Stay in the know
We’ll send you the latest insights and briefings tailored to your needs
We outline what you need to know to ensure your brand and products stay safe in virtual spaces
Non-fungible tokens (NFTs) are one of the hottest intellectual property (IP) topics currently. NFTs can be used simply for marketing purposes or as a new form of asset to attract investment or as part of the transfer of products and services into the metaverse.
This new asset class has exploded across all sectors and raises some interesting challenges from an IP perspective. While NFTs have demonstrated themselves to be a powerful tool in the new digital era, they remain poorly understood.
In our series of blog posts on NFTs, we explore intellectual property considerations, misconceptions and issues that we are seeing arising in the NFT space.
In May 2023 we reported on the IP infringement decision of the Californian District Court, in relation to the dispute between the creators of the Bored Ape Yacht Club (BAYC) non-fungible token (NFT) collection, Yuga Labs, and the ‘artists’ Ryder Ripps and Jeremy Cahen.
Dr Thaler’s latest attempt to obtain IP protection for “creations” of his AI system has failed, with a US Court rejecting copyright protection for an AI-generated artwork.
Josh Todd, Giulia Maienza and George McCubbin join Aoife Xuereb to discuss the NFT (Non-Fungible Token) marketplace in the consumer sector – from fine wine and fashion to enhancing the customer experience.
The US District Judge has now handed down its opinion and order (23 June 2023) on a number of post-trial motions sought by the parties in the “MetaBirkin” case and these provide some interesting insights into how courts may approach the question of remedies in non-fungible tokens (NFT) related cases.
Non-fungible tokens (NFTs) are one of the hottest intellectual property (IP) topics currently. NFTs can be used simply for marketing purposes or as a new form of asset to attract investment or as part of the transfer of products and services into the metaverse.
The creation (“minting”) and sale and use of NFTs raises many IP issues which we have discussed in our previous posts in our IP in NFTs series. However, brand owners and product manufacturers must also be vigilant in monitoring the virtual marketplaces to ensure that third parties are not creating NFTs that infringe their own IP rights.
Hermès has succeeded in its case of trade mark infringement against non-fungible token (NFT) artist Mason Rothschild. This was the first US trial considering the enforceability of intellectual property rights against the creator of NFTs.
As we reported in our first blog post in this series, non-fungible tokens (NFTs) are a new asset class that is being adopted eagerly across all sectors, raising some interesting challenges from an IP perspective.
How should digital assets be treated in terms of property? This is what the Law Commission of England and Wales has been considering in its consultation paper paper on the recognition and protection of digital assets which is open for responses until 4 November 2022.
The new version of the Nice Classification, the 12th edition, came into force on 1 January 2023, carries new categories for registration of trade marks in relation to NFTs and is used being by several national trade mark offices including the EUIPO and IP Australia.
Creating an NFT can give rise to other IP issues, aside from questions of transfer of rights. In particular there is the issue of who in fact has the right to create and release NFTs and whether the NFT infringes third party rights.
The IP Division of the Court of Rome has issued a preliminary injunction to prohibit the minting and marketing of Non-Fungible-Tokens (“NFT”) that, unauthorised, reproduced well-known trade marks owned by the Juventus football club.
In a significant decision for NFT content owners worldwide, the producers of the Bored Aped Yacht Club NFT collection, Yuga, have successfully used unregistered trade mark rights and claims of false designation of origin under the US Lanham Act.
Partner, Intellectual Property and Global Head of Cyber & Data Security, London
The contents of this publication are for reference purposes only and may not be current as at the date of accessing this publication. They do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Specific legal advice about your specific circumstances should always be sought separately before taking any action based on this publication.
© Herbert Smith Freehills 2024
We’ll send you the latest insights and briefings tailored to your needs