April 25, 2023
Authored and Edited by Jenevieve J. Maerker; Margaret A. Esquenet
In the latest court decision to grapple with the scope of trademark rights in the metaverse, the Central District of California handed a significant win to Yuga Labs, creator of a collection of 10,000 NFTs (non-fungible tokens) marketed under the name BORED APE YACHT CLUB, or BAYC.
The BAYC NFTs are built on the Etherium blockchain and are associated with a series of unique computer-generated cartoon images of monkeys with varying clothing, accessories, and facial expressions. Buying a BAYC NFT gives the owner a copyright license to the associated image, as well as access to certain owner-only benefits, including digital communities and real-life events. BAYC NFTs can be resold on the NFT marketplace OpenSea and have traded for sums much higher than their original offering price.
The defendants, two individuals named Ryder Ripps and Jeremy Cahen, created a separate series of NFTs on the Etherium blockchain, pointing to the same publicly accessible digital images of monkeys associated with the BAYC NFTs. Ripps and Cahen called this NFT collection RYDER RIPPS BORED APE YACHT CLUB (“RR/BAYC”), and they assert that it is a “satirical conceptual art and performance project” and a work of “appropriation art.” They also allege that the RR/BAYC project is intended to, among other things, educate the public about NFTs generally and call attention to what they claim are racist, neo-Nazi, and alt-right messages used by Yuga in connection with its BAYC business.
In July 2022, Yuga filed suit against Ripps and Cahen for unauthorized use of BORED APE YACHT CLUB and related trademarks, asserting claims of false designation of origin under the Lanham Act, common law trademark infringement, unfair competition, cybersquatting, and related causes of action. Yuga subsequently filed for partial summary judgment on its false designation of origin and cybersquatting claims, as well as on several of defendants’ affirmative defenses. The court held in favor of Yuga on all issues except those relating to damages, which the court found Yuga had reserved for trial. The ruling rests on detailed findings on a number of key facts and legal issues that may serve as guideposts for other courts considering NFT-related trademark claims. Of particular note are the following points from the opinion:
While Yuga touts the court’s decision as a major victory, there are still several loose ends in this story. Yuga is facing a Securities and Exchange Commission investigation and a class-action lawsuit alleging that its NFTs constitute an unregistered security (a theory that echoes defendants’ unclean hands theory in the RR/BAYC case). Meanwhile, Yuga’s applications to register the BAYC marks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office are being held up by an opposition filed by Jeremy Cahen—one of the defendants in the instant case. Cahen filed the opposition in February 2023, while the court case was pending, asserting that the BAYC marks are unregistrable for many of the same reasons Ripps and Cahen pressed in the lawsuit, along with a few other grounds (including that the marks are deceptively misdescriptive because Yuga does not provide yacht club services). The opposition is currently suspended pending final disposition of the district court case. Finally, though it may not have a direct impact on the parties in this case, the Supreme Court seems poised to modify the contours of the Rogers test in the Jack Daniels case that it heard in March, a decision that could have significant implications for the outcome of future NFT trademark cases.
The case is Yuga Labs, Inc. v. Ripps, et al., 2:22-cv-04355 (C.D. Cal. April 21, 2023).
Copyright © 2023 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
INCONTESTABLE® Blog
May 3, 2024
At the PTAB Blog
USPTO Releases Notice of Proposed Rule Making Codifying Several Precedential Case Factors
April 25, 2024
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.