IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK NEWS—POP MART sues 7-Eleven for cashing in on LABUBU phenomenon, (Jul 22, 2025)

By Deirdre Kennedy, J.D.

POP MART accuses 7-Eleven of trademark infringement stemming from its sale of allegedly counterfeit LABUBU toys.

Plaintiffs POP MART Americas Inc., POP MART (Singapore) Holding Pte. Ltd., and Beijing POP MART Cultural & Creative Co. Ltd. (collectively, POP MART) are suing 7-Eleven, Inc. and seven of its California stores for trademark infringement, trademark counterfeiting, and false designation of origin for selling, in multiple locations, allegedly counterfeit LABUBU toys. POP MARK seeks injunctive relief and damages (POP MART Americas, Inc. v 7-Eleven, Inc., No. 2:25-cv-06555 (C.D. Cal. filed July 18, 2025)).

POP MART is the designer, manufacturer, and distributor of the extremely popular toy experiences under the “POP MART” brand, including their beloved character LABUBU, the artist-designed star of THE MONSTERS series. POP MART claims to have built a passionate community of collectors worldwide, transforming art toys into a cultural phenomenon.

First introduced in picture books in 2015, the LABUBU character’s viral breakout moment came in 2023 with POP MART’s vinyl plush LABUBU keychains that racked up more than 2 million #LABUBU posts on TikTok alone in the last two years and appeared as the accessories of celebrities from Rihanna to Blackpink’s Lisa.

POP MART does not offer its products in 7-Eleven stores but discovered that, as the LABUBU dolls’ popularity exploded, 7-Eleven locations began offering allegedly counterfeit versions of many POP MART products. POP MART claims that the 7-Eleven products are of inferior quality, but they use identical or virtually identical copies of POP MART’s trademarks, trade dress, and product and packaging design.

The trademarks. POP MART has presented evidence of its trademark rights and goodwill in the POP MART Marks by virtue of its extensive use and registration of the trademarks, its substantial promotional and marketing efforts under the trademarks, its expenditure of vast sums in advertising and promotional activities under the trademarks, and its third-party licensing agreements.

As a result, POP MART argues that their Marks have achieved such widespread public exposure and recognition that they have acquired secondary meaning and are widely recognized among the general consuming public. Further, POP MART claims that the Marks are arbitrary and fanciful, and therefore inherently distinctive and should be afforded the greatest protection under the law.

7-Eleven control. POP MART seeks to establish that 7-Eleven maintains control and approval over which specific products franchise stores offer, claiming that 7-Eleven mandates the use of 7-Eleven’s centralized system to order products and has - and exercises - the right to conduct audits of franchise stores, including of the products franchise stores offer. POP MART claims that despite its rights and ability to control and exercise approval over franchisees, 7-Eleven failed to utilize this control to prevent and stop the counterfeiting and infringement of POP MART’s trademarks, trade dress, and copyrights.

POP MART further alleges that most, if not all, of the 7-Eleven Counterfeit Products are of poor quality and unsightly, citing (1) eyes that have popped out or are poorly secured, creating a disturbing and also unsafe product; (2) substandard fur stitching; (3) deformed, lopsided head shapes; (4) heads or hands that come off; and even (5) upside down faces. Indeed, there is even a neologism coined for this counterfeit phenomenon according to POP MART—many videos and social media posts refer to these 7-Eleven Counterfeit Products as “Lafufus.” Social media posts have also demonstrated that the 7-Eleven Counterfeit Products have caused actual confusion with genuine POP MART Products in the marketplace.

7-Eleven knowledge of infringement. POP MART presents what it claims is evidence of 7-Eleven’s knowledge of sales of the 7-Eleven Counterfeit Products in 7-Eleven stores in the form of a social media post from April 27, 2025, tagging 7-Eleven’s official X account, in which a customer attached a photograph of an apparent 7-Eleven Counterfeit Product and stated; ”I bought this counterfeit at a local @7eleven in Southern California. How can I get this reported as a counterfeit product.” Using its official X account, 7-Eleven replied the following day, April 28, 2025, and stated: “We’re sorry to hear this! Can you send us more details at bit.ly/ContactUs7Elev…? We appreciate your feedback!” The individual who made the original post replied, “I did you guys did not even wanted to give me my money back!”

The claims. POP MART brings seventeen causes of action against 7-Eleven, including federal trademark counterfeiting, federal trademark infringement, trademark infringement and false designation of origin, and federal trade dress infringement.

POP MART seeks a permanent injunction, enhanced damages based on lost profits, and punitive damages.

The Case is No. 2:25-cv-06555.

Attorneys: Michael T. Zeller (Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan LLP) for Pop Mart Americas Inc., POP MART [Singapore] Holding Pte. Ltd., and Beijing POP MART Cultural & Creative Co. Ltd.

Companies: Pop Mart Americas Inc.; POP MART (Singapore) Holding Pte. Ltd.; Beijing POP MART Cultural & Creative Co. Ltd.; 7-Eleven, Inc.; Mayer Brothers Group, Inc.; HRBS Enterprises, Inc.; Chitta Channin; Tera Tera, Inc.; Neettrio Inc.; McHenry & Morris Store, LLC; West Adams Petroleum, Inc.

News: Trademark CaliforniaNews