Miffy owner steps up US copyright enforcement against online marketplace sellers

Dutch company Mercis B.V., which owns registered Miffy copyrights and trademarks, has secured temporary relief against a group of online marketplace sellers accused of systematically infringing its Miffy rights in the US.

In Mercis B.V. v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, No. 1:26-cv-4035 (MKV), the US District Court for the Southern District of New York found that Mercis had shown a likelihood of success on its copyright infringement claim. The court issued its order on July 17, 2026, granting in part Mercis’ ex parte application for a temporary restraining order, asset restraint, and expedited discovery.

The action concerns US Copyright Registration No. VA 1-054-563 for the work titled “MIFFY.” According to the court’s order, Mercis alleged that the defendants had, without authorization or a license, systematically advertised, distributed, offered for sale, and sold allegedly infringing products into the US, including New York, through accounts connected to online marketplace platforms.

Court grants ex parte relief

The court found that Mercis was likely to suffer immediate and irreparable losses before the defendants could be heard if the requested ex parte relief was not granted. It also accepted Mercis’ concerns that defendants could conceal or dispose of allegedly infringing products, sales proceeds, and relevant records, or move their activities to new seller accounts.

The temporary restraints prohibit defendants and specified persons receiving actual notice of the order from manufacturing, advertising, offering for sale, selling, or distributing the allegedly infringing products. The order also addresses the use of Miffy intellectual property on seller aliases and in certain online marketing and search-related uses.

The order further requires certain third-party entities to identify and restrain accounts and assets associated with the defendants. The entities identified in the order include Amazon, PayPal, Payoneer, Ping Pong, Coinbase, Walmart, Temu, and Shop Pay. The court also ordered expedited discovery seeking information about the defendants, their accounts, and other online marketplace accounts associated with them.

The involvement of these third-party entities does not amount to a finding that they are liable for the alleged infringement. Rather, the order concerns information and assets potentially connected to the defendants and the allegedly infringing activity.

Preliminary-injunction hearing set for August 19

The court is due to hold a hearing on Mercis’ request for a preliminary injunction on August 19, 2026, at 14:00.

The case has now reached an important procedural stage. The court’s July order required the parties to submit lists of witnesses they intend to cross-examine and documentary evidence ahead of the hearing. The deadline for documentary exhibits and other evidence is August 17, while objections are due by noon on August 18.

However, the court has already identified a potential jurisdictional issue that Mercis will need to address. Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil noted that, to obtain a preliminary injunction, Mercis must establish personal jurisdiction over each defendant.

The court specifically warned that showing that defendants offer goods through third-party platforms that ship to New York will not, by itself, be sufficient. The order cites the Second Circuit’s decision in American Girl, LLC v. Zembrka, 118 F.4th 271 (2d Cir. 2024), in addressing the jurisdictional question.

That issue could prove significant in online marketplace enforcement cases involving sellers who may operate outside the US but use global platforms to reach US consumers.

A growing enforcement challenge

The action highlights the increasingly sophisticated enforcement tools available to IP owners seeking to tackle alleged infringement carried out through online marketplaces.

Rather than simply seeking damages after alleged infringement has occurred, Mercis has obtained orders targeting seller accounts, financial assets, online aliases, and relevant records. The expedited discovery provisions could also help identify additional accounts and obtain information held by third-party entities.

The case illustrates the practical difficulties faced by rights holders when allegedly infringing goods are offered through multiple online platforms. Identifying the individuals or entities behind marketplace accounts, tracing sales proceeds, and preventing sellers from moving allegedly infringing activity between accounts can all form part of an enforcement strategy.

It also raises questions about the extent to which rights holders can use court orders to obtain information and restrain assets held through online marketplaces and payment providers, particularly where defendants may have connections to jurisdictions outside the US.

The August 19 hearing could provide further insight into the court’s approach to personal jurisdiction and the evidence required to obtain preliminary injunctive relief in this type of marketplace-enforcement action.

The case remains ongoing, and the court has not made a final determination of liability. The July 17 order concerned temporary relief and the court’s preliminary assessment that Mercis had demonstrated a likelihood of success on its copyright infringement claim.

← Back to News