A plush development fee and a right to commercialise the character answer different questions. Resolve that distinction before a project budget starts treating artwork, samples and IP ownership as one purchase.
WIPO distinguishes assignment, which transfers ownership of an IP asset, from licensing, which permits another party to use it. WIPO — IP Assignment and Licensing.
Separate the commercial conversations
In an illustrative project, a brand pays a designer to prepare a character and a manufacturer to develop a sample. The invoices explain services performed; they are not a useful substitute for a reviewed rights record. List the artwork, name and proposed product use, then identify the document relied on for each.
Make the handover explicit
Ask the responsible adviser to resolve whether the arrangement concerns ownership or permission, and what the actual documents cover. Keep that outcome separate from acceptance of the sample. A beautifully finished toy does not answer the rights question.
The practical deliverable is a clear relationship between the asset, the intended use and the confirmed arrangement. It gives design and purchasing teams a basis for their next decisions without turning a production invoice into an assumed IP transfer.
Source reviewed 25 October 2026. Practical interpretation and original illustrations by PLUSHIP / Qunhe; examples are illustrative.
Related reading
An IP Audit Before Expanding a Character Merchandise Range
A Master Brand and Its Character Cast Need Different Design Jobs
A Character Licensing Payment Structure Is Not a Universal Rate Card