of corporate communications by the time Mattel and I parted ways. During my time at Mattel, I came to understand that the company’s defense of its trademarks had assumed kneejerk proportions. Any perceived violation of the trademark prompted swift legal action with no consideration for the consequences. Nobody at Mattel ever dreamed that the fallout from such action might actually be worse than the damage caused by the violation. “If we let this violation go unchallenged, it’ll be harder to challenge the next one,” was the thinking.

I’ve just read about a suit Mattel has filed against against a Canadian restaurant called Barbie’s. The restaurant name has nothing to do with the plastic icon. Rather it’s a reference to the Australian slang for barbecue (as in, “Throw another shrimp on the barbie”). Webster’s New Millennium Dictionary of English includes only one definition for the word “barbie,” and it’s the reference to the Australian slang. Regardless of the fact that the Webster’s listing legitimizes the use of the word, Mattel believes the name could cause confusion in the marketplace (Mattel: “Our customers are idiots”), so the company is taking the Quebec restaruanteur to the Canadian Supreme Court, which agreed yesterday to hear the case.

When I worked at Mattel, I was also heavily involved with the Los Angeles chapter of the International Association of Business Communicators (IABC). Another IABC member, who worked walking distance from Mattel’s offices at TRW Space and Electronics, was a dynamo communicator named (can you feel it coming) Barbie Falconer. She eventually left communications and opening a clothing boutique. I’m not sure what it was called, but I suspect Mattel would have taken her to court if she had called it Barbie’s Boutique, even though it’s her name. Mattel owns the trademark, but it’s worth remembering that the Barbie doll was named after the daughter of Mattel co-founder Ruth and Elliott Handler. They also own the trademark for the Ken doll, named after the Handler’s son. Are they suing every non-Mattel use of the name Ken? Ken’s Auto Body? Ken’s All-Nite Diner? Ken’s Bail Bonds?

Nah, just Barbie, because Ken’s not the icon Barbie is. But I wonder if Mattel has ever measured the fallout of such legal action. There was the Aqua song lyric, “I’m a Barbie girl in a Barbie world,” which led Mattel to sue. I thought that was a bad idea, as were several other suits Mattel filed, including one against a photographer who used the doll for some, um, impressionistic photos posted to the web. And I think the suit against the Quebec restaurant is a bad idea.

The obvious backlash is over the perceived company with deep pockets going after the small business without the resources to defend itself. But I think there are worse ramifications than being seen as a bully. When I worked at Mattel—admittedly, a long time ago—the company employed different public relations agencies for different product lines. The agency that handled the Hot Wheels account, for example, specialized in events. At the time, the company was conducting Hot Wheels races at shopping malls. Barbie was represented by Rogers and Cowans. This is noteworthy because Rogers and Cowans’ specialty is personalities. That’s right; Barbie was not a toy, but a personality. And if she is being deliberately promoted as a personality, then she’s fair game for such references as those that appeared in the Aqua song lyrics. It shouldn’t take a smart attorney long to figure out that this revelation could be part of a legal defense.

The worst possible case, though, would be for a court to determine that “barbie” does have meaning outside the trademark and, in fact, has become so commonly applied that it has transcended the trademark and has entered the realm of common usage (like band-aid, kleenex, and xerox). This would be like a death sentence for a brand already under pressure from the success of the competing Bratz doll line. And Mattel could avoid it if it would just stop jerking its knee and be more discretionary when picking its trademark fights.

Tonight, in sympathy for the poor beseiged restuarnteur in Quebec, I think I’ll barbecue dinner. No shrimp, I’ll probably throw some steaks on the barbie. Got that, Mattel? I’m going to throw some steaks on the barbie. Sue me.