Landmark Ruling for NFTs and Intellectual Property Rights

Today (February 8, 2023), a jury found that MetaBirkins and Rothschildhad infringed on Heremes' intellectual property and awarded the company $133,000 in total damages. More importantly, the verdict is likely to have a huge impact on the future of NFTs and digital art, as well as the use of trademarks in relation to these digital assets.

Hermes International SA v. Rothschild, S.D.N.Y., No. 1:22-cv-00384

NFTs (non-fungible tokens) have quickly become one of the most popular digital assets in the world, resulting in a surge of both excitement and competition. Hermès International was part of the first trademark trial involving NFTs when it brought a lawsuit against MetaBirkins, and its creator Mason Rothschild, an artist engaged in creating digital art images. The case, Hermes International SA v. Rothschild, S.D.N.Y., No. 1:22-cv-00384, is the first-ever trial examining the NFT, intellectual property nexus.

Today (February 8, 2023), a jury found that MetaBirkins and Rothschildhad infringed on Heremes' intellectual property and awarded the company $133,000 in total damages. More importantly, the verdict is likely to have a huge impact on the future of NFTs and digital art, as well as the use of trademarks in relation to these digital assets.

The dispute began after MetaBirkins created a series of NFTs featuring Hermès’ iconic Birkin bag design. During the trial a blockchain expert testified that Rothschild made around 55.2 Ethereum tokens, worth about $87,700 today in connection with the sale of the digital MetaBirkins.

Throughout the case, Rothschild'a attorneys argued that the NFTs were worlds of artistic expression and not subject to trademark protections. However, the jury found that NFTs were more of a commodity, than a work of art. The jury ws able to distinguish between Andy Warhols famous 'soup cans' and the MetaBirkins bags because of the commercial nature behind the latter.

The non-person jury returned a verdict which awarded Hermès $133,000 in total damages, and also found that Rothschild’s NFTs are not safeguarded by the First Amendment as protected speech.

The verdict is a landmark ruling for NFTs and intellectual property rights, and opens up possibilities for similar lawsuits moving forward. Additionally, the ruling has set a precedent regarding the use of trademarks with regards to digital artwork and cryptocurrency-based assets like NFTs. It is likely that this ruling will have far-reaching implications for creators, collectors, businesses and investors who are involved in the burgeoning world of digital art and NFTs. Ultimately, it serves as an important reminder that even when dealing in digital assets, trademark law still applies. No matter how creative or innovative a work may be, trademark infringement is still illegal and can result in costly damages. Moving forward, creators should take extra care to ensure that their works do notinfringe on any existing trademarks, as this could have serious legal repercussions.

It remains to be seen how the legal landscape will evolve in response to the Hermes International v Rothschild ruling. However, one thing is certain: the world of digital art and NFTs has been forever changed by this landmark decision.

If you would like more information about NFTs and Trademark Law contact us today! We handle all business matters including trademark and intellectual property law from our Bergen County, New Jersey Office.

Contact us Today at our Bergen County Office. Call Us at (201) 904-2211 or email Us at info@pjlesq.com

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

If you would like more information about this post or if you want to discuss your legal matter with an attorney at the Law Offices of Peter J. Lamont, please contact me at pl@pjlesq.com or at (201) 904-2211. Don't forget to check out and subscribe to our podcast and YouTube channel. We have hundreds of podcasts and videos concerning a variety of business and legal topics. I look forward to answering any questions that you might have.

NEW JERSEY BUSINESS, LITIGATION, CONTRACTS & REAL ESTATE LAWYERS

DISCLAIMER: The contents of this website and post are intended to convey general information only and not to provide legal advice or opinions. The contents of this website and the posting and viewing of the information on this website should not be construed as, and should not be relied upon for, legal or tax advice in any particular circumstance or fact situation. Nothing on this website is an offer to represent you, and nothing on this website is intended to create an attorney‑client relationship. An attorney-client relationship may only be established through direct attorney‑to‑client communication that is confirmed by the execution of an engagement agreement.

As with any legal issue, it is important that you obtain competent legal counsel before making any decisions about how to respond to a subpoena or whether to challenge one - even if you believe that compliance is not required. Because each situation is different, it may be impossible for this article to address all issues raised by every situation encountered in responding to a subpoena. The information below can give you guidance regarding some common issues related to subpoenas, but you should consult with an attorney before taking any actions (or refraining from acts) based on these suggestions. Separately, this post will focus on New Jersey law. If you receive a subpoena in a state other than New Jersey, you should immediately seek the advice of an attorney in your state as certain rules differ in other states.