Cross-Border Nft Trademark Disputes.
NFTs have created a new frontier for trademark law because they are digital assets that can be traded globally. Courts worldwide are now applying traditional trademark principles—like likelihood of confusion, trademark dilution, and cybersquatting—to NFTs. Below are detailed cases illustrating this trend.
1. Hermès International v. Mason Rothschild — “MetaBirkins” (U.S.)
Facts:
Mason Rothschild created “MetaBirkins” NFTs depicting Hermès’ famous Birkin bags in digital, altered forms. Hermès sued, claiming trademark infringement, dilution, false designation of origin, and cybersquatting.
Court Findings:
The court found Rothschild liable for trademark infringement and dilution because the NFTs used Hermès’ iconic marks without authorization and could confuse consumers.
The First Amendment artistic defense was rejected because the NFTs were commercial and could mislead buyers.
Rothschild was ordered to pay damages (~$133,000) and halt sales.
Significance:
This was one of the first U.S. cases to confirm that NFTs can be considered commercial goods under trademark law.
2. Yuga Labs v. Ryder Ripps & Jeremy Cahen — BAYC Trademark Dispute (U.S.)
Facts:
Yuga Labs, creator of the Bored Ape Yacht Club (BAYC), sued artists Ryder Ripps and Jeremy Cahen over a collection called RR/BAYC NFTs. Yuga alleged the NFTs used similar branding, likely causing confusion.
Court Proceedings:
A U.S. district court initially ruled in favor of Yuga Labs, awarding damages and finding the NFTs infringed trademarks.
Later, the U.S. Ninth Circuit overturned an $8.8 million judgment, ruling that Yuga Labs had not yet demonstrated actual consumer confusion, sending the case back for trial.
Significance:
Shows the courts balance trademark rights against potential free speech/artistic commentary, even in digital NFT markets.
3. Nike v. StockX — Vault NFTs (U.S.)
Facts:
StockX issued “Vault NFTs” representing Nike sneaker designs. Nike claimed these NFTs infringed its trademarks because they could mislead buyers into thinking Nike endorsed them.
Court/Case Outcome:
StockX argued that NFTs were digital receipts for physical goods, not independent products.
Litigation ended in a confidential settlement, highlighting the growing concern for brands about NFT-linked digital goods.
Significance:
Reinforces that trademark law applies to NFTs, particularly when they relate to authenticated digital or physical branded products.
4. Juventus FC v. Blockeras (Italy)
Facts:
Juventus FC sued an NFT creator selling trading cards of Juventus players using club logos and trademarks without authorization. Even though the player’s image was licensed, the club’s branding was not.
Court Findings:
The Rome Court issued a preliminary injunction, holding that NFTs could infringe trademarks and mislead consumers.
Digital format did not exempt the NFTs from trademark law.
Significance:
A key European case confirming that NFTs, even as digital items, can infringe club or brand trademarks.
5. Shenzhen Qice vs. Hangzhou Bigverse (China)
Facts:
Bigverse listed NFTs of the copyrighted cartoon “Fat Tiger” without permission. The owner sued for infringement.
Court Findings:
The Chinese court held the marketplace liable for contributory infringement.
Facilitating unauthorized NFT sales was considered a violation of IP rights.
Significance:
Shows NFTs are treated as marketable goods under Chinese IP law and platforms may be responsible for infringement.
6. Indian NFT Trademark Enforcement (Various Notices)
Facts:
While there are few published court judgments in India, brands like NBA, Marvel, and CryptoPunks have issued cease-and-desist notices to Indian NFT artists and marketplaces for unauthorized use of trademarks.
Outcome:
Platforms and artists often comply with take-down notices to avoid litigation.
Demonstrates proactive cross-border enforcement of trademark rights in NFT markets.
Significance:
Even without formal court rulings, trademark owners in India can enforce IP rights over NFTs.
Key Legal Principles from These Cases
NFTs as Goods Under Trademark Law:
Courts increasingly treat NFTs as commercial goods when associated with trademarks.
Likelihood of Confusion:
The core test for infringement is whether consumers might think the NFT is endorsed or linked to the trademark owner.
Trademark Dilution:
Even non-confusing use of a famous mark can constitute dilution if it diminishes brand value.
Marketplace Liability:
NFT marketplaces can be held liable if they facilitate sales of infringing NFTs.
Artistic Defense Limitations:
First Amendment or artistic arguments may fail when the NFT is commercial or likely to confuse consumers.
Cross-Border Enforcement:
Global brands actively enforce trademark rights against NFT creators across different jurisdictions.
Conclusion
These cases illustrate that trademark law is fully applicable to NFTs worldwide, whether in the U.S., Europe, China, or India. NFTs are treated as commercial products subject to infringement, dilution, and cybersquatting rules. Artists and marketplaces must exercise caution when creating or selling NFTs that involve branded content.
RELATED Blog
comments