The distinction between dolls and toys, presumably articulated by the US Customs Service, sounds stupid as hell. Dolls are toys, period, and I presume that the only reason Customs made the distinction was that it thought/hoped it would realize more money off the "human" dolls than off the "nonhuman" toys. This arbitrary distinction is purely monetary in nature, and certainly has no bearing on the character of comics-fans.
You know that if the tariff penalty went the OTHER way, Marvel's lawyers would be screaming about how unfair it was to characterize their beloved mutant heroes as "nonhuman."
It's true that it's all just a money matter to the parties involved, but I think there's some justification in fans being mildly piqued at the judge's decision (even if it accords with the self-serving views of the heroes' publisher). Obviously to fans who like the characters (or like to dislike them, as with the villains) it's idiotic to claim that the characters are "nonhuman." How much can one relate to the truly nonhuman? Even fantasy-animals like Winnie the Pooh and whatnot are clearly "human" in terms of their emotions and cognitive abilities, and are merely animal in appearance.
IMO the subset "nonhuman toys" should include only things that are clearly artifacts, like super-soaker guns or dollhouses or the like.