When Cuteness Clashes with Commerce: Inside Pop Mart’s IP Lawsuit Against 7-Eleven

Every generation has some nightmare-inducing cuddly critter. (See, e.g., Tickle-Me-Elmo, Furby, Furreal, etc.). This year? Pop Mart’s Labubu. 

And every year, copycats try to coast in the wake of toy makers – some being more successful than others. This year’s copy-cat is none other than 7-Eleven, Inc. – the same place where you find rotating hotdogs, slushies, and caffeine pills. 

Pop Mart is not amused and has unleashed its cache of intellectual property like a hoard of angry Labubus. Let’s dive in to Pop Mart’s complaint and learn how you can take some cute cues from the little clippable fur-demons. The case number is 2:25-cv-06555-MEMF-MBK filed in the Central District of California.

The Allegations: A Trail of “Lafufus” and Confused Customers

According to the complaint, Pop Mart discovered that at least seven 7-Eleven locations in California were offering counterfeit versions of its products, including various LABUBU dolls from “THE MONSTERS” series. Pop Mart’s legal team isn’t just making claims; they’ve come with receipts—literally. The filing is filled with photographic evidence, including:

• Side-by-side comparisons of genuine Pop Mart products and the alleged fakes sold at 7-Eleven, highlighting differences in quality and packaging
• Photos from inside 7-Eleven stores, showing prominent displays advertising “LABUBU”
• Customer social media posts expressing confusion. Unsuspecting buyers, excited to find the popular toy, later realized they had purchased a fake, with some even using the nickname “Lafufus” to describe the counterfeits. One TikTok user’s caption reads, “dk what i got myself into but she a fake #labubu don’t buy them from 711!!!
• Receipts from purchases made by Pop Mart’s own investigators at the accused stores, documenting the sale of items described as “Lag Labubu Toy” and “Have a seat la bu bu”

The lawsuit claims these counterfeit products are often shoddy, with defects like “eyes that have popped out,” “substandard fur stitching,” “deformed, lopsided head shapes,” and even “upside down faces,” damaging the reputation for quality that Pop Mart has built.

A Multi-Pronged IP Attack: The Causes of Action

Pop Mart has unleashed a full-scale legal assault, leveraging nearly every tool in the intellectual property playbook. The 17 causes of action can be broken down into three main categories.

1. Trademark and Trade Dress Infringement

This is the core of the case. Pop Mart asserts that it owns the registered trademarks for  “POP MART,” “LABUBU,” and “THE MONSTERS”. The lawsuit alleges that 7-Eleven is using these exact marks on counterfeit products, constituting federal trademark counterfeiting and infringement. Beyond the name, Pop Mart is also protecting the toy’s iconic appearance through a trade dress claim. Trade dress refers to the overall look and feel of a product that identifies its source. The complaint meticulously defines the “LABUBU Trade Dress,” including its “wide mouth that stretches almost to the ears,” “prominent brow, overhanging the top of the eyes,” and “two closely spaced, ovoid ears,” which together create a “highly distinctive visual identity”. By selling toys that mimic this look, 7-Eleven is allegedly infringing on this trade dress and confusing consumers.

2. Copyright Infringement

Pop Mart isn’t just protecting its brand; it’s protecting its art. The company holds numerous U.S. copyright registrations for the artwork on its packaging and the sculptural design of the dolls themselves. The lawsuit claims that the products sold at 7-Eleven are direct copies of these protected works, making them infringing goods under federal copyright law. 

Interestingly, Pop Mart appears to only be seeking actual damages, rather than statutory damages. This will help avoid a messy discovery issue figuring out if the labubus published too late after the application for registrations. 

3. Contributory and Vicarious Liability

This is where the case gets particularly interesting. Pop Mart isn’t just suing the individual franchise stores. It’s aiming directly at the corporate parent, 7-Eleven, Inc., arguing two theories of secondary liability:

• Contributory Infringement: This theory claims that 7-Eleven, Inc. knew (or had reason to know) about the infringing activity at its stores and materially contributed to it. The complaint points to 7-Eleven’s inventory management systems and its right to audit stores as evidence of this knowledge and control. It even cites a post on X where a customer reported a counterfeit to 7-Eleven’s official account, and the company responded 
• Vicarious Infringement: This is a stricter claim. It argues that 7-Eleven, Inc. had the right and ability to control its franchisees’ actions and received a direct financial benefit from the infringing sales (through franchise fees and profit sharing). The complaint details the 7-Eleven franchise agreement, which allegedly gives the corporation significant oversight over the products sold in its stores.

Potential Weaknesses and Legal Hurdles

While the case seems slam-dunk, 7-Eleven could make the case very unprofitable for Pop Mart. 7-Eleven’s defense will likely focus on a few key areas.

First, proving corporate liability will be the main event. 7-Eleven, Inc. will almost certainly argue that its franchisees are independent business owners who make their own decisions about certain inventory. It will try to distance the corporate entity from the actions of a few individual store owners. The case will hinge on how much control the franchise agreement actually gives the corporation and whether Pop Mart can prove 7-Eleven, Inc. knew about the specific infringing products and failed to act. The single Twitter/X post, while compelling, may not be enough to prove widespread corporate knowledge.

Second, the strength of the trade dress claim could be challenged. Defendants in these cases often argue that the design features are either “functional” or “merely ornamental,” not an indicator of source. 7-Eleven could argue that a grinning monster with pointy ears is a generic character design and not exclusively associated with Pop Mart. Pop Mart has preemptively argued the design is nonfunctional and has acquired “secondary meaning,” but proving that in court is sometimes a high bar, especially when we’re discussing a new product.

TL;DR – Takeaways

This lawsuit is more than just a battle over a cute toy; it’s a high-stakes conflict that touches on the core challenges of brand protection in the modern retail and franchise landscape. 

1. For brand owners, this case is a masterclass in aggressive, multi-faceted IP enforcement. 
2. For franchisees and franchisors, this case is a stark reminder of the legal risks that can flow up and down the corporate chain. This is one case every legal expert and LABUBU fan will be watching.
3. A good trademark complaint should spend time proving up the brand. Why? Because we start with the four corners of this document for the following:
   1. Defeat a motion to dismiss
   2. Support a claim for “secondary meaning” for your trademark
   3. Support a potential motion for default judgmenbt
   4. Scare the heck out of your opponent
   5. Show the court staff and the judge that you should be taken seriously 
4. Indirect infringement requires an allegation of knowledge. This complaint does a solid job of making that allegation convincingly
5. If you have a solid case on the merits for design patent, trademark, or copyright infringement – use side-by-side comparisons! We learn in different ways, and you never know how “visual” your reader will be. Don’t relegate them to an exhibit. Place them in the body of the brief (unless your local rules say otherwise). When the press pick up complaints, they don’t always read the exhibits.