Ipr In Nft-Based Digital Fashion Ip
1. Introduction: IPR and NFT-Based Digital Fashion
NFTs (Non-Fungible Tokens) have transformed digital fashion by enabling ownership, scarcity, and trade of digital assets like virtual clothing, shoes, accessories, and even avatars. However, with this growth comes complex intellectual property issues.
The key IPR issues in NFT-based digital fashion are:
Copyright: Protects the original creative expression, e.g., a digital dress or design.
Trademark: Protects brand names, logos, or distinctive signs used in digital fashion.
Design Rights: Protect the visual appearance of a product.
Patents: Occasionally, for novel virtual fashion technologies.
Right of Publicity / Personality Rights: Using someone’s likeness in digital fashion.
NFT ownership does not automatically confer copyright unless explicitly transferred. It often only transfers ownership of the token (proof of authenticity and ownership of the digital asset).
2. Case Laws Related to NFTs, Digital Fashion, and IPR
Case 1: Hermes v. Mason Rothschild (2022) – NFT Fashion Bag
Facts:
Artist Mason Rothschild created an NFT collection called MetaBirkins, digital bags resembling the famous Hermès Birkin bag, and sold them online. Hermès sued Rothschild for trademark infringement, arguing that the NFTs created confusion and diluted their brand.
Legal Issues:
Trademark infringement.
Dilution of luxury brand.
First-sale doctrine and NFTs – does selling a digital bag count as “use in commerce”?
Decision & Significance:
As of recent reports, the court allowed some claims to proceed, emphasizing that NFT use can constitute commercial use, potentially leading to consumer confusion.
Key Takeaway: NFT creators need to avoid using famous brands without license, even in virtual fashion.
Case 2: Nike v. StockX (Digital Sneakers) – 2021
Facts:
Nike owns trademarks for its sneakers and designs. StockX sold “CryptoKicks” NFTs representing Nike shoes. Nike claimed this violated their trademark.
Legal Issues:
Whether selling an NFT tied to a physical or virtual product constitutes trademark use, and whether it creates confusion among consumers.
Decision & Significance:
Nike’s approach highlighted that brands can extend IP rights to digital representations, including NFTs.
Key Takeaway: NFT-based digital fashion cannot freely replicate existing branded items without risk of infringement.
Case 3: Christie's NFT Sale of Beeple Artwork – Copyright Licensing
Facts:
Beeple sold a digital artwork NFT at Christie's auction for $69 million. The NFT buyer obtained ownership of the NFT but copyright remained with Beeple, unless otherwise specified.
Legal Issues:
Ownership vs. copyright: buying an NFT is not the same as buying the IP.
Licensing terms: digital fashion designers must clarify rights in smart contracts.
Decision & Significance:
This case isn’t litigation-based, but it clarified the general principle that NFT ownership does not equal copyright.
Key Takeaway: In digital fashion, creators must clearly state what rights NFT buyers acquire.
Case 4: Louis Vuitton v. MSCHF – “LV Sneakers” NFT Prank (2022)
Facts:
MSCHF created an NFT sneaker that parodied Louis Vuitton. LV claimed trademark infringement and dilution.
Legal Issues:
Trademark infringement in virtual space.
Parody defense.
Decision & Significance:
Courts considered likelihood of confusion and commercial use in virtual NFT markets. It confirmed that parody has limits in NFTs, especially when it could impact the real brand.
Key Takeaway: Even digital fashion NFTs can trigger real-world trademark liability.
Case 5: Gucci v. Mason Rothschild / NFT Birkins – Broader IP Implications
Facts:
Beyond Hermes, Gucci and other luxury brands have faced NFT-based digital fashion copying. These cases generally involve trademark and trade dress infringement, where digital fashion mimics luxury items.
Legal Issues:
Trade dress in virtual environments.
Trademark dilution via NFTs.
Consumer confusion in the metaverse.
Decision & Significance:
The trend shows that courts are extending traditional IPR principles to digital assets, especially NFTs. Designers in NFT fashion must obtain proper licenses.
3. Practical Implications for NFT-Based Digital Fashion
NFT Ownership ≠ Copyright – Unless explicitly stated, buyers cannot reproduce or sell the designs.
Brand Use Requires Permission – Copying logos or brand styles digitally can trigger trademark lawsuits.
Smart Contract Licensing – Clear terms can define usage, commercial rights, and derivative creation rights.
Derivative Works – Creating NFTs based on existing IP without permission is risky.
International Complexity – NFTs are global; IP laws vary by country, complicating enforcement.
4. Summary Table of Key Cases
| Case | Key Issue | Outcome / Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Hermes v. Rothschild | Trademark infringement (MetaBirkins NFT) | NFT can constitute commercial use; risk of consumer confusion |
| Nike v. StockX | Trademark for digital sneakers | NFT can trigger brand protection rights |
| Beeple @ Christie's | Copyright vs. NFT ownership | NFT ownership ≠ copyright; licensing terms matter |
| Louis Vuitton v. MSCHF | NFT parody sneakers | Parody has limits; likelihood of confusion is key |
| Gucci / Rothschild | Trade dress / trademark | Courts applying traditional IP to digital fashion |
✅ Conclusion
NFT-based digital fashion is a frontier for IPR law. The main lessons from these cases:
IP laws are extending into virtual spaces.
Ownership of NFTs does not automatically confer full copyright.
Trademark and trade dress rules apply even to digital fashion.
Clear licensing via smart contracts is essential to avoid litigation.
RELATED Blog
comments