Amazing Digital Circus Lawsuit: Glitch Targets Online Sellers Again

Glitch Productions has filed another federal lawsuit targeting online sellers accused of offering unauthorized The Amazing Digital Circus merchandise, marking another round of intellectual property enforcement surrounding the popular animated series.

On August 7, 2026, Glitch Productions Pty Ltd filed Case No. 26-cv-09519 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The complaint brings claims for trademark infringement and counterfeiting, false designation of origin, and copyright infringement against online storefronts identified on a sealed Schedule A. You can read the new complaint here.

The filing is notable because it is not Glitch's first recent Schedule A action. Earlier this year, Glitch filed another case, Case No. 26-cv-04944, involving similar allegations surrounding The Amazing Digital Circus. The earlier complaint is available here.

For online sellers, the new lawsuit is a reminder that intellectual property enforcement involving popular digital-first entertainment properties is not necessarily limited to a single sweep of marketplace listings.

Glitch Productions Files Another Amazing Digital Circus Lawsuit

The new complaint focuses primarily on merchandise associated with The Amazing Digital Circus, the animated web series created by Gooseworx and produced by Glitch Productions.

According to the complaint, Glitch identified e-commerce stores allegedly selling unauthorized products through platforms including AliExpress, Amazon, eBay, SHEIN, Temu, and Walmart. Glitch alleges that the targeted storefronts sell to U.S. consumers, accept payment in U.S. dollars, and offer shipping into Illinois.

This follows Glitch's earlier April 29, 2026 lawsuit, which also targeted online sellers accused of infringing intellectual property associated with The Amazing Digital Circus.

Rather than representing a one-time enforcement action, the August filing suggests that Glitch is continuing to identify and pursue additional online storefronts allegedly selling unauthorized merchandise — a pattern we have also seen in cases like the Warner Bros. Harry Potter Schedule A lawsuit and the DC Comics Schedule A lawsuit.

Glitch's Trademark Portfolio Has Expanded

One important distinction between the newest complaint and the earlier case is the scope of the trademark portfolio identified by Glitch.

The complaint identifies several federal trademark registrations associated with The Amazing Digital Circus, including registrations covering THE AMAZING DIGITAL CIRCUS, ANIMATEZ, AMAZING CIRCUS, and DIGITAL CIRCUS. The registrations cover a broad range of goods, including toys, clothing, jewelry, printed materials, household products, textiles, collectibles, and other merchandise.

Notably, the complaint identifies U.S. Registration No. 8,105,578 for DIGITAL CIRCUS, registered on January 20, 2026. Registrations like these can be reviewed through the USPTO trademark database.

It also identifies Registration No. 8,248,511, registered May 12, 2026, for a stylized DIGITAL CIRCUS design. The image reproduced in the complaint shows the colorful “DIGITAL CIRCUS” logo associated with the series.

That May registration is particularly noteworthy because it postdates Glitch's April lawsuit.

For sellers, this illustrates an important feature of ongoing brand enforcement: the intellectual property portfolio supporting later lawsuits may continue developing even while earlier cases are pending. Brand owners facing the same issue can review our guidance on how to register a trademark in New York and our trademark registration services.

The Lawsuit Goes Beyond the Show's Name

The new Amazing Digital Circus lawsuit is also a useful example of why sellers should not evaluate infringement risk based solely on whether a product uses a show's title.

Glitch's allegations combine trademark and copyright claims.

The complaint identifies several characters Glitch claims are embodied in its copyrighted works, including Caine, Gangle, Jax, Kinger, Pomni, Ragatha, and Zooble. It also depicts additional characters including Gummigoo, Ghostly, Princess Loolilalu, and The Creature/Angel.

Glitch alleges that certain defendants copied, displayed, distributed, reproduced, or created derivative works incorporating its copyrighted material without authorization. According to the complaint, some allegedly infringing works are virtually identical or substantially similar to Glitch's protected works.

That distinction matters for marketplace sellers.

Removing a trademarked phrase from a listing does not necessarily eliminate infringement concerns if the underlying product still reproduces copyrighted character artwork or other protected expression.

Listing Titles and Search Optimization Are Also Part of the Allegations

Another important aspect of the complaint concerns how allegedly unauthorized products were marketed.

Glitch alleges that some sellers used its trademarks within the content, text, or meta tags of their stores to attract consumers searching for official Glitch merchandise.

More importantly, the complaint alleges that other sellers intentionally omitted Glitch's trademarks from product titles while using strategic titles and descriptions designed to make their listings appear in searches for Glitch products.

This is particularly relevant for marketplace sellers who assume avoiding the exact trademark in a product title necessarily removes the risk.

Schedule A plaintiffs may examine the product itself, listing images, descriptions, keywords, metadata, characters depicted on the merchandise, and other elements of how a listing is presented to consumers.

Glitch Says It Is Proactively Searching Marketplaces

The complaint also provides insight into how Glitch says it identifies potentially infringing sellers.

According to the filing, Glitch has implemented a brand protection program that includes investigating suspicious websites and marketplace listings identified through what the complaint describes as “proactive Internet sweeps.”

That makes the newest lawsuit particularly relevant to sellers operating in fandom-driven product categories.

Marketplace listings do not necessarily need to be reported by a customer or manually discovered by a brand employee before becoming an enforcement target. Rights holders increasingly use structured monitoring programs, including Amazon Brand Registry tools, to locate products that may infringe their trademarks or copyrights.

The complaint also alleges that online sellers frequently operate multiple seller aliases and establish new accounts to continue selling unauthorized products after enforcement. Glitch claims these practices make identifying the underlying operators more difficult.

These remain allegations, and the defendants have not necessarily had an opportunity to respond to them.

What Glitch Is Asking the Court to Do

The potential consequences of the lawsuit extend beyond an ordinary marketplace infringement complaint.

Glitch is asking the court for temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief prohibiting defendants from using its trademarks and copyrighted works in connection with unauthorized products. Sellers unfamiliar with this procedure can read our explanation of what a TRO is and how it affects Amazon sellers.

The requested relief also includes an order requiring online marketplaces, upon Glitch's request and with notice of an injunction, to disable advertisements associated with defendants' allegedly infringing products. The complaint specifically identifies AliExpress, Amazon, eBay, SHEIN, Temu, and Walmart in this request.

Glitch also seeks monetary relief. Among other remedies, the complaint requests defendants' profits and damages, or alternatively statutory damages of up to $2 million for each use of a counterfeit Glitch trademark and up to $150,000 per infringed copyrighted work where the applicable statutory requirements are met. These are amounts Glitch is requesting in its complaint, not amounts that have been awarded by the court.

What This Means for Online Sellers

The newest Amazing Digital Circus lawsuit reinforces a broader lesson for marketplace sellers: popularity created online can translate very quickly into aggressive intellectual property enforcement.

The Amazing Digital Circus began as a web-based animated series. According to the complaint, its October 2023 pilot has received more than 350 million YouTube views, and the series began streaming on Netflix in October 2024.

But Glitch's enforcement efforts now resemble those of much larger entertainment rights holders.

For sellers, that means independently produced or internet-native properties should not automatically be treated as lower-risk merchandising opportunities.

A character, logo, show title, catchphrase, or recognizable piece of artwork can potentially implicate different intellectual property rights, including copyrights registered with the U.S. Copyright Office. Sellers sourcing products from wholesalers or overseas manufacturers should therefore determine whether the supplier actually has authorization to manufacture and distribute merchandise associated with the underlying rights holder.

Simply finding the same product offered by numerous other marketplace sellers does not establish that the merchandise is authorized.

Repeated Schedule A Lawsuits Can Signal an Ongoing Enforcement Strategy

Perhaps the most important takeaway from the newest filing is that Schedule A enforcement can occur in waves.

Glitch's April lawsuit did not prevent the company from filing another case targeting a different group of alleged infringers several months later. At the same time, its trademark portfolio has continued to develop.

For sellers, that makes monitoring intellectual property risk an ongoing process rather than something that should only happen when a product is initially sourced.

A product category that appears widely available today can become the focus of marketplace complaints or federal litigation later—particularly when the underlying entertainment property is growing rapidly and the rights holder is actively developing a licensing and merchandising program.

Sellers who receive notice that their store has been named in a Schedule A lawsuit should take the matter seriously. These cases can involve injunctions, marketplace restrictions, restrained funds, and potentially significant monetary claims. If your storefront has been named or your funds have been frozen, contact our firm to discuss your options.

The August 2026 Amazing Digital Circus lawsuit demonstrates that Glitch Productions' enforcement efforts are continuing—and that online-first entertainment companies are increasingly protecting their merchandise and licensing ecosystems through the same litigation strategies used by major entertainment brands.