Ever since ‘MetaBirkin’ NFTs went into the market, it led many degens to believe that the assets came from Hermes.
As a result, the project’s value skyrocketed and went through a series of bullish cycles last year throughout its season.
This caught the attention of Hermes, causing them to file a lawsuit against the project’s producer due to trademark infringement.
Although the luxury house won, the case didn’t stop there until the permanent ban was implemented.
THE ALPHA
A Manhattan federal judge granted Hermes’ request to permanently block artist Mason Rothschild’s sales of ‘MetaBirkin’ NFTs.
This immediately occurred following a jury’s verdict that the latter violated Hermes’ trademark rights in its famed Birkin handbags.
In line with this, US District Judge Jed Rakoff supported the decision and said that the permanent injunction was justified because Rothschild’s continued marketing of the NFTs would confuse potential investors and cause harm to the luxury company.
And by doing this, the US District Judge also denied Mr. Rothschild’s request to discard the verdict or create a new trial.
WHY DID THEY FILE A LAWSUIT AGAINST MASON ROTHSCHILD?
For context, Rothschild’s ‘MetaBirkin’ NFTs comprise a design closely resembling Hermes’ famed Birkin handbags covered in colorful fur.
Rothschild didn’t ask the luxury company for consent or possible collaborations before its release in the market, given that its NFTs visually reflect one of Hermes’ trademarks.
Besides that, most MetaBirkin holders also assumed that the NFTs are directly associated with Hermes due to its similar brand design to Birkin handbags.
And due to these reasons, the luxury company took the leap and filed a lawsuit against Mr. Rothschild to pursue legal actions.
Why were the project’s sales not banned in the first settlement?
If you’ve remembered, a jury ruled in Hermes’ favor last February, awarding the company $133,000.00 worth of damages.
Yet despite winning the case, Rothschild continued to market his NFTs even after losing to Hermes.
Therefore, the luxury company asked the court to force him to stop and hand over the remaining tokens and post-trial profits.
Mr. Rothschild contradicted it and told the court that the request went,
“far beyond what is appropriate in a case, like this one, that involves artistic expression.”
Rakoff allowed the request but decided not to order Mr. Rothschild to transfer the tokens out of an “abundance of caution” for 1st Amendment concerns.
Sentiments from Both Sides
Amid the ongoing issue, Hermes called Mr. Rothschild a “digital speculator” and the NFTs as a “get rich quick” scheme.
They claim that the overall NFT project infringed its “Birkin” trademark and created the false impression that Hermes endorsed the tokens.
On the other hand, Mr. Rothschild countered that the claim was absurd and that the project was immune to any lawsuit under the protections in the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution for art that uses trademarks in an artistically relevant way without explicitly misleading consumers.
The system is broken mase but we are behind you 🖤
— Medic™️ (@Crypto0il) February 8, 2023
Some degens in Web3 sided with Mr. Rothschild, while others also agreed with Hermes’ statements regarding infringements.
Conclusion
Creating an NFT project is a fun and artistic way of earning money and gaining like-minded connections.
However, we must also consider the factors that may affect the project before and after it’s in the market.
So that artists like Mr. Rothschild can prevent any potential problems from occurring, and companies like Hermes will not interfere with legal actions in the first place.
What do you think about this update?
