When Game Characters Get “Duped”: The Case Of Amazon.Com Inc v. Chen Jing

Amiibo Logo

Hey All! While looking through Lexis, I found a decision out of the U.S. District Courts in Western Washington that might be of interest to some people. There is not much information out about the case since it just concluded earlier this week. It concerns the practice of copying and distributing the physical manifestations of video-game intellectual property.

(1) A Summary of the Dispute

Amazon.com, Inc. v. Chen Jing concerns a dispute between the e-commerce giant Amazon, and Chen Jing and Zhou Rong (the “defendants”). Amazon alleges that both defendants committed trademark infringement because they  “willfully sold counterfeit versions of Nintendo’s ‘amiibo’ cards bearing Nintendo’s trademarks […]  though an Amazon based online store”[1]. In support of this claim, a representative from Nintendo attested that samples taken from the defendant’s store were counterfeit, and that they “misused the Nintendo trademarks to deceive customers into believing that they were buying authentic Nintendo products when the goods were actually counterfeit” [2].

A central issue in this case was the fact that the Defendants were non-residents when committing their alleged malfeasance. Thus, the court had to determine whether they had the jurisdiction to continue with civil proceedings. The court concluded that it had jurisdiction because (1) the defendants agreed to Amazon Services Business Solutions Agreement, which required the Defendants to consent to being subject to the jurisdiction of U.S.’ Federal courts[3]. Moreover, the defendants purposefully directed their activities at the United States[4].

In concluding their finding of trademark infringement, the court found that the defendants sold counterfeit imitations of Nintendo-branded products bearing the Nintendo trademark, that were meant to deceive the public as to the authenticity of the Defendant’s products, thereby harming Nintendo’s goodwill[5]. Moreover, the defendants deceived Amazon about the authenticity of their products, thereby also harming Amazon’s reputation and brand[6].

An example comparison between a real and counterfeit Amiibo

(2) Commentary.

This case demonstrates that videogames exist beyond the confines of a two-dimensional screen. As such, they may manifest themselves in a physical form that itself may interact with elements in the real world and digital world. For example, in this case the physical form of several video-game characters came in the form of an Amiibo, which is an  “interactive figure […] that works with games; [to do this, players] tap an amiibo while playing a compatible Nintendo Console, thereby uncovering new features”[7]. Such a device therefore interacts with a game one plays and modifies it to the benefit of the player.

This case also showcases that there are real and tangible issues associated with combining the real and digital worlds. An example of such danger is that enterprising criminals may be incentivised to create fake copies of products such as the Amiibo. As demonstrated in this case, when a physical item is produced, it is incredibly easy for an individual with the right tools and expertise to copy that item for a profit. In this case, the existence of counterfeit Amiibo’s has been documented as far back as at least 2015[8].  I believe that such actions with physical objects are much easier than with digital property. This is because, provided that they have the resources, one wishing to copy a physical object simply needs to use analogous inputs like plastics, and capital like injection moulds to create a object that is similar enough to fool a customer. On the other hand, doing the same for a videogame may be more difficult owing to the complexities of creating a game, locating certain assets, and copying the creativity and attention to detail of talented professionals.

Finally, this case highlights the globalized nature of trademark infringement, and the desirability of video-game related physical items. These defendants were non-residents in the U.S. but leveraged American software and supply chains to carry out their operations.

(3) Conclusion.

I believe this case offers a glimpse into a unique way in which crime and video-games intersect, and I hope you all believe so as well! Please let me know what you think!

(4) Sources

[1] Amazon.Com, Inc. v. Chen Jing, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37632

[2] Ibid

[3] Ibid

[4] Ibid

[5] Ibid

[6] Ibid

[7] https://www.nintendo.com/en-gb/Hardware/amiibo-/About-amiibo/About-amiibo-932316.html?srsltid=AfmBOoqhOdf4my2O7vqrjfndvWYcroC2jEfBXAwf8RK0FJbFL-nZ-Wce

[8] See: https://nintendowire.com/news/2015/06/02/counterfeit-amiibo-appear-in-the-wild/