It all began in 2017 when, in celebration of International Women's Day, Mattel announced the launch of a series of Barbie dolls intended to honor 17 women who would inspire the next generation of girls, including the late Mexican artist Frida Kahlo. This announcement sparked a long and controversial legal dispute between the family of the Mexican painter and the toy company Mattel.

Shortly after Mattel's announcement, Mara Romeo Kahlo, Frida Kahlo's niece, took legal action to temporarily halt the marketing and sale of the Barbie dolls featuring her aunt's image. She argued that the company that granted Mattel the rights to use the image of the iconic artist, known as Frida Kahlo Corporation, did not have the rights to do so.

Mara Romeo Kahlo explained that in 2005, she joined a group of people to create Frida Kahlo Corporation. However, five years later, in 2010, the company was dissolved due to contract compliance issues, casting doubts on its legitimacy to grant image rights for Frida Kahlo.

In their defense, Frida Kahlo Corporation claimed to legally and legitimately own all rights related to the Mexican artist, which included not only her name but also her concepts, ideology, and distinctive signs. They argued that these rights were granted to them by Isolda Pinedo Kahlo, Frida Kahlo's niece.

Mara Romeo Kahlo insisted that Frida Kahlo Corporation only had the right to use nominative marks, which apply to products or services that solely include a name or word, such as "Frida Kahlo," and did not extend to the design, photography, or marketing of a toy featuring the image and name of Frida Kahlo.

After a prolonged legal battle, a judge from the Superior Court of Justice of Mexico City ruled that neither Frida Kahlo Corporation nor Mattel had the right to commercialize the image of the painter Frida Kahlo on a Barbie doll, establishing that the sole controller of the image rights of this iconic Mexican artist is Mara Romeo Kahlo.

The ruling from the Superior Court of Justice of Mexico City not only set a crucial precedent in the protection of intellectual property rights but also highlighted the complexities involved in managing the posthumous image of artistic figures.