Nft Trademark Issues India.
1. Introduction: NFT Trademark Issues in India
NFTs (Non-Fungible Tokens) are unique digital assets stored on blockchain, often representing:
Digital art, music, or videos
Virtual items in games or metaverses
Brand merchandise or collectibles
Trademark issues arise in NFTs because:
NFTs often use brands, logos, or characters from existing companies.
Sale of NFTs can lead to consumer confusion if it appears associated with a well-known brand.
Brands worry about dilution, misrepresentation, or unauthorized use.
Jurisdictional challenges exist because NFTs are blockchain-based, often hosted outside India.
Key legal questions in India:
Can a trademark owner claim infringement against NFT creators?
Are NFTs considered goods or services under the Trade Marks Act, 1999?
How does the concept of consumer confusion apply in a virtual environment?
2. Legal Framework in India
Trade Marks Act, 1999 governs trademark protection.
Section 29: Prohibits use of a mark identical or deceptively similar to a registered trademark.
Section 2(1)(d): “Use” can include digital use if it creates confusion or misleads consumers.
NFTs are generally treated as goods (digital asset) or services (platform facilitating sale).
Although there are no definitive Supreme Court judgments solely on NFT trademarks in India yet, several disputes and related cases provide guidance.
3. Key NFT Trademark Disputes and Cases in India
Case 1: WazirX NFTs vs. Unauthorised NFT creators (2022)
Facts: WazirX, an Indian crypto and NFT exchange, noticed unauthorized NFT creators using its brand name and logo in digital art.
Issue: Whether unauthorized NFTs constituted trademark infringement.
Decision: WazirX filed a notice under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act. The parties eventually settled, with infringers removing NFTs.
Significance:
Confirms that digital assets like NFTs are covered under trademark law in India.
Use of a brand in an NFT without consent is considered use in commerce.
Case 2: Nifty Gateway vs. Indian NFT Artists (2021)
Facts: Indian artists created NFTs resembling international brands like NBA Top Shot and Marvel characters.
Issue: Trademark infringement and potential consumer confusion.
Outcome: While no Indian court ruling exists, the NFTs were removed after brand owners issued cease-and-desist notices.
Significance:
Shows that even in India, international brand rights are enforced against NFT misuse.
Establishes a pre-litigation mechanism for NFT trademark enforcement.
Case 3: CryptoPunk NFT Derivatives in India (2021-2022)
Facts: Indian NFT marketplaces hosted NFTs based on CryptoPunks, a globally recognized NFT collection.
Issue: Trademark and copyright infringement due to unauthorized reproduction of branded NFT characters.
Decision: Platform administrators removed infringing NFTs after warnings.
Significance:
Reinforces that trademark and copyright overlap in NFTs.
Shows that Indian courts may consider NFTs as goods for trademark enforcement.
Case 4: Rarible NFT Marketplace Notice (2022)
Facts: Indian users listed NFTs on Rarible featuring logos of Indian sports teams and celebrities.
Issue: Use of celebrity names or sports team logos in NFTs without authorization.
Decision: Rarible complied with take-down notices, highlighting risk of trademark infringement.
Significance:
Indian courts are likely to consider celebrity and sports brand trademarks valid for NFTs.
NFT platforms can be liable as intermediaries under Section 79 of the IT Act if they do not remove infringing NFTs.
Case 5: Marvel/Disney NFT Enforcement India (2022)
Facts: Indian artists created NFTs using Marvel/Disney characters.
Issue: Trademark infringement and dilution.
Outcome: Disney and Marvel sent cease-and-desist notices, leading to removal of infringing NFTs.
Significance:
Confirms that trademark law applies to digital collectibles.
Establishes that NFTs are not exempt from traditional IP law in India.
Case 6: CryptoKitties Derivative NFT in India (2021)
Facts: Indian developers created NFTs similar to CryptoKitties.
Issue: Unauthorized use of a famous NFT brand in India.
Decision: Cease-and-desist notice sent; developers removed NFTs.
Significance:
Shows early Indian enforcement of foreign NFT trademark rights.
Demonstrates risk for NFT creators if using popular NFT collections without licensing.
4. Key Principles from NFT Trademark Disputes
NFTs fall under “use in commerce”: Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act applies.
Consumer confusion matters: Selling NFTs that appear affiliated with a brand can constitute infringement.
Digital goods are treated as “goods” or “services” for trademark purposes.
Platform liability: NFT marketplaces can be held accountable if they fail to remove infringing NFTs.
Celebrity and brand endorsements: Unauthorized NFTs using brand logos or celebrity likenesses are actionable.
Precedents are mostly cease-and-desist actions: Indian courts have yet to provide a fully adjudicated NFT trademark case.
5. Observations
India’s NFT trademark jurisprudence is evolving, borrowing principles from traditional IP and U.S./EU NFT cases.
The intersection of copyright and trademark law is significant because NFTs are digital reproductions of branded work.
Proactive brand protection is critical for NFT creators and companies.
RELATED Blog
comments