Cross-Border Nft Disputes
๐ What Are NFTs?
NFTs (Non-Fungible Tokens) are unique digital tokens stored on a blockchain that represent ownership of digital or physical assets, such as:
Artwork
Music
Videos
Virtual real estate
Gaming items
They are non-interchangeable and distinct, often using Ethereum or similar blockchains.
๐ Why Are Cross-Border NFT Disputes Complex?
NFTs are inherently digital and borderless, meaning:
Parties involved may be in different countries.
The blockchain platform may be decentralized or governed by smart contracts.
Intellectual property laws, contract laws, and consumer protection laws differ by jurisdiction.
โ๏ธ Key Legal Issues in Cross-Border NFT Disputes
| Legal Issue | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Which countryโs courts/laws apply in case of a dispute? |
| Governing Law | How do parties agree on which legal system governs the smart contract? |
| Intellectual Property | Who owns the IP in the underlying work? Does the NFT sale transfer IP rights? |
| Fraud and Misrepresentation | Sale of fake or unauthorized NFTs. |
| Consumer Protection | Is the buyer entitled to a refund or remedy under local law? |
| Platform Liability | Can NFT marketplaces be held responsible? |
๐ Case Law and Real-World Disputes
Letโs now look at five important cases or disputes involving cross-border NFT issues.
โ 1. Hermรจs International v. Mason Rothschild (2022โ2023, USA)
๐ Facts:
Rothschild created โMetaBirkinsโ NFTs โ digital art resembling Hermรจsโ iconic Birkin bags.
Sold them on NFT marketplaces without Hermรจsโ permission.
๐ Legal Issue:
Trademark infringement across digital platforms.
Hermรจs (a French company) sued in U.S. courts for violation of IP rights.
๐ Outcome:
Jury ruled in favor of Hermรจs.
Awarded damages of $133,000 for trademark infringement.
First major case where NFT creator was held liable for infringing real-world trademarks.
๐ Cross-Border Element:
The case involved international IP rights, French company (Hermรจs), and global NFT sales platforms.
Set precedent that existing trademark laws apply to NFTs.
โ 2. Miramax v. Quentin Tarantino (2021, USA)
๐ Facts:
Tarantino, based in the U.S., launched NFTs based on โPulp Fictionโ (which Miramax co-produced).
Miramax claimed copyright infringement as it owned the rights to the movie.
๐ Legal Issue:
Who has the right to tokenize or monetize movie content via NFTs?
Raised ownership and licensing issues โ a typical IP problem made more complex with NFTs.
๐ Outcome:
The case was settled privately, but it forced a re-examination of contractual IP clauses in the NFT context.
๐ Cross-Border Element:
The film is distributed globally; rights differ across jurisdictions.
NFT marketplaces operate across borders, affecting enforcement.
โ 3. Yuga Labs (Bored Ape Yacht Club) v. Ryder Ripps (2022โ2023, USA)
๐ Facts:
Ryder Ripps created copies of Bored Ape NFTs and sold them as "RR/BAYC" on NFT platforms.
Yuga Labs sued for trademark infringement and false designation.
๐ Legal Issue:
NFT counterfeiting, brand dilution, and misuse of digital assets across platforms.
Ripps argued it was satirical art, raising free speech concerns.
๐ Outcome:
U.S. court ruled in favor of Yuga Labs.
Found that Rippsโ NFTs were misleading and violated Lanham Act (trademark law).
๐ Cross-Border Aspect:
Yuga Labs NFTs are bought and sold globally.
The case demonstrated that NFT copycats can be prosecuted even across international NFT markets.
โ 4. Nike v. StockX (2022โ2023, USA)
๐ Facts:
StockX, a digital resale platform, began selling NFTs tied to physical Nike sneakers.
Nike sued, claiming unauthorized use of trademarks and misleading advertising.
๐ Legal Issue:
Does minting an NFT of a branded physical good require IP authorization?
Can NFTs be considered products or just digital certificates?
๐ Outcome:
Case still ongoing, but Nike has since launched its own NFT platform (SWOOSH).
Raises critical cross-border questions about IP rights across physical and virtual domains.
๐ Cross-Border Relevance:
StockX users are global.
Enforcement of IP rights in digital goods requires coordination across jurisdictions.
โ 5. Art Wars NFT Dispute (2021โ2022, UK)
๐ Facts:
A UK-based artist tokenized images of Star Wars-themed sculptures as NFTs.
Other artists involved in the original project objected to the NFT sales, claiming unauthorized use.
๐ Legal Issue:
Dispute over ownership of creative works and whether an artist can tokenize images they don't wholly own.
๐ Outcome:
No formal lawsuit, but the platform (OpenSea) removed the NFTs.
Highlighted the NFT marketplacesโ liability and cross-border enforcement of IP complaints.
๐ Cross-Border Element:
Creators, buyers, and marketplaces were in different countries.
Raised questions about jurisdiction and applicable law when disputes arise across global participants.
โ 6. Free Holdings v. McCoy (2023, U.S. District Court)
๐ Facts:
Dispute over the ownership of โQuantumโ, the first-ever NFT created by artist Kevin McCoy.
Free Holdings (a Canadian company) claimed ownership after it was unregistered from the original blockchain.
๐ Legal Issue:
Does failing to maintain blockchain registration mean abandonment?
How are NFT ownership rights resolved across blockchains and borders?
๐ Outcome:
Court ruled in favor of McCoy.
Said that Free Holdings couldnโt prove actual ownership beyond mere re-registration.
๐ Cross-Border Aspect:
Showed jurisdictional complexities between U.S. creators and Canadian companies, with NFTs circulating globally.
๐ง Key Legal Takeaways from These Cases
| Legal Issue | Insight |
|---|---|
| IP Infringement | Creators cannot tokenize copyrighted content without rights. |
| Jurisdiction | Courts assert jurisdiction if the platform or harm affects users in that country. |
| Ownership | NFT ownership โ IP ownership unless explicitly transferred. |
| Platform Role | NFT marketplaces may be compelled to delist or remove infringing NFTs. |
| Smart Contracts | Legal enforceability still debated; they may lack dispute resolution clauses. |
| Fraud Risks | Cases of fake NFTs and phishing scams are growing โ cross-border remedies are difficult. |
๐๏ธ Legal Response and Challenges
| Challenge | Explanation |
|---|---|
| No Uniform Law | No international convention governing NFT disputes. |
| Platform Decentralization | Many NFT sales happen on decentralized platforms, complicating enforcement. |
| Enforcement Across Borders | Enforcing a court order from one country in another is not straightforward. |
| Anonymity of Users | Hard to identify parties in blockchain transactions. |
| Jurisdiction Clauses | Often missing or unclear in smart contracts and NFT sales. |
โ Conclusion
Cross-border NFT disputes are an emerging and complex field at the intersection of digital technology, IP law, contract law, and international jurisdiction. Courts across the world are starting to address these issues through creative legal reasoning, but a clear and harmonized legal framework is still evolving.
RELATED Blog
0 comments