The toy company behind Labubu, a collector's doll that went viral in 2023, has taken aim at an unlikely defendant: Bambu Lab, the Shenzhen-based 3D printer manufacturer. Pop Mart has sued Bambu Lab and its subsidiaries at the People's Court of Pudong New Area, Shanghai, over copyright infringement involving unauthorised Labubu designs on MakerWorld, the company's flagship model platform.
The dispute cuts to the heart of a question regulators and industry players have sidestepped for years: who is liable when users of an open platform upload copyrighted content? For Bambu Lab, the timing is awkward. The company has positioned itself as a defender of creator rights, launching protection services and suing rivals over stolen designs. Now it faces the same allegations from Pop Mart.
MakerWorld, operated by Bambu Lab, is where users have shared design files that enable others to print replicas of Pop Mart's blockbuster character Labubu. The platform, which launched in 2023, has nearly 10 million monthly active users. The economics are brutal. A 38-centimetre 3D-printed Labubu could cost as little as 40 yuan (approximately AUD 8.50), compared to over 200 yuan for an official product.
The case is poised to test the murky legal boundaries of consumer 3D printing, particularly whether platform operators can be held liable when users upload copyrighted designs for personal use, a grey area often likened to the early days of digital music sharing. This is not merely an abstract legal question. Pop Mart had 1.83 million counterfeit Labubu products seized in 2025 by Chinese customs. The business model matters: Labubu accounts for over 30 per cent of Pop Mart's total sales.
The intellectual property argument is straightforward. Bambu Lab did not create the infringing designs. Users did. Yet legal experts argue that platforms with knowledge of infringement, algorithmic promotion of infringing content, or reward systems that incentivise uploads may lose the protection of the safe harbour principle that shields many tech platforms from liability. When a platform is aware that users are uploading unauthorised 3D printable models but fails to implement keyword filtering and algorithmically recommends them, it constitutes knowing but failing to govern, crossing the boundary of obligations and constituting contributory infringement.
Bambu Lab's response has been swift. The company has pulled every Labubu knock-off toy, keychain, fidget, and cookie cutter from MakerWorld. But the cleanup created problems of its own. MakerWorld users complained that innocent models caught in the mass takedown included printer modifications, cable clips, and paint brush holders. The collateral damage reveals a real tension: aggressive enforcement risks suppressing legitimate content. Proportionality matters in law.
What makes this case significant is that it tests new technological terrain.With the rise of technologies like 3D printing and artificial intelligence, the cost of copying works approaches zero and the boundaries of infringement become increasingly blurred; systems governing platform liability are being continuously reshaped by judicial practice.
The genuine complexity lies in conflicting principles. Intellectual property protection ensures creators capture value from their work. But platform neutrality and open-source collaboration have driven innovation in 3D printing. If every platform becomes a copyright policeman, the ease and accessibility that made 3D printing attractive for enthusiasts may evaporate. If platforms face no liability, then intellectual property loses practical meaning for digital goods that become physical ones.
Bambu Lab itself illustrates this paradox.The company's growth has been driven by its hardware and content ecosystem strategy; over 90 per cent of models on MakerWorld are free. That openness is a competitive strength. Yet it also creates incentives to host popular content, including infringing material. Pop Mart's lawsuit asks a reasonable question: at what point does inaction become complicity?
The court will decide where liability falls. But the broader lesson is unavoidable. As manufacturing becomes digital, as files become products, the old assumptions about intellectual property need rethinking. Reasonable minds will disagree on the precise balance between protection and innovation. What is not reasonable is inaction from platforms that have the capacity to moderate, from IP holders who fail to enforce, or from regulators who pretend the question does not exist.