Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Federal Jury Rejects First Amendment Defense In 'MetaBirkins' NFT Standoff
Perhaps no other area in the technology sector — save perhaps the recent explosion of generative AI models — has raised as many thorny intellectual property issues as the proliferation of Non-Fungible Tokens, or NFTs, many of which are based on, refer to, or even incorporate, expressive works. Leading the charge have been cases addressing whether NFT makers who utilize other parties' trademarks can turn to the First Amendment as a defense to trademark infringement. This inquiry turns on the now decades-old test established by the Second Circuit in Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994 (2d Cir. 1989). The Rogers test allows defendants to raise a free speech defense if their use of a mark is artistically relevant to their work and does not explicitly mislead consumers as to its source.
On Feb. 8, 2023, after deliberating for three days, a jury in one such case, Hermès International v. Mason Rothschild, found the defendant — the maker of the infamous "MetaBirkins" NFT collection — liable for trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and cybersquatting, and ordered defendant to pay $133,000 in damages. The jury reached this verdict notwithstanding early rulings in the case by Judge Rakoff, both at the motion to dismiss and summary judgment stages, that the Rogers test potentially protected the defendant's NFTs. Hermès International v. Mason Rothschild, 22-CV-384 (JSR) (U.S. Dist. Ct., Southern District of New York, Feb. 2, 2023).
In contrast, in Yuga Labs v. Ripps, CV-22-4355-JFW-JEM (U.S. Dist. Ct., Central District of California, Dec. 16, 2022), NFT makers tried to justify their use of plaintiff's "Bored Ape" trademarks as commentary against plaintiff's alleged racist tendencies, but the court rejected the defendants' attempt to dismiss the case on free speech grounds under Rogers. The court held that defendants failed to make the threshold legal showing that their use of the marks was part of an expressive work because the defendants' NFTs merely pointed to the same digital images that made up plaintiff's NFT collection, and because defendants' sale of their NFTs amounted to "commercial activities designed to sell infringing products, not expressive artistic speech protected by the First Amendment."
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.