The developers of the controversial NFT project, led by Ryder Ripps, have settled with Yuga Labs.
Thomas Lehman, who is responsible for generating new NFTs using URLs embedded in Bored Ape Yacht Club smart contracts, said in a post-settlement statement that he rejects Ripps’ claims. RR/BAYC.
“We are pleased to have resolved the Yuga Labs, Inc. v. Lehman trademark lawsuit,” Lehman said in a statement. “It was never our intention to harm the Yuga Labs brand. We reject all derogatory remarks against Yuga Labs and its founders and thank them for their positive contributions to the NFT space.”
Yuga continued with its own statement.
“Yuga Labs believes that creators, especially creators of the early web3 space, should be able to rely on the law to protect their work from IP theft. and Thomas Lehman, who acknowledged his role in assisting former cohorts Ryder Ripps and Jeremy Cahen to infringe Yuga Labs trademarks in the development, marketing and sale of counterfeit NFTs. Yuga Labs looks forward to holding Ripps and Cahen accountable for a breach backed by a campaign of vicious and unsubstantiated lies, and Lehman has refused to act on them. I highly appreciate it.”
The settlement is adjacent to ongoing case Yuga Labs filed a lawsuit against artists Ryder Ripps and Jeremy Cahen in June 2022. This stems from his collection of 9,500 copycat NFTs that he sold in January 2022, bringing in a total profit of $1.6 million, according to court filings.
CryptoSlate has reached out to Ryder Ripps regarding the Lehman settlement, but has not received a response.
Yuga Labs claims Using several identical digital art images from the original BAYC collection, Ripps infringed Yuga Lab’s legitimate trademarks to mislead consumers, harass Yuga, and commit fraud to enrich themselves. advertised suspicion.
Lipps argues that his actions were part of a wider conceptual art practice that included the use of what is known as “appropriation”, which is reminiscent of Marcel Duchamp’s urinals, and thus it was protected. It claims to be a form of possible artistic expression.
In October 2022, Ripps’ attorneys filed a motion with the court to dismiss BAYC’s trademark lawsuit on the grounds that RR/BAYC has free speech protections. Rogers vs Grimaldiadded that it is entitled to nominative fair use protection, a motion the court denied last December.
In the dismissed motion, Ripps’ defense relied on a US legal standard known as the “Rogers Test.” movies, books, or songs. This test requires that the allegedly infringing use relates to the artistic expression in question and is an integral part of the expressive work.
The United States District Court for the Central District of California ruled on the motion to dismiss, finding defendants did not meet the criteria set forth in the Rogers Test. The court-administered Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that in order to proceed under the Rogers test, there must be a clear link between the allegedly infringing use and the “artistic expression” at issue. I am demanding that I must. In other words, the use should be an integral part of the representational work. The court held that the defendants failed to establish this link and thus did not meet the standards necessary to avoid dismissal.
The court opposed Ripps’ motion to dismiss the lawsuit using the Rogers test, stating that the main issue to be resolved at trial was the defendant’s sale of NFTs, and that NFTs were First Amendment-worthy of expressive art. I said whether it is a work or not. Protection for commercial activities only is likely to be decided in a jury trial.
It is important to note the decision of the California Federal Court. Yuga Lab This is in contrast to another important case unfolding in the wild world of NFTs.that is Hermes vs Rothschild Last month, a New York court refused to settle a motion dismissing the question of whether the “MetaBirkin” NFT, created by Mason Rothschild, meets the criteria of the Rogers test.
In that case, Rothschild said his NFT, based on the image of luxury goods manufacturer Hermès’ famous Birkin bag, should be considered original artwork, and Andy Warhol’s silkscreen on Campbell’s soup cans. Instead, it claims to fall under the protection of the First Amendment.
A court in the Southern District of New York (SDNY) has ruled that Rothschild’s use of the name “MetaBirkin” is misleading to the general public and therefore could be sued under the Lanham Act.
According to Brian Frye, a law professor at the University of Kentucky, “Many judges are not very familiar with the Internet, especially new phenomena such as web3 and NFTs.” “
On the other hand, in another case, Nike vs. StockX, Sneaker resale platform StockX, which launched on January 30, has been sued by Nike for integrating NFTs linked to the physical shoes it resells. StockX claims that it uses NFTs only as a means of scrutinizing authenticity and ensuring that the product purchased by the purchaser is genuine.
all three trials, Nike v. StockX, Hermes v. MetaBirkin and Yuga Labs v. Ryder Ripps A docket is planned for 2023.
