Ipr In Nft Ip Portfolio Management.
IPR IN NFT IP PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT
1. Understanding NFTs from an IPR Perspective
An NFT (Non-Fungible Token) is a blockchain-based proof of authenticity or ownership, but not ownership of intellectual property by default. This distinction is central to IP portfolio management.
Key Principle
Owning an NFT ≠ owning copyright, trademark, or other IP rights
NFTs sit at the intersection of:
Copyright law
Trademark law
Contract law (smart contracts & licensing terms)
Unfair competition & passing off
2. What Is NFT IP Portfolio Management?
NFT IP Portfolio Management refers to the strategic creation, protection, licensing, enforcement, and commercialization of IP rights associated with NFTs.
It involves:
Identifying underlying IP assets
Determining rights transferred via NFT sale
Drafting licensing terms
Monitoring infringement
Enforcing rights across digital marketplaces
3. Types of IP Involved in NFTs
(a) Copyright
Protects:
Digital art
Music
Videos
3D models
Game characters
NFT minting does not transfer copyright unless explicitly stated.
(b) Trademarks
Protect:
Brand names
Logos
Trade dress
Brand reputation in virtual spaces
Highly relevant where NFTs depict well-known brands or symbols.
(c) Moral Rights
Right of attribution
Right of integrity
Important for artists whose works are altered or used commercially.
(d) Contractual Rights
Smart contracts define:
Royalty payments
Commercial use permissions
Resale restrictions
4. Core Legal Issues in NFT IP Portfolio Management
Unauthorized minting of copyrighted works
Trademark dilution and consumer confusion
Scope of NFT buyer’s rights
Secondary market liabilities
Enforcement challenges due to decentralization
CASE LAWS ON NFT AND IPR (DETAILED)
CASE 1: Hermès International v. Mason Rothschild (MetaBirkins Case)
Facts
Mason Rothschild created and sold NFTs named “MetaBirkins”
NFTs were digital artworks resembling Hermès’ famous Birkin bags
Hermès sued for trademark infringement and dilution
Legal Issues
Whether NFTs can infringe trademarks
Applicability of free speech/artistic expression defense
Consumer confusion in virtual goods
Arguments
Defendant:
NFTs were artistic expression
Protected under freedom of speech
Analogous to pop art
Plaintiff (Hermès):
“Birkin” is a famous trademark
NFTs caused brand dilution
Consumers believed Hermès endorsed or sold them
Decision
Court held NFTs are commercial products
Trademark law applies equally to virtual goods
Jury found Rothschild liable for:
Trademark infringement
Trademark dilution
Significance
NFTs are not immune from trademark law
Brand owners can enforce rights in the metaverse
Portfolio management must include virtual brand protection
CASE 2: Nike, Inc. v. StockX LLC
Facts
StockX sold NFTs linked to images of Nike sneakers
Marketed as “Vault NFTs”
Nike had not authorized their use
Legal Issues
Are NFTs “digital receipts” or independent products?
Trademark infringement in NFT marketplaces
Unauthorized commercial use of trademarks
Arguments
StockX:
NFTs merely represented physical goods
No independent branding use
Nike:
NFTs functioned as digital products
Used Nike trademarks to generate profit
Likely to cause consumer confusion
Outcome
Court rejected dismissal
Held NFTs could constitute trademark use
Case reinforced enforceability of trademark portfolios in NFTs
Significance
Marketplaces face IP liability
NFT portfolio strategies must address platform-level enforcement
CASE 3: Miramax LLC v. Quentin Tarantino
Facts
Tarantino announced NFTs based on:
Original handwritten screenplay of Pulp Fiction
Exclusive film scenes
Legal Issues
Whether NFT rights were included in reserved rights
Scope of copyright licensing
Digital exploitation vs traditional rights
Arguments
Tarantino:
Retained rights to screenplay
NFTs were personal creative expression
Miramax:
NFTs are new forms of exploitation
Not contemplated in original contract
Belong to Miramax’s distribution rights
Resolution
Case settled, but legal issues clarified:
NFTs are a distinct commercial exploitation
Contracts must explicitly mention NFTs
Significance
IP portfolio management requires NFT-specific clauses
Legacy IP contracts must be re-evaluated
CASE 4: Yuga Labs, Inc. v. Ryder Ripps
Facts
Ryder Ripps created “RR/BAYC” NFTs
Copied images from Bored Ape Yacht Club
Claimed it was “conceptual art” and criticism
Legal Issues
Copyright infringement
Trademark infringement
False designation of origin
Court Findings
NFTs duplicated protected works
Used identical trademarks
Caused market confusion
Decision
Court ruled in favor of Yuga Labs
Awarded damages
Ordered injunction against further use
Significance
Copying NFTs = copyright infringement
Trademark portfolios extend to NFT collections
“Satire” defense has limits
CASE 5: Dapper Labs NFT Class Action (NBA Top Shot)
Facts
Plaintiffs alleged NBA Top Shot NFTs were:
Unregistered securities
Controlled by centralized platform
Legal Issues
Are NFTs securities?
Impact of centralization on ownership rights
Court’s Approach
Allowed claims to proceed
Emphasized platform control over:
Blockchain
Marketplace
Economic value
Significance
IP portfolios must consider:
Regulatory compliance
Platform governance
Highlights overlap of IP and financial law
CASE 6: Unauthorized NFT Minting Cases (Multiple Artists vs NFT Platforms)
Common Facts
Artists’ works minted as NFTs without consent
Platforms claimed “user-generated content”
Legal Issues
Copyright infringement
Platform liability
Safe harbor defenses
Outcomes
Platforms required to:
Implement takedown mechanisms
Respect copyright enforcement
Reinforced creator rights
Significance
Artists must actively monitor NFT marketplaces
Copyright enforcement is central to NFT IP portfolios
6. Best Practices for NFT IP Portfolio Management
Explicit Licensing Terms
Commercial use
Derivative works
Resale rights
Trademark Registration for Virtual Goods
Class coverage for digital assets
Smart Contract Governance
Royalty enforcement
Ownership clarity
Monitoring & Enforcement
Marketplace surveillance
DMCA-style takedowns
Contractual Updates
NFT clauses in legacy IP agreements
7. Conclusion
NFTs do not dilute IP law—they extend it into digital and virtual ecosystems.
Effective NFT IP portfolio management requires:
Clear legal structuring
Strong licensing architecture
Active enforcement strategies
Courts worldwide are affirming that copyright, trademark, and contractual rights apply fully to NFTs, making IP portfolios more valuable—but also more vulnerable—than ever.
RELATED Blog
comments