Pudgy Penguins Hit With Trademark Suit From Apparel Brand That’s Been Using Penguins Since 1955
Original Penguin has been putting penguins on shirts since 1955. Pudgy Penguins launched its NFT collection in 2021 and started selling plush toys and clothing after the broader NFT market collapsed and the brand needed alternative revenue.
The two companies have now ended up in federal court. PEI Licensing, the company that owns the Original Penguin brand, filed its complaint on Wednesday in the Southern District of Florida, alleging that Pudgy Penguins’ unauthorized use of penguin-related word marks and logo designs on apparel constitutes trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and unfair competition under both federal and Florida state law.
PEI has been using a penguin logo design on apparel since at least 1956 and a penguin word mark since 1967, both predating Pudgy Penguins by more than five decades.
The suit specifically targets phrases Pudgy Penguins has applied to register at the USPTO, including “I am my penguin and my penguin is me” and “Pengu Nation,” arguing these goods and services are “identical to those with which PEI uses its Penguin marks.”
PEI also notes that Pudgy Penguins sold physical products through Walmart and Target, exactly the retail channels where the Original Penguin brand operates, which strengthens its consumer confusion argument. The company claims the conduct “causes damage and irreparable injury” to its goodwill and business reputation.
Why This Is More Than a Brand Name Dispute
Pudgy Penguins has spent the past two years building the argument that physical retail and IP licensing are the future of NFT-based brands. The plush toy line it launched in 2023 sold more than $10 million worth of product in under a year through Walmart and Target.
The brand also has its own Solana-based culture coin, PENGU, and has been aggressively filing trademark applications at the USPTO as part of that expansion strategy. The litigation lands at an awkward moment: Pudgy Penguins is mid-pivot from NFT collection to consumer brand, and the trademark infrastructure that pivot depends on is exactly what PEI is now contesting.
PEI’s decision to file in Florida rather than waiting further is also worth noting. The company sent a cease-and-desist in October 2023. When Pudgy Penguins continued expanding its apparel business anyway, PEI filed two USPTO opposition notices in 2024 to block the trademark registrations.
When those oppositions failed to halt the activity, federal litigation was the remaining option. PEI is asking the court to order disgorgement of all profits from infringing sales, block any further use of the disputed marks, reject the pending USPTO applications, and require that all products bearing confusion with PEI’s trademarks be physically destroyed. That last demand, product destructioN, reflects how seriously the company views the brand dilution risk.
What PEI Would Need to Prove
Trademark infringement cases hinge on likelihood of consumer confusion, and PEI has a reasonably strong factual record to work with.
Both companies sell penguin-themed apparel and toys. Both operate in mainstream retail. PEI has decades of prior use and registered marks; Pudgy Penguins has pending applications that are still suspended at the USPTO.
The suit argues that Pudgy Penguins “knew, or should have known” that its conduct would mislead consumers into believing a commercial connection with PEI existed.
Whether the court agrees will likely come down to how similar the actual products and packaging appear side by side, and whether NFT-origin branding creates enough semantic distance from traditional apparel marks to constitute a distinct commercial context. Case number 1:26-cv-21458. Both sides are expected to respond in coming weeks.
