In short, yes. Although intellectual property law is largely established, NFTs are putting some of its fundamentals to the test. In fact, The United States Patent and Trademark and Copyright Offices recently agreed to conduct a study after being contacted by several senators having a number of questions regarding whether NFTs required adjustments to laws and regulations.
I have included some notable legal battles below so readers understand just how complicated these cases can be:
Yuga Labs, the company behind the well-known Bored Ape Yacht Club NFTs, recently filed a lawsuit against Ryder Ripps, who produced NFTs that closely resembled Bored Apes. According to Ripps, he was “trolling” the public. Yuga claimed that Ripps had violated his trademark.
In another trademark case, Nike filed a lawsuit against shoe retailer StockX for making NFTs based on Nike footwear. According to StockX, customers can redeem their “Vault” NFTs at any time to have the actual shoes mailed to them, saving them the inconvenience of having to find space in a closet. StockX claims that the “Vault” NFTs represent ownership of a product it stores for customers. By pointing out that purchasers can sell the NFT without ever gaining control of the shoes, Nike asserted that it constitutes trademark infringement.
In another recent case, Quentin Tarantino was sued by Miramax for allegedly producing NFTs of his “Pulp Fiction” script. The studio claimed that the director lacked the necessary permissions. The NFTs are a derivation of the screenplay, according to Tarantino’s legal team, who also claimed publishing rights. The case will depend on how language granting “other” rights is construed because the initial agreements between the parties were made before NFTs existed.
The key takeaway is for NFT creators and issuers to make sure that they take precautions to safeguard their intellectual property against unauthorized appropriation and to make sure they are not infringing on another’s IP.