Rising Trend in NFT Litigation Over Popular Brands
Time 3 Minute Read

Two leading international brands have filed lawsuits in 2022 to prevent the sale of digital NFTs depicting their physical products, and both cases will test existing trademark law and impact online retailers of NFTs.

In January 2022, the French luxury brand Hermès filed a lawsuit alleging trademark infringement and dilution against Mason Rothschild, an American artist who created a series of NFT digital artworks depicting Hermès Birkin handbags—and who has previously sold Birkin digital artwork for tens of thousands of dollars. Rothschild calls the series “MetaBirkins,” and each digital bag is depicted as being fur covered. Hermès challenges both the use of its “Birkins” name and the depiction of the bag, and alleges that Rothschild’s use is misleading to consumers and harmful to its brand. Rothchild says that the series is a commentary on what he considers to be animal cruelty inherent in the manufacturing of leather handbags and his promotion of “fur free” alternatives in textiles. Rothschild filed a motion to dismiss arguing that caselaw protecting the use of trademarks and celebrity likenesses in traditional art forms and films should extend to the NFTs. Hermès filed an Amended Complaint in early March.

In February 2022, Nike filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against StockX—an online marketplace where consumers can buy and sell goods, including sneakers, to each other. Nike’s lawsuit was in response to StockX launching “Vault NFTs”—a collection of NFT digital collectibles that users purchase directly from StockX and then can trade with each other. StockX says that the Vault NFTs represent proof of ownership of physical items (maintained in the StockX vault) and that customers can “redeem” the digital NFTs in exchange for the corresponding physical item from the StockX Vault. Nike argues that customers will improperly associate these NFTs with Nike, including in ways that harm Nike’s reputation, and that StockX’s NFT marketplace will unfairly compete and cause confusion with Nike’s existing NFT marketplace. StockX’s response to the lawsuit is due at the end of March.

As online retailers and brand owners watch these cases unfold, they need to be rethinking issues about their own brands and how they are protected. Both cases will test the question of whether brands can rely on existing trademark rights (in physical products) when bringing enforcement actions for digital products. With the Hermès case, a critical question concerns the boundaries around what constitutes digital “art” and what is considered expressive speech under the Lanham Act. And to the extent a court finds infringement in either case, the lawsuits will test what equitable remedies are available when an NFT—which has been created to be immutable and permanent—violates a trademark. Interest in NFTs exploded in 2021 as a means to track ownership and transfer rights of digital files, such as the images here. Unsurprisingly, 2022 is starting off to be hot for NFT litigation.

You May Also Be Interested In

Time 2 Minute Read

On April 1, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the 2024 amendment to Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act, limiting damages, applies retroactively to pending cases.

Time 3 Minute Read

The results are in: attorneys are filing more employment law cases in court.  Indeed, year-end reporting from legal databases like LexMachina confirm that the pace of filing new employment discrimination cases reached its highest level in 2025, surpassing 20,000 new filings nationwide.  Though overtime and minimum wage lawsuits under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) have continued to decline since 2015, discrimination cases under laws like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act are on the rise.

Time 1 Minute Read

A recent federal court decision determined that documents created by a criminal defendant using AI and subsequently shared with legal counsel were not shielded by attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. In USA v. Heppner, Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York compelled the disclosure of 31 documents created with Anthropic’s Claude. This order was issued despite the defendant including information from counsel in the AI tool’s input and later providing the resulting outputs to his attorneys. The ruling offers early judicial perspective on privilege concerns involving AI-generated materials, an area where case law remains sparse.

Time 1 Minute Read

A recent federal court ruling held that AI-generated documents prepared by a defendant and later shared with legal counsel were not protected by attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine.

Search

Subscribe Arrow

Recent Posts

Categories

Tags

Authors

Archives

Jump to Page