PEI Licensing; the company behind the Original Penguin apparel brand, part of Perry Ellis International has filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against Pudgy Penguins, an Ethereum NFT collection.
The lawsuit was filed on March 4, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. PEI claims Pudgy Penguins is infringing on its long-established “Penguin” trademarks including word marks like “Penguin” and “Original Penguin,” plus penguin design logos that date back to the 1950s.
PEI owns around 35 registered trademarks covering apparel, accessories, and related goods. The suit alleges Pudgy Penguins’ use of marks like “Pudgy Penguins,” “Pengu Nation,” “Forever Pudgy Penguins,” “I Am My Penguin, And My Penguin Is Me,” and various penguin designs in connection with apparel, fashion accessories, and retail services is confusingly similar.
This creates a likelihood of consumer confusion, dilution of PEI’s famous marks, and unfair competition. PEI sent a cease-and-desist letter in October 2023, which Pudgy Penguins allegedly ignored, continuing to expand into physical merchandise including apparel and over 1 million toys sold via retail partners like Walmart and Target.
Register for Tekedia Mini-MBA edition 20 (June 8 – Sept 5, 2026).
Register for Tekedia AI in Business Masterclass.
Join Tekedia Capital Syndicate and co-invest in great global startups.
Register for Tekedia AI Lab.
Injunctive relief to stop Pudgy Penguins from using the disputed marks. Destruction or removal of infringing products. Monetary damages, including disgorgement of profits from the allegedly infringing sales. A jury trial.
Pudgy Penguins started as an Ethereum NFT collection in 2021 (8,888 pieces) and has since expanded into a broader brand with physical toys, apparel, partnerships, and even a Solana-based token ($PENGU). This retail push generating significant revenue appears to have triggered the dispute, as it overlaps with PEI’s core apparel business.
Pudgy Penguins has argued in public statements and community responses that its marks are visually and conceptually distinct, target different audiences, and that some have already been approved by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
This highlights ongoing tensions between legacy brands and emerging crypto/NFT projects over IP in overlapping consumer goods. Pudgy Penguins has publicly responded to the trademark infringement lawsuit filed by PEI Licensing expressing confidence in their position while downplaying the claims.
The case remains in its very early stages—no formal answer has been filed yet in court; defendants typically have about 21 days to respond, so defenses are based on public statements rather than legal filings.
Jennifer McGlone, Chief Legal Officer of Pudgy Penguins and parent company Igloo Inc., stated the company was “surprised by the action,” especially since both parties had been engaged in “productive discussions to resolve this matter privately.” This suggests they viewed the lawsuit as premature or escalatory.
McGlone asserted that PEI’s claims “lack merit.” She emphasized that the trademarks in question are visually distinct from Original Penguin’s marks.
Pudgy Penguins argues its branding serves “entirely different audiences and markets” — primarily the crypto, NFT, and web3 community with playful, chubby cartoon penguins versus PEI’s traditional apparel line (classic, preppy penguin logo dating back to the 1950s–1960s).
This could form the basis of a “no likelihood of confusion” defense under trademark law. The company highlighted that Pudgy Penguins has “already secured multiple trademark application approvals from the USPTO covering the Pudgy Penguins brand and related marks.”
This implies some registrations have occurred despite PEI’s earlier oppositions, potentially strengthening their position on validity and non-infringement. On X, Pudgy Penguins posted a humorous meme from The Office showing side-by-side images of their mascot (Pax) and Original Penguin’s logo, with the caption implying They’re the same picture.
Sarcastically mocking PEI’s confusion claim and signaling to their community that they don’t take it seriously. These points align with common trademark defenses: No likelihood of consumer confusion (different visual styles, channels, and demographics reduce overlap).
Prior USPTO success; some IP attorneys commenting publicly have noted the case isn’t a “slam dunk” for either side — PEI has strong historical registrations for apparel, but proving actual confusion or dilution in overlapping goods will be key, especially given the stylistic differences and Pudgy Penguins’ digital origins.
The lawsuit is ongoing in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case 1:26-cv-21458). Pudgy Penguins appears focused on fighting it aggressively while maintaining community engagement through humor and confidence.