Bored Ape Yacht Club Secures Legal Win in NFT Trademark Dispute

The renowned Bored Ape Yacht Club (BAYC) has successfully secured a legal victory against Ryder Ripps and Jeremy Cahen, the creators of the controversial RR/BAYC NFT collection. This pivotal ruling emphasizes the significance of intellectual property rights in the rapidly growing NFT marketplace.

Yuga Labs Defends Its BAYC NFT Collection in Court

In June 2022, Yuga Labs initiated legal action against Ripps and Cahen, alleging that they intentionally created confusion among consumers and accrued millions of dollars in illegitimate profits. According to the lawsuit, the RR/BAYC NFT collection utilized marketing materials and BAYC marks strikingly similar to those of the original BAYC, without obtaining the necessary licenses.

Additionally, Yuga Labs refuted claims by Ripps and Cahen that the BAYC NFTs incorporated racist undertones, 4chan memes, and hidden Nazi symbolism.

Court Sides with Yuga Labs

A US court recently determined that Yuga Labs holds the valid and enforceable BAYC trademarks. The ruling stressed that the defendants employed the BAYC marks without Yuga Labs’ authorization, resulting in a likelihood of confusion.

Moreover, the court rejected the defendants’ assertion that their use of the BAYC marks fell under fair use or artistic expression. The judge concluded that Yuga’s BAYC marks had a strong presence in the market and that the RR/BAYC project aimed to deceive.

Yuga Labs to Pursue Damages

The court also decided that the domain names registered and utilized by the defendants (rrbayc.com and apemarket.com) could mislead consumers. As a result, the judge declared that the defendants engaged in cybersquatting.

While Yuga Labs sought $200,000 in statutory damages for cybersquatting, the court rejected this demand, indicating that the evaluation of damages would transpire during an upcoming trial.

Conclusion

The legal success of Yuga Labs underlines the necessity for legal safeguards in the ever-changing NFT landscape. This case serves as a reminder of the intricate balance between artistic expression and infringement and the potential repercussions for those who cross these boundaries.

The ruling also brings attention to the ongoing debate regarding the role of satirical NFT collections in the crypto art domain, as some view them as a form of commentary and criticism, while others argue that they can negatively impact the original creators’ reputation and financial achievements.