A user recently complained on social media that their 3D printer was forced to stop working, leaving only a freshly printed LABUBU head on the build plate after the model links collectively became invalid. This "plan to own limited-edition trendy toys for free" was abruptly halted.
The cause of this widespread model "supply cut" is a lawsuit. Pop Mart International Group Limited has filed a legal case against the 3D printing unicorn Bambu Lab, with the dispute centered on copyright ownership and infringement. The epicenter of the storm is MakerWorld, Bambu Lab's 3D model community which boasts the highest global monthly active users. Previously, the platform was saturated with a large volume of user-uploaded, unauthorized "LABUBU" 3D printing models, potentially infringing upon Pop Mart's IP copyrights. MakerWorld has since swiftly removed all related IP models.
This is, in fact, a compliance issue facing the entire industry. Research indicates that besides Bambu Lab, communities affiliated with other manufacturers, such as Creality Cloud from 3D printer maker Creality and Atomm from laser engraver brand xTool, also host numerous users extensively sharing model resources of well-known IPs. Pop Mart's lawsuit may be just the beginning, raising questions about whether more copyright holders will take hardware manufacturers' UGC (User-Generated Content) communities to court over infringement allegations.
Is this a case of making an example out of one to warn others? The trigger for this lawsuit was the abundance of unauthorized 3D models, including "LABUBU," on Bambu Lab's MakerWorld community, which drew Pop Mart's ire. Many industry insiders believe Bambu Lab may have infringed upon Pop Mart's exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute, and communicate the "LABUBU" work to the public via information networks. A lawyer from Tahota Law Firm pointed out that without Pop Mart's authorization, Bambu Lab cannot legally copy, distribute, or disseminate LABUBU's image online. As the manufacturer and platform operator, Bambu Lab knew or should have known that user uploads on MakerWorld would constitute infringement.
Bambu Lab had already recognized IP risks and implemented "disclaimer clauses." For instance, its MakerWorld user agreement states that it reserves the right to remove content deemed infringing and holds users responsible for their uploads, requiring them to indemnify MakerWorld against related claims. However, the effectiveness of such disclaimers is debatable. A Shenzhen-based IP lawyer suggested the timing of the clause's introduction matters; a pre-existing clause might mitigate some liability, whereas a post-infringement update would have limited effect. Another lawyer from southern China noted that while platforms commonly have such IP clauses, they bear a duty of care regarding user uploads and could be liable if they "knew or should have known" about infringements.
Many legal professionals view Pop Mart's lawsuit against Bambu Lab as potentially aiming to "make an example" to deter others. A Beijing-based IP lawyer explained that commercial litigation considers cost-benefit ratios. Suing numerous individual users is costly for evidence collection and yields minimal compensation. In contrast, targeting a device manufacturer with a large infringing community significantly increases potential damages and more effectively disrupts the infringement chain. MakerWorld holds a significant position in the 3D printing industry; reportedly, by October 2025, it had nearly ten million monthly active users and over a million models, making it the world's largest 3D model community by monthly activity. With such leverage, any unauthorized IP model can be downloaded and printed thousands of times rapidly, directly undermining Pop Mart's IP monetization. This lawsuit may prompt the industry to re-examine the copyright risks inherent in 3D printing.
Infringement is not an isolated issue for Bambu Lab but a prevalent problem across UGC communities run by major 3D printing hardware manufacturers. Although MakerWorld urgently removed the implicated "LABUBU" models, top Disney IPs like Mickey Mouse and Judy Hopps from "Zootopia" remain easily searchable on the platform. Similar situations exist elsewhere. On Creality's Creality Cloud, models of Pop Mart's "Starman" are readily available. Likewise, on xTool's Atomm community, users extensively share printing templates for Nintendo's classic IP Pikachu and characters Judy and Nick from "Zootopia."
This collective testing of copyright boundaries stems from manufacturers pushing a "hardware + ecosystem" business model. In recent years, both 3D printing and laser engraving have sought to shed their "hardcore geek" image and transition into mainstream consumer products. To lower the user barrier, drive hardware sales, and increase consumables repurchase rates, building proprietary model communities and offering vast libraries of free templates has become a common strategy. Within this framework, popular anime and trendy toy IPs, with their large fanbases and high recognition, naturally become "free bait" for user acquisition and engagement. Some platforms, while benefiting from the daily activity and device usage rates driven by infringing models, maintain an ambiguous and delayed approach to reviewing such content.
However, as companies like Bambu Lab grow into unicorns with communities reaching tens of millions of monthly users, this systematic creation of "zero-cost alternatives"实质上分食原版权方的商业利益. This poses additional compliance challenges for companies like Creality and xTool, which are pursuing IPOs. Notably, the risk disclosures in their IPO prospectuses do not prominently address the potential IP infringement risks arising from users sharing unauthorized content on their platforms.
When a 3D printer costing a few thousand yuan can effortlessly produce a LABUBU, a Starman, or a Minnie Mouse, this seemingly cost-free "alternative" essentially converts the core assets of copyright holders into free incentives for hardware manufacturers to sell their machines. As IP giants like Pop Mart begin scrutinizing this once-overlooked area with a magnifying glass, the time for manufacturers to "act first and seek permission later" is running out. Abandoning the shortcut of野蛮生长 and paying the genuine, compliant price for copyrights is a necessary lesson for this multi-billion-yuan market to achieve true maturity.
Comments