如何看待美国法院判定「变种人不是人类」？

"Dolls representing only human beings and parts and accessories thereof."
Toy Biz argues that to be classifiable as a "doll," the "item must representonly,i.e., exclusively, a human being."
Toy Biz points to the tentacles, claws, wings or other nonhuman features that a number of the items at issue possesses.Id.Toy Biz thus concludes that the items at issue are not classifiable as "dolls" because "the figures represent creatures other than humans, and possess features characteristic of nonhumans."
Toy Biz next argues that the items are properly classifiable as "Toys representing animals or non-human creatures (for example, robots and monsters)",by virtue of possessing non-human features
Explanatory Note 95.03(A)(1) provides that "other toys" under heading 9503 include "[t]oys representing animals or non-human creatures even if possessing predominantly human physical characteristics (e.g.angels, robots, devils, monsters)."
Whatever the degree is to which they resemble human beings, the court finds that these action figures do not represent human beings and are therefore not properly classifiable as "dolls" under HTSUS heading 9502. The court bases its finding on at least three observations.
First, most of the figures at issue exhibit at least one non-human characteristic.
Second, these Marvel characters are known in popular culture as "mutants."
That fact further informs their classification.Cf, e.g.,HQ 950200 (Dec. 18, 1991) (Customs recognizing that some knowledge from popular culture is necessary to identify certain figures, such as angels, devils, monsters, as "non-human").
They are more than (or different than) humans.
Third, the "X-Men" figures are marketed and packaged as "mutants" or "people born with `x-tra' power."
SeeR. Dakin & Co. v. United States,14 CIT 797, 801,752F. Supp.483, 486 (1990) (noting that "the importer's own consistent reference to the subject merchandise [by name] is a factor-albeit not the only one-to be considered for tariff classification purposes")
More importantly for the purposes here, the category "mutants" is like the categories of "robots" or "monsters."The categories of "robots," "monsters," and "mutants" are all, even if humanoid, extrahuman (or non-human) categories of being. A "robot" is a "machine (sometimes resembling a human being in appearance) designed to function in place of a living agent." 14 OED at 7. A "monster" is "[something extraordinary or unnatural; a prodigy, a marvel." 9 OED at 1036-37. A "mutant" is an "individual (or, formerly, a species or form) which has arisen by or undergone mutation, or which carries a mutant gene (inScience Fiction,usu[ally] an individual with freak or grossly abnormal anatomy, abilities, etc.)." 10 OED at 145-46. The first meaning of "mutation" is the "action or process of changing; alteration or change in form or qualities."Id.at 146-47. Thus, a "mutant" is someone (possibly originally belonging to human species) who has undergone change and become something other than human.

总结：1. 本案的核心在于对“doll”概念的定义和辨别，the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States("HTSUS")对“doll”的界定非常严格，要求其必须(exclusively)象征人类，因此是否人类就是争论的焦点。

2.被告做的反驳意见，基本上就是说他们与人类具有高度的相似性，因此应当视为人类。

3. 法院得出结论，无论这些玩偶与人类的相似性有多高，他终究不是人类。法院从判例法中归纳了三条辨明标准，分别是外貌上的非人类特征、流行文化中对其的认知、进口商对其持续的定义。

4. 最终，通过对比发现，变种人的分类实质上与机器人、怪兽更加接近。

后续 ：HTSUS之后去除了doll和other toys的区别，现在他们属于一个分类