Nintendo Files New Lawsuit Against Online Sellers: What Character Merchandise Sellers Should Know

Nintendo’s characters, games, and products are some of the most recognizable properties in the entertainment industry. That recognition makes Nintendo merchandise commercially valuable, but it also creates significant intellectual property risks for businesses that sell unauthorized products online.

On September 3, 2026, Nintendo of America Inc. filed a new Schedule A lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against a group of online sellers identified on a Schedule A. Nintendo alleges that the defendants sold unauthorized products that infringed its trademarks and copyrighted works.

For Amazon, Etsy, eBay, Walmart, Temu, TikTok Shop, and other e-commerce sellers, the lawsuit provides a broader lesson about selling merchandise associated with recognizable characters and entertainment franchises.

A seller does not necessarily face only one type of intellectual property issue when selling an unauthorized character product. The same product may potentially implicate trademarks, copyrighted artwork, character designs, product images, and other protected elements.

Nintendo’s new lawsuit demonstrates how those different rights can be enforced together.

Read the full complaint: Nintendo of America Inc. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A,” Case No. 1:26-cv-10679 (PDF)

What Is Nintendo Alleging in Its New Lawsuit?

Nintendo of America filed Nintendo of America Inc. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A,” Case No. 1:26-cv-10679, on September 3, 2026.

According to the complaint, Nintendo alleges that the defendants operate e-commerce stores under various seller aliases and have advertised, offered for sale, and sold unauthorized products incorporating Nintendo’s intellectual property. Nintendo further alleges that these stores target consumers in the United States, including consumers in Illinois.

Nintendo asserts three causes of action in the complaint. The company alleges trademark infringement and counterfeiting under the Lanham Act, false designation of origin under the Lanham Act, and copyright infringement under the Copyright Act.

These remain allegations made by Nintendo in its complaint. The filing of the lawsuit does not establish that any individual defendant is liable for infringement.

However, the intellectual property identified in the complaint makes the lawsuit particularly relevant to businesses selling character merchandise online.

Nintendo Is Protecting More Than the Nintendo Name

Online sellers sometimes approach intellectual property compliance by looking primarily for a company’s name or primary logo.

Nintendo’s complaint demonstrates why that approach may be insufficient.

Nintendo identifies numerous federal trademark registrations covering its broader intellectual property portfolio. These include registrations associated with NINTENDO, NINTENDO SWITCH, GAME BOY, JOY-CON, SUPER MARIO BROS., SUPER MARIO, MARIO BROS., MARIOKART, MARIO & LUIGI, BOWSER, PRINCESS PEACH, and YOSHI, among others.

The complaint also identifies registrations for recognizable visual elements associated with Nintendo’s products and characters. The registration charts included in the complaint show marks associated with Nintendo controllers, gaming systems, Mario, Luigi, Bowser, Princess Peach, Yoshi, Toad, the Super Mushroom, and other imagery.

This is important because removing the word “Nintendo” from a product title does not necessarily eliminate the potential intellectual property issue.

A product may still incorporate a protected character, logo, symbol, image, or other source-identifying element.

One Product Can Potentially Create Both Trademark and Copyright Issues

The distinction between trademark and copyright protection is one of the most important lessons online sellers can take from Nintendo’s lawsuit.

Nintendo is not relying exclusively on its trademark portfolio.

The company also identifies federal copyright registrations associated with several well-known characters and creative works, including Mario, Luigi, Princess Peach, Bowser, Yoshi, Toad, and the Super Mushroom. Nintendo alleges that the defendants reproduced, displayed, distributed, or created derivative works incorporating Nintendo’s copyrighted works without authorization.

Trademark and copyright laws generally protect different interests.

Trademark law can protect names, logos, symbols, designs, and other identifiers that distinguish the source of goods or services. Copyright law can protect qualifying original creative expression, including artwork and certain character depictions.

Those protections can overlap on the same product.

For example, an unauthorized shirt could reproduce artwork depicting a Nintendo character while also displaying a Nintendo trademark. Depending on the particular facts, the artwork and the branding could potentially raise separate copyright and trademark issues.

A seller therefore should not assume that removing a brand name necessarily resolves every intellectual property concern associated with the product.

Avoiding the Nintendo Name in a Listing May Not Solve the Problem

Nintendo’s allegations also provide an important lesson about how online product listings are structured.

According to the complaint, some sellers allegedly used Nintendo trademarks within the content, text, or metadata of their e-commerce stores to attract consumers searching for Nintendo products.

Nintendo also alleges that other sellers took a different approach. According to Nintendo, some sellers omitted Nintendo trademarks from their item titles while using strategic titles and descriptions that could still cause their products to appear when consumers searched for Nintendo products.

This allegation is significant because intellectual property risk is not necessarily limited to the title of an Amazon, Etsy, eBay, Walmart, or other marketplace listing.

The complete presentation of the product can matter.

Product photographs, descriptions, storefront graphics, keywords, metadata, packaging, logos, and the physical product itself can potentially become relevant in an infringement dispute.

Sellers should therefore evaluate the entire listing rather than simply determining whether a particular brand name appears in the product title.

Product Images Can Create Their Own Intellectual Property Problems

The photographs and graphics used to advertise a product can also create intellectual property concerns. As we explain in our guide to copyrighting your Amazon product listing, listing content itself can carry separate copyright implications.

Nintendo alleges that sellers used artwork associated with Nintendo products and games when advertising unauthorized merchandise. The company claims that some stores used imagery that made the stores appear to consumers to be authorized retailers, outlets, or wholesalers even though Nintendo had not authorized the defendants to sell Nintendo products.

This issue extends well beyond Nintendo.

Online sellers frequently receive product photographs from manufacturers, wholesalers, distributors, sourcing agents, or other sellers. Businesses may also find images through search engines, social media, marketplace listings, or brand websites.

The fact that an image is easily available online does not necessarily mean that a business has permission to use that image commercially.

Sellers should therefore consider the intellectual property rights associated with both the product they are selling and the materials they are using to advertise that product.

A Supplier’s Willingness to Sell a Product Does Not Establish Authorization

Character merchandise can create an additional sourcing problem for e-commerce businesses.

A manufacturer or wholesaler may be willing and able to produce a product featuring a recognizable character. However, the supplier’s ability to manufacture the product does not necessarily establish that the supplier has received authorization from the owner of the underlying intellectual property.

This distinction can become especially important when products are sourced through international manufacturers or online wholesale marketplaces.

Before selling merchandise associated with a recognizable entertainment franchise, sellers should understand who owns the intellectual property appearing on the product and whether the manufacturer or distributor is authorized to use it.

Sellers should also maintain records establishing where their inventory originated. Invoices, purchase orders, licensing documentation, authorization letters, supplier communications, and other records can become important when questions arise regarding the authenticity or authorization of merchandise.

Businesses should also determine whether any authorization they receive actually extends to their particular products, territories, and sales channels.

The existence of a supplier does not necessarily establish the existence of a license.

Character Merchandise Can Carry More Intellectual Property Risk Than Sellers Realize

Character merchandise is particularly interesting from an intellectual property perspective because a single character can be represented through several commercially valuable elements.

A character may have a recognizable name. The character may also have a distinctive appearance, logo, symbol, costume, or associated artwork. The franchise surrounding that character may contain additional trademarks and copyrighted materials.

Nintendo’s complaint provides a useful example.

Nintendo identifies trademark rights associated with characters and franchises while separately identifying copyright registrations covering particular creative works.

This layered approach means that sellers should avoid treating “character merchandise” as one intellectual property category.

Instead, sellers should consider what specific elements of the product they are using and what rights may apply to those elements.

“Fan Art” and “Inspired By” Are Not Automatic Exceptions

Businesses selling products associated with popular entertainment properties may describe their products as “fan art,” “inspired by,” “unofficial,” or similar terms.

Those descriptions do not automatically establish that the commercial use is lawful.

Whether a particular product infringes intellectual property rights depends on the specific facts and applicable law. Simply informing consumers that a product is unofficial does not necessarily provide permission to reproduce copyrighted artwork or use protected trademarks.

The same principle applies when a seller modifies an existing character design.

Changing colors, redrawing certain portions of an image, adding text, or altering a character does not automatically eliminate potential infringement concerns.

For businesses operating in fandom-driven markets, the safer approach is to determine what intellectual property rights apply before investing in inventory or building listings around the product.

Nintendo Is Seeking Relief That Could Affect Marketplace Operations

Nintendo’s requested relief also demonstrates why Schedule A litigation can create significant operational problems for online businesses.

Nintendo asks the court to prohibit defendants from using Nintendo trademarks and copyrighted works in connection with allegedly unauthorized products. The company also seeks relief directed toward third-party service providers.

The complaint specifically identifies eBay, AliExpress, Alibaba, Amazon, Walmart, Wish, Etsy, Temu, TikTok, and DHgate among the online platforms that could be required to disable advertisements associated with defendants’ allegedly infringing goods.

Nintendo also seeks monetary relief. Among other remedies, the complaint requests defendants’ profits, damages available under the Lanham Act, statutory damages for alleged willful trademark counterfeiting, copyright damages or statutory damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs.

For an e-commerce business, this means that an intellectual property lawsuit can become much more than a dispute over whether one listing remains online.

The dispute can potentially affect a seller’s listings, inventory, marketplace operations, and finances.

Why Schedule A Lawsuits Require Prompt Attention

Nintendo filed this lawsuit as a Schedule A action against multiple online sellers.

Schedule A lawsuits are commonly structured so that numerous e-commerce defendants can be included in the same federal lawsuit. Defendants may initially be identified by their online seller aliases rather than by their publicly known legal names. These cases are also frequently accompanied by temporary restraining orders that can freeze marketplace accounts and funds before a seller has an opportunity to respond.

For sellers, receiving notice that a store has been named in a Schedule A lawsuit can be confusing, particularly when the seller first becomes aware of the case through a marketplace notice or another action affecting the account.

Ignoring the lawsuit, however, does not necessarily make the problem disappear. As we explain in our guide to fighting a Schedule A lawsuit, defendants who do not respond risk default judgments and continued restraint of their funds.

A seller that receives notice of a Schedule A lawsuit should carefully review the court documents, determine whether its store has actually been named, identify any applicable deadlines, and evaluate the allegations relating to its products.

The appropriate response will depend on the facts surrounding that particular seller and its business.

What Should Sellers Do Before Listing Character Merchandise?

Nintendo’s lawsuit offers a practical reason for e-commerce businesses to strengthen their intellectual property review process before products are listed.

A seller should first identify every recognizable brand, character, logo, design, or piece of artwork appearing on a product. The seller should then determine who owns those rights and why the seller or supplier is authorized to use them commercially.

The seller should also review the entire product listing, including the title, description, photographs, graphics, packaging, keywords, and other promotional materials.

Businesses that rely on third-party suppliers should maintain clear sourcing documentation and should not assume that a supplier possesses the necessary intellectual property rights merely because the supplier is willing to manufacture or sell the product.

This type of review can be especially important for businesses selling merchandise associated with video games, movies, television programs, anime, sports teams, celebrities, musicians, and other recognizable entertainment properties.

What Should You Do If Your Store Is Named in the Nintendo Lawsuit?

If your online store has been identified as a defendant in Nintendo of America Inc. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A,” Case No. 1:26-cv-10679, removing the product listing may not resolve the pending federal lawsuit.

The appropriate response depends on the specific allegations against the seller, the products involved, the seller’s sales history, the available sourcing documentation, and the procedural status of the lawsuit.

Sellers should also pay close attention to court deadlines and any notices received from their marketplace or payment provider.

An attorney familiar with Schedule A litigation and e-commerce intellectual property disputes can review the complaint, evaluate the allegations involving the seller, and explain the available options.

The Broader Lesson From Nintendo’s New Lawsuit

Nintendo’s latest lawsuit illustrates how intellectual property protection can operate in layers.

A brand name may be protected as a trademark. A character name or symbol may also be protected as a trademark. Artwork depicting the character may receive copyright protection. Product photographs and promotional materials can raise additional copyright concerns. A single piece of merchandise can potentially incorporate several of these elements at once.

For that reason, e-commerce sellers should move beyond asking whether a product is simply “counterfeit.”

A more useful question is whether the seller understands every piece of intellectual property incorporated into the product and has a legitimate basis for using each of those elements commercially.

That analysis should ideally happen before inventory is purchased and before a listing goes live.

Nintendo’s complaint shows what can happen when a rights owner believes that unauthorized merchandise has crossed several of those boundaries at the same time.

Facing a Nintendo or Schedule A Lawsuit?

Stockman & Poropat, PLLC represents e-commerce businesses and online sellers facing intellectual property disputes, Schedule A lawsuits, temporary restraining orders, marketplace enforcement actions, and related infringement claims.

If your Amazon, eBay, Walmart, Etsy, Temu, TikTok Shop, or other e-commerce store has been named in the Nintendo lawsuit or another Schedule A action, our attorneys can review the allegations and help you understand the options available to your business.

Contact Stockman & Poropat, PLLC for a free consultation at 917-781-4186.

Entrepreneurs for Entrepreneurs®.