The complaint
Deposki v. Mitrev, No. 1:26-cv-01184 (D. Del.), was filed September 22, 2026 (6 pages). Deposki, who filed without a lawyer, is based in North Haledon, New Jersey and describes himself as the inventor of the Puking Ball, a squeezable novelty toy that releases and then draws back slime. The complaint describes Mitrev as an individual who sold a copy of the toy through a Shopify-hosted website and, citing his counter-notice, gives a business address in Middletown, Delaware. The docket describes the complaint as filed with a jury demand, and a September 23, 2026 docket entry assigns the case to Judge Colm F. Connolly. (Compl. paras. 6 to 8; Docket.)
The works
The complaint lists Copyright Office registrations for the Puking Ball sculptural work, VAu 1-472-471, registered May 12, 2022; Squishy Puking Ball Video, PA0002449431, December 4, 2023; Puking Ball Video 1, PA0002380890, November 19, 2022; Puking Ball Video 2, listed as PA000238478, November 19, 2022; Puking Ball Video 3, PA0002383294, December 6, 2022; Puking Ball Video 4, PA0002439227, September 30, 2023; and Puking Ball Video 5, PA0002490049, August 2, 2024. The Copyright Office public records show those numbers and dates, and list Puking Ball Video 2 under PA0002387478. The complaint also says the PUKING BALL trademark was registered on October 13, 2023. (Compl. paras. 10 to 12; Copyright Office records.)
What it alleges
The complaint alleges that Mitrev copied, displayed, marketed, and sold exact copies of the Puking Ball and Deposki's promotional content through an online store hosted on Shopify. It says a DMCA takedown notice was submitted to Shopify on or about September 30, 2023, that Mitrev submitted a counter-notice on or about September 14, 2026, and that by the counter-notice Mitrev consented to the court's jurisdiction under 17 U.S.C. 512(g)(3). It alleges the infringement was intentional and willful. (Compl. paras. 4, 13 to 15, 23 to 24.)
The claim and relief
The claim for relief pleads direct copyright infringement. The prayer asks for preliminary and permanent injunctions, damages including Mitrev's profits or, at Deposki's election, statutory damages up to the maximum allowed, prejudgment interest, and fees and costs. (Compl. paras. 21 to 29; Prayer A to E.)