Deleted over a Mattel trademark claim. Appeal denied. Nobody says which word

On 2 September 2026 at 06:30 MakerWorld deleted my model “Honeycomb Cardholder” (ID 60934). A holder for playing cards. My second upload on this platform, online since before December 2023, 259 downloads, 13 boosts, three years of comments, ratings and print profiles. I found out from a notification, after everything was already gone.

The reason: a trademark complaint filed for Mattel by an enforcement agency (enforcement@convey.it). It names three marks, HOT WHEELS, UNO and MATCHBOX, and one template sentence: the marks appear “in the title of the campaign, in the description or in the 3d Model itself”. Which word, where, in my listing? Not stated. Nobody at MakerWorld looked at the model. A word search from a law firm was enough to wipe out three years of my work.

Let me say clearly what I think of the way MakerWorld handled this. It is an insult to the maker. I gave this model to this platform for free. People printed it, rated it, boosted it. MakerWorld lives on content like this. And when a law firm sends a form letter, MakerWorld does not warn me, does not ask me, does not give me one day to change a word. It deletes, and then it tells me.

There was an obvious way to handle this without destroying anything. MakerWorld has a private state for every model. Set the listing to private, and the alleged infringement is over that same second: nobody can see it, nobody can download it, Mattel has nothing left to complain about. The maker keeps his files, his description, his statistics, and can fix whatever word is wrong. Then the model goes back online. One click on MakerWorld’s side, one minute on mine. Instead MakerWorld chose the one option that punishes the maker and helps nobody: deletion. The enforcement agency did not even ask for that.

I cannot even find out what the problem is. The listing is gone. I cannot read my own description. I cannot download my own files. The one document anyone would need to check the claim is exactly the one MakerWorld removed before telling me. And in the same notice MakerWorld gives me 14 calendar days to file a counter notification, under threat of “serious legal consequences” if I get it wrong. Defend yourself, but we will not tell you against what, and we took the evidence away.

The notice offers a green Appeal button. I used it on 3 September at 01:11. This is what I wrote:

To the MakerWorld team,

on 2 September 2026 at 06:30 you removed my model “Honeycomb Cardholder” / “Honigwaben-Kartenhalter”
(ID 60934). It was my second upload on this platform, it was published before 22 December 2023,
and it had been online continuously ever since. It had 259 downloads and 13 boosts from other
users. I learned about the removal from a notification, after it was already gone.

This is not about Mattel’s rights. This is about how you handled it.

  1. You do not tell me what the actual problem is.

Your notice says the reported designs “contain the registered trademarks in the title,
in the description or in the 3d Model itself”, and it lists HOT WHEELS, UNO and MATCHBOX.
That is three trademarks and three possible places, and not one word about which term,
in which place, in which of my listings. In the same message you give me 14 calendar days
to file a counter notification. How am I supposed to write one? I would be guessing what
I am defending myself against, under threat of “serious legal consequences” if I guess wrong.

  1. You took away the one document I would need.

The listing is gone. I cannot open it, I cannot read the description I wrote, I cannot
download my own files. The single piece of evidence anyone would need to check your claim
is my own listing, and that is exactly what you removed before informing me. I was never
given the chance to save a copy of my own work.

The print count is a good example. I can no longer see how often this model was actually
printed, because you removed the page that showed it. On my models that figure typically
runs at roughly two thirds of the downloads, which would put it in the low hundreds here,
but I can no longer verify it. You still hold that number. I do not.

  1. The measure does not fit the alleged problem.

If a brand name appeared in a title or in one line of a description, that is a text edit.
It would have taken me one minute. Instead you deleted a model that had been live for nearly
three years, together with everything attached to it: 259 downloads, 13 boosts, the prints,
the ratings, the comments, the print profiles, the whole history. Nobody asked me to change
a word. Nobody warned me. Nobody gave me a deadline to fix it. Deletion was your first step,
not your last.

Consider what that means in practice. A listing that had been public since before December 2023
was taken down overnight on the basis of a complaint I am not allowed to see in detail, about
wording I am not told, in a model I can no longer open.

  1. A printed card holder is not a die-cast car.

The model is a holder for playing cards. It does not reproduce anyone’s product, packaging,
logo or artwork. If your concern is that a common game name appears somewhere in the text,
then say so, and say where, and let me remove it.

What I expect from you:

  1. Name the exact wording you object to and where it appears: title, description, images
    or model files.
  2. Give me access to my own upload. At minimum, the model files, the description text
    I wrote myself, and the statistics of that model.
  3. Restore the model once the objected wording is removed. I will change any term you name,
    the same day.
  4. Suspend the 14-day counter-notification deadline until I have received the information
    above. That clock cannot reasonably run against me while you withhold what I would need
    in order to answer.

I am not asking for special treatment. I am asking to be told what I did wrong, and to keep
access to work that is mine. After nearly three years online, I have neither.

Regards,
Sebastian (cforms)

The answer came at 03:43: “this channel is not authorized to handle such matters”. Write to copyright@makerworld.com instead, within 14 calendar days of the takedown. So the appeal button inside the takedown notice leads to a team that is not allowed to handle takedowns. The clock kept running while I waited for that.

This is not a single case. In April a whole wave of Hot Wheels related models went the same way, see “They will delete the models and not give a chance to fix the word HotWheel” (They will delete the models and not give a chance to fix the word HotWheel). In March creators asked to be allowed to fix a listing before it gets deleted, see “Allowing us to rectify the uploads that were taken down” (Allowing us to rectify the uploads that were taken down). Both threads have no reply from MakerWorld. MakerWorld does not answer here. It does not answer in the appeal. It answers with a form letter that sends you to another address.

What I want from MakerWorld, in public, because the private channels have not worked:

  1. Name the exact wording you object to and where it appears: title, description, images or model files.
  2. Give me access to my own upload: the model files, the description text I wrote, and the statistics of that model.
  3. Restore the model once the objected wording is removed. I will change any term you name the same day.
  4. Stop the 14-day counter-notification clock until I have received the information above.
  5. Change the process. Private first, always. A deletion only after a human has looked at the model and the maker has had a chance to fix it.

A printed card holder is not a die-cast car. If the word UNO or Hot Wheels stood somewhere in my text, that is a one-minute edit. Deleting three years of history over one word, without a warning, without naming the word, without a way to get my own files back, shows what MakerWorld thinks of the people who fill this platform.

If your models got hit by the same wave, reply here. The more cases are visible in one place, the harder they are to ignore.

Sebastian (cforms)

So you gave away Mattel’s IP and are upset they objected and requested takedown?

Bambu/MakerWorld can face punitive damages for allowing continuing infringement. You too, by the way.

There is nothing in all your altruistic “giving it away for free” that allows you to do that. Please understand it’s just copyright and trademark law. It’s their property and you were using it without permission.

Bambu/MakerWorld was totally within their rights and were obligated to pull your models that infringed.

I could talk about Mattel for ages, but the short version is this: you’re not the first, and you definitely won’t be the last to run into this issue. A few others on the forum have posted about the same thing. To put it plainly, there isn’t much you can do once it happens.

Even though your post focuses on what MakerWorld should change, many people have already raised the same points. The most important thing to keep in mind is simply this: try not to use someone else’s intellectual property.

It always follows the same pattern: someone uploads content that infringes on IP, MakerWorld removes it, the user comes to the forum to complain, and hopes MakerWorld will adjust something. But the core issue remains the same - the infringement itself.


Please don’t take this personally - I took a look at your profile, and you’ve got some really wonderful 3D stuff there; I’ve already added a few to my favorites. But there are also quite a number that unfortunately do violate intellectual property rights.


Sure, some of it is fan art, no question, but I do think some of it pushes the boundaries pretty far - especially if you actually put the original logo from other companies on your cover. It’s an absolute no-go to give the impression that you’re part of the original company.

Examples: FESTOOL - Jägermeister - …

A scanned Jaegermeister shot glass? I don’t know if there is actual danger there or not but I would never print that anyway. Filaments have colorants, modifiers, plasticizers, etc in them and Jaegermeister has alcohol in it. It might leach those things out and let people drink them.

Might. Don’t know the actual danger, but still, I’d classify that as dangerous print. I certainly would not print it for anything but display.

I have had a few IP related model removals.

They often provide very little information.

I have had a uno model removed for using UNO card design (magnetic fidget cards).

I have had McDonald’s dip dispensers for using the Golden Arches logo.

I have had a Taiwanese flag coaster and a key chain removed due to the presence of sensitive content, which includes but is not limited to concerns related to child safety, explicit thumbnails, ■■■■■■ and sexual content, discussions of suicidal and self-harm, as well as the use of vulgar language.

Stocks and stones will hurt my bones, but using the Taiwanese flag a horrendous and unforgivable crime.

Edit: The edit / post overlapped here - my mistake; I missed the context a bit. My mistake. I’ll leave the original comment there for context anyway.


The problem isn’t the 3D object itself, but the fact that he’s using the protected logo as a cover. While Jägermeister is generally tolerant of fan-made content, they do not allow the misuse of their logo, as seen here on the cover.

The problem is the covers - the use of third-party logos directly on the cover. Companies must protect them; they are obligated to do so when they see this happening.


FESTOOL probably isn’t very happy about its logo being misused as a cover either.

Absolutely true but I was pointing out a different problem.

But to your point, if a company doesn’t protect trademarks and patents, it makes it easier for others to claim abandonment and they can win. Imagine if Mattel lost rights to their various logos. It could cost them the company.

I can certainly empathize with you in this situation, but there’s a few points that you are severly misunderstanding that may help you in the future.

  1. Your download count on the model is irrelevant. You could have one download, zero, or a million. It could be the oldest model uploaded to MakerWorld or it could have been uploaded last month. None of this matters at all, and yet you led with it in both your message here and in your message to the MakerWorld team.

MakerWorld gets appeals for many model they take down; most of the appeals have no substance and are based on emotions instead, so when you led with that it weakened any chance of being taken seriously if you had a legitimate issue. It certainly colored my opinion when I read it.

  1. As a hosting site, MakerWorld has legal protection themselves against IP infringement by their users, just like YouTube, Instagram, etc., but the only way they get that is by taking action when IP infringement is brought to their attention. Look up The Digital Millenium Copyright Act, Section 512.

  2. A search for trademarked terms is a pretty simple process - I don’t know how that can be done wrong. I’m not sure trying to cast doubt on if “Uno” was in the model description is a very solid strategy here. It either was, which makes this an infringement, or it wasn’t.

  3. Allowing users to remedy an infringing model as you’re asking for is not the right move. You collected all of those likes and downloads AND POINTS with Mattel’s IP in your listing - legally, if MakerWorld allowed you to retain the fruits of that infringement, they are not meeting their DMCA 512 responsibility and would lose their protection under the act.

  4. At the time you uploaded you model, you clicked a box that agreed that a) your model didn’t contain other people’s IP and b) you agree that MakerWorld could take down your model if it is in breach of any of their rules. MakerWorld also sends out periodic updates when their content rules change. You could (and should) have known that your models contained infringing IP, at the end of the day this lands squarely on your shoulders.

Chalk it up to learning. It sucks, take a deep breath, it isn’t going to change, so upload the item again and make sure it doesn’t infringe on anyone’s IP. Move on.

Oh, sorry, I didn’t see that. I have no idea if our edits / post overlapped there. My mistake. :heart:


Yes, that’s why Lego takes action against anything that has “Lego” in its logo or name. They don’t have a patent on the bricks, but they do have one on the logo.

No problemo! :grin: 1234567890

If the punishment for infringement is simply to correct the infringement with a text edit, why should anyone ever worry about infringing? All they need to do is wait till they get caught, then make the change.

Some good information you clearly laid out in your points​:+1:t2::+1:t2:

Just a reminder:

If you post something that has value to you, make sure you have a copy on something that you own.

Two things matter here: what the alleged infringement even is, and how MakerWorld handled it. The replies to individual posts come at the end.

So, what the alleged infringement even is, because the “you gave away Mattel’s property” crowd never asked. A card holder. In its description, a list of the games it holds: Uno, Rommé, Skat and any other deck. One of those names belongs to Mattel. That is the whole connection. No logo, no artwork, no card design, nothing copied.

Think about what the takedown is actually claiming: that naming a game, in a list of games a holder fits, is a trademark infringement. By that logic every phone case that says “fits iPhone” infringes Apple, and every shelf on this site that lists the board games it stores infringes every publisher on it. A trademark stops others from selling their product under your name. It does not take the word out of the language. Saying that a holder fits Uno cards sells no Uno cards, claims nothing from Mattel and confuses nobody about who makes what. It describes a use. That is what a product description is for.

So the question to MakerWorld is not only “which word”. It is this: do you seriously hold that naming a game in a list of games is an infringement? Because if that is your position, you will have to delete half of this platform, and you should say so in public before you start.

To those telling me to read the guidelines: I have. All of them. The Community Guidelines as they stood when I uploaded, the version of January 2025, the version in force today since 27 April 2026, the Model Upload Guidelines in the wiki, and the User Agreement. Here is what they say about trademarks: “trademark infringement” is prohibited. One line. Nowhere, in none of these documents, does it say that naming a trademarked game in a model description is forbidden. Not in a list of games, not anywhere. The word “trademark” appears exactly once per version, without a single sentence saying what counts. So before you tell a creator with hundreds of uploads to read the rules, read them yourself, in detail, and then show me the line. If you cannot, stop making yourself important here with nonsense.

Now the process, exactly as MakerWorld runs it.

A complaint comes in from a law firm. The model is deleted. The creator is informed afterwards. No warning, and no chance to change a word. Almost three years of listing, comments, ratings and print profiles, gone before I even knew there was a complaint.

With the listing, my access goes too. I cannot read my own description, open my own files, or see my own numbers. The one document anyone would need to check the claim is the one they removed first.

The notice then invites me to file a counter-notification, with a warning about “serious legal consequences” if I get it wrong. Defend yourself, against a claim we will not describe, with evidence we took away.

The same notice has an appeal button. I used it. The answer came a few hours later: this channel is not authorized to handle such matters, please write to a different address. Their own appeal leads to a door that says “not here”.

The same complaints were raised in this forum in March and in April. Not one reply from MakerWorld in either thread. In this thread so far: not one post from MakerWorld.

Their own rules say how this is supposed to go. Their Community Guidelines from 2023, the year my model went online, say: if their reviewers determine a violation, the content is removed and the creator gets a warning notification; accounts are suspended only for repeat violations; and whoever appeals a suspension is promised a thorough re-evaluation. Their user agreement from the same month says removal can be provisional or permanent. Now compare that with what I got: no sign that any reviewer looked at anything, a notice with one template sentence and no term, permanent instead of provisional, and an appeal that nobody re-evaluated. It was forwarded to a door marked “not here”. Measured against their own 2023 rules, MakerWorld picked the worst option at every single step.

And their current rules, in force since 27 April 2026, make it worse for them. Their own list of measures includes “reduce the visibility of content” right next to “content takedown”. The milder tool is in their own catalogue. They did not use it. The same document promises that a user may appeal “through MakerWorld’s appeal system” and that “our teams will conduct a thorough reevaluation of the decision”. I used that system. The reevaluation I got was: not authorized.

And that is the part I will not let go of. Every model on MakerWorld was uploaded by someone like me, for free. The downloads, the print profiles, the boosts, all of it is work that creators hand over for nothing. And the moment a law firm sends a form, that creator is treated like a suspect: deleted first, informed later, locked out of his own files, and sent from one door to the next. Call that a content policy if you like. I call it contempt for the people this platform is made of.

krellboy, on private-first making infringement free: it does not. Private takes the model off the platform the same second. Nobody sees it and nobody downloads it. The creator fixes the term, the listing is reviewed before it goes public again, repeat offenders still get banned. That is their own 2023 procedure, applied.

CarbonForge, on the DMCA and the checkbox: nothing in any law obliges MakerWorld to delete first, hide the claim, and route the appeal to nowhere. Acting on a complaint is one thing. This process is a choice, and it is theirs.

What I want from MakerWorld is simple. Set the model to private, tell me the word, give me a few days to fix it, and let a human look at it before anything is deleted. And when I press your own appeal button, let someone who is allowed to decide read what I wrote.

That is what my letter to copyright@makerworld.com says. Their answer goes into this thread. So does their silence.

This is what I expected.

These takedowns are not done by individual review. They are going through and filing takedowns by key words.

The simple mention of something like Uno, Matchbox, etc. is what gets you in trouble.

Its not worth it for them to defend you or review the case.

Your model is going to be replaced with something that does the exact same job thousands of times over.

They do not want to get in the middle of it, therefore, F you.


An appeal is the correct way to go, but if it gets denied, the only other thing you can do is get a lawyer (something that is not reasonable or financially viable).

The DMCA and similar laws require MakerWorld to take down content identified to be infringing. How exactly each company does that varies, but the company has to ensure their action is sufficient or they do not get the protections and could be held liable themselves.

Bambu has chosen removal as their action. Here’s exactly what YOU ALREADY AGREED TO when you published your models:

You keep saying they should let you fix it. No, they shouldn’t. You profited from uploads that contain infringing IP. You don’t get to keep the profits, and if Bambu allowed that they would risk being held liable for not holding up their end of the DMCA. You can forget that ever being an option.

Important to keep in mind that the card box they uploaded didn’t include mattels IP other than listing it as compatible.

If I am understanding correctly.

That should have been in the original post.

Just to echo what others have already mentioned: it really doesn’t matter whether your model has millions of downloads or just one - the IP‑violation filter has no feelings. It flags everything and even if it’s just one word.

Ask the users whose thousands of “LEGO” models were deleted, because of the name.


I also want to make it clear that we’re not trying to defend MakerWorld. We’re simply giving a realistic assessment, because this has happened to all of us at some point, in one way or another. Many of us have already lost thousands of points - not because of IP violations, but simply due to rule changes. Almost everyone who has posted in this thread has already had their own experience with MakerWorld removing their models for one reason or another.

The frustration is completely understandable - absolutely - but unfortunately, it doesn’t change the outcome.


Let your frustration out - really, go for it, we’ve all been there - but it’s not going to change anything.

(Edited to correct wrong information)

I’d say, objectively speaking, we really can’t judge that. Was it just a word? Was it the cover? Especially considering the OP’s other models that include logos, along with their descriptions. All I’m pointing out is that there are always two sides to every coin - and most of the time, both sides end up losing.

Some decisions are justified, others are not, and some fall somewhere in between.


When I look through the profile, I see plenty of 3D models that use someone else’s logo as the cover. So what’s really going on here? Where did MakerWorld actually overreact? We just don’t know.


Probably the best advice anyone can give here is simply to go through all the 3D models in question and edit them: photos, descriptions, remove logos, etc.