--- title: "Economics Expert Allowed to Opine on Toy Sales" meta: "og:description": "The economics expert was qualified to evaluate and opine on the sales performance of the HugMe Products" "og:title": "Economics Expert Allowed to Opine on Toy Sales" author: "Shuva Guha Thakurta" description: "The economics expert was qualified to evaluate and opine on the sales performance of the HugMe Products" --- # Economics Expert Allowed to Opine on Toy Sales Posted on July 28, 2026 by Shuva Guha Thakurta Plaintiff NECA LLC ("NECA") creates, markets, and distributes licensed consumer products based on movies, video games, comic books, and pop culture. Defendants Jazwares, LLC ("Jazwares") and Kelly Toy Holdings, LLC ("Kelly Toys") own and sell a line of plush toys known as "Squishmallows." As this case demonstrates, beneath the innocent and playful smile of the modern plush toy lurks a thicket of intellectual property law. The crux of this case is whether Defendants' use of several allegedly infringing marks on its plush toys infringed on Plaintiffs' unregistered "HUGME" mark, used in connection with Plaintiffs' plush toys. [Richard Brady](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Richard-Brady/1577941), Ph.D., was asked by Defendants to provide "an economic evaluation of and, if called upon, to testify concerning" Plaintiffs' HugMe products. Plaintiffs sought to exclude Brady's testimony. Plaintiffs similarly sought to preclude Defendants from utilizing the testimony and report of [Mark T. Keegan](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Mark-Keegan/1548509), Defendants' survey expert. ![Economics Expert Allowed to Opine on Toy Sales](https://media.jurimatic.com/images/blog_pic_640X480_2026_07_28T170323_8161.webp) ## Economics Expert Witness [Richard Brady](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Richard-Brady/1577941), Ph.D. has more than fifteen years of experience working in economic consulting, finance, and economic research. He earned a Ph.D. in Economics from the University of California, San Diego, an M.A. in Economics from Duke University, an M.S. in Finance from the University of Memphis, and a B.S. in Finance and Management from Christian Brothers University. [Want to know more about the challenges Richard Brady has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/order/add?eId=1577941&pId=3). ## Consumer Survey Expert Witness [Mark Thomas Keegan](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Mark-Keegan/1548509) has nearly 25 years of experience conducting consumer research, including over 1,000 consumer surveys involving over 250,000 consumers. [Discover more cases with Mark Keegan as an expert witness by ordering his comprehensive Expert Witness Profile report](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/order/add?eId=1548509&pId=3). ## **Discussion by the Court** ### Richard Brady In his initial report, Brady evaluated data on units shipped and gross sales earned from 2017 to 2023 to determine what percentage of Kidrobot's annual net sales were attributable to Kidrobot's HugMe and Phunny plush lines. Based on sales statistics, Brady opined that "the Kidrobot HugMe line is a relatively minor portion of Kidrobot's business when compared to the Phunny line of products." Then Brady assessed what percentage of the total United States plush toy marketplace Plaintiffs' HugMe and Defendants' Squishmallows comprised. Based on sales statistics, as well as other information, Brady concluded "the HugMe line has been a relatively insignificant contributor to the stuffed animal and plush toy market." Lastly, Brady analyzed data on HugMe sales by customer from 2017 to 2023 to conclude Target is "the largest purchaser of HugMe products, but the HugMe line of products comprise an insignificant portion of Target's estimated overall toy sales." Plaintiffs argued that Brady's opening expert report is unhelpful to the trier of fact because it does not "in any way" bear upon the issues to be tried in this case. More specifically, Plaintiffs maintained that the opening report is irrelevant to the elements of the claims they raise since its focus is on analyzing the HugMe line's share of Plaintiffs' profits and overall business. Plaintiffs' challenges to Brady's report are better suited for trial, however. While it is unlikely that all of Brady's opinions will be admissible at trial, it is premature for the Court to exclude his report and testimony writ large when upon review of the report's contents, the information contained therein appears both relevant and reliable. Brady's opening report is relevant to the secondary meaning and likelihood of confusion inquiries. Further, given that Plaintiffs' challenges go to the weight of the evidence and that Plaintiffs' counsel have deposed Brady, should Defendants choose to utilize his report at trial, Plaintiffs can avail themselves of their ability to cross-examine Brady at that time. ### Mark Keegan Defendants asked Keegan to develop a consumer survey to assess the extent to which there is a likelihood of confusion between the parties' marks among "Relevant Consumers," which Keegan defined as individuals 18 years of age or older who indicated they had purchased plush toys in the last year or expected to do so within the next six months. Keegan utilized a Squirt sequential lineup design to expose a test cell group and a control cell group to Amazon product page screenshots for Plaintiffs' Stitch product, Defendants' Gavyn the Yellow Donkey product, and two non-infringing plush toys. In the test cell group, survey respondents saw the mark "HUG MEES" in the product name for Defendants' toy; in the control cell group the name read "HEE HEES" instead. The survey was conducted online, using an opt-in non-probability sample, which Keegan states "is standard for trademark surveys used in litigation." The survey presented the questions and answer choices in a randomized fashion, featured masking items, and used an attention filter question, fraud detection measures, and distractor questions. In the test cell group, 39.1 percent of respondents indicated a belief that the parties are the same company, affiliated, or that Defendant is sponsored or approved by Plaintiff. In the control cell group, this percentage was 36.7. A net confusion score of 2.4 percent was calculated by subtracting the control cell group score from the test cell group score to account for marketplace noise. Given the 2.4 percent net confusion score, Keegan opined there was no material likelihood of confusion, explaining that the minimum threshold score to find a likelihood of confusion is approximately 15 percent. As with Brady's report, Plaintiffs' grounds for challenging Keegan's report go to the weight of the evidence. In essence, based on their own expert's report and conclusions, Plaintiffs questioned the manner in which Keegan conducted his survey. Plaintiffs contended that Keegan's survey failed to present the marks in "real-life market conditions" given that the parties' marks only took up 0.1 or 0.2 percent of the image area. Plaintiffs also took issue with the fact that Keegan's survey did not consider brick-and-mortar sales and only featured Amazon, as opposed to accounting for other online sales channels. The jury should be able to hear and consider both experts' reports and testimony and weigh the competing surveys accordingly. As with Brady, Plaintiffs can challenge Keegan's survey methodology on cross-examination. ## **Held** The Court denied the****Plaintiffs' motions _in limine_to exclude the testimony of Richard Brady and Mark Keegan. ## **Key Takeaway** Rules of Evidence embody a strong and undeniable preference for admitting any evidence which has the potential for assisting the trier of fact. ## **Case Details:** | Case Caption: | NECA LLC V. Jazwares, LLC | | --- | --- | | Docket Number: | 2:23cv3863 | | Court Name: | United States District Court, New Jersey | | Order Date: | May 27, 2026 | --- ## **You Might Also Like** ![Economics Expert Allowed to Opine on Toy Sales](https://media.jurimatic.com/images/blog_pic_640X480_2026_07_28T170323_8161.webp) [**Economics Expert Allowed to Opine on Toy Sales**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/economics-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-toy-sales/economics-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-toy-sales)![Mechanical Engineering Expert Allowed to Opine on Hail Impacts](https://media.jurimatic.com/images/blog_pic_640X480_2026_07_28T175252_204.webp) [**Mechanical Engineering Expert Allowed to Opine on Hail Impacts**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/economics-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-toy-sales/mechanical-engineering-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-hail-impacts)![Law And Legal Expert Was Allowed to Opine on Claims Handling Customs ](https://media.jurimatic.com/images/blog_pic_640X480_2026_07_28T175214_7561.webp) [**Law And Legal Expert Was Allowed to Opine on Claims Handling Customs **](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/economics-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-toy-sales/law-and-legal-expert-was-allowed-to-opine-on-claims-handling-customs-)![Psychology Expert's Testimony About PICS Limited](https://media.jurimatic.com/images/blog_pic_640X4801.webp) [**Psychology Expert's Testimony About PICS Limited**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/economics-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-toy-sales/psychology-experts-testimony-about-pics-limited)![Finance Expert Allowed to Opine on Damages and Disgorgement](https://media.jurimatic.com/images/blog_pic_640X480_2026_07_23T203933_056.webp) [**Finance Expert Allowed to Opine on Damages and Disgorgement**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/economics-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-toy-sales/finance-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-damages-and-disgorgement)