Bad Dragon Enterprises, a Phoenix-based maker of fantasy-themed sex toys popular in the furry community, sued a New York rival, SinSaint Inc., in March 2024 alleging that SinSaint copied the sculptural designs of at least a dozen of Bad Dragon’s products. The dispute turned into a multi-front legal fight over copyright, where the Arizona case was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction in early 2025 — but the matter has rippled through industry press, domain disputes, and even earlier accessibility litigation involving Bad Dragon’s website. This article breaks the story down into plain English for U.S. readers: the claims, the court rulings so far, related legal wrinkles, and practical takeaways for creators and small businesses.
Who is Bad Dragon
Bad Dragon Enterprises, founded in 2008 and based in Arizona, makes fantasy-styled adult toys (dragon tails, wolf designs, etc.) and developed a devoted niche audience. Because its products are highly sculptural and visually distinctive, the company relies on design protection, trademarks, and a strong brand reputation — which is why it turned to the courts when it believed rivals were copying its work.
The core lawsuit
In March 2024 Bad Dragon filed a federal complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona against SinSaint Inc. The complaint alleged copyright infringement — specifically, that SinSaint marketed and sold products that replicated the sculptural design elements of 13 Bad Dragon toys, using different names but materially similar shapes and surface details. Bad Dragon sought damages and injunctive relief. The company attached exhibits showing the accused products and argued commercial harm from lower-priced competing products.
The key procedural twist
SinSaint moved to dismiss, arguing the Arizona court lacked personal jurisdiction over a New York company and that venue was improper. In February 2025 the court granted SinSaint’s motion and dismissed the Arizona complaint without prejudice, concluding Bad Dragon had not established that SinSaint had sufficient contacts with Arizona to answer there — and denying broad “jurisdictional discovery” that Bad Dragon requested. In short: the court didn’t decide whether copying occurred; it decided the Arizona court wasn’t the right place to resolve the dispute.
That dismissal leaves Bad Dragon options: refile in a jurisdiction where SinSaint has clear contacts (for example, New York), pursue administrative remedies, or use other legal tools (e.g., cease-and-desist letters, customs/seizures, or trademark actions). Some press reports indicate Bad Dragon has continued related filings and domain disputes after the dismissal.
Other legal threads involving Bad Dragon
- Domain dispute: A Uniform Domain-Name Dispute Resolution (UDRP) filing appeared in 2025 involving Bad Dragon and domain issues, showing the company is active in protecting online identifiers and brand assets.
- Website accessibility litigation: Bad Dragon was named in a 2021 lawsuit alleging its website was not sufficiently accessible under digital accessibility claims. That separate litigation is part of a pattern many e-commerce firms face — digital-access suits, even if unrelated to product copying.
Why the dismissal for jurisdiction matters
A dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction is a technical but powerful result. It doesn’t resolve the merits (copyright infringement), but it raises the bar for plaintiffs: they must either show the defendant purposefully directed activities at the forum state or file suit in a state where the defendant conducts business. For plaintiffs like Bad Dragon, proving jurisdiction over an out-of-state online seller often means producing evidence of targeted sales, marketing directed at the forum, or other contacts (warehouse, agents, events). Courts are increasingly careful about dragging out-of-state defendants into distant forums.
What this means for creators, small brands, and buyers
For creators and niche manufacturers:
- Protect what matters: Register copyrights (where possible), and register trademarks for brand names and logos. Those registrations strengthen enforcement tools and help in international takedowns.
- Plan forum strategy: If you expect litigation, think ahead where a defendant can be sued — a plaintiff-friendly forum won’t do much good if a court dismisses for jurisdictional reasons. Collect evidence of where competitors sell or ship to establish contacts.
- Non-litigation remedies: Consider customs recordation, marketplace takedowns (Amazon, Etsy), and DMCA notices for online infringement — these can move faster than court cases.
For consumers and resellers:
- Watch for knock-offs: Lower-priced lookalikes may appear after popular releases. Distinguish between legitimate alternatives and near-copies that might be infringing.
- Marketplace vigilance: Major marketplaces often remove obviously copied listings, but enforcement varies — check seller reputations.
Likely next steps and what to watch for
- Refiling in a different jurisdiction (e.g., New York) is a logical next move if Bad Dragon can show SinSaint’s New York connections. Some filings after the Arizona dismissal suggest litigation activity continued.
- Settlement or licensing: Parties sometimes settle (licensing fees or product modifications) to avoid prolonged litigation.
- Further trademark or domain actions could be used to protect branding beyond pure copyright claims.
FAQ
Q: Did the court find SinSaint guilty of copying?
A: No. The Arizona court dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction; it did not rule on whether the designs were infringements.
Q: Can Bad Dragon sue again?
A: Yes — dismissal was without prejudice, so Bad Dragon can refile in another, proper forum or pursue other legal remedies.
Q: Should creators sue copycats immediately?
A: Not always. Consider practical remedies (platform takedowns, customs, cease-and-desist) and the forum where suit would be effective. Litigation is costly and jurisdictional issues can derail claims if not properly planned.
Closing thought
This dispute illustrates a familiar modern tension: niche creators with distinctive physical designs must choose among technical legal tools (copyright, trademark, domain disputes) while navigating the geography of internet commerce and jurisdictional limits. The law can protect creativity — but enforcing those rights requires careful planning about where, how, and when to bring claims.
Sources & further reading: court docket and filings for Bad Dragon v. SinSaint (D. Ariz.), contemporary press coverage, a law-firm write-up of the motion-to-dismiss ruling, WIPO/UDRP records, and earlier accessibility litigation filings.
Oliver Johnson is LawScroller’s Senior Legal Correspondent specializing in civil litigation, class actions, and consumer lawsuit coverage. He breaks down complex settlements and court decisions into clear, practical guidance for readers.