Creating an NFT can give rise to other IP issues, aside from questions of transfer of rights. In particular there is the issue of who in fact has the right to create and release NFTs and whether the NFT infringes third party rights.

In this third of our series of NFT IP blog posts, we deal with “minting”, ie the creation and sale of NFTs.

Who has the right to create the NFT?

The first important consideration is understanding who actually has the right to create (“mint”) an NFT based on a work. In this context, it is crucial to assess the underlying contract (if any) regulating a commercial relationship to understand who has the right to mint an NFT. Minting an NFT without the right to do so could constitute copyright infringement, infringing the rights of reproduction and communication to the public in the work. In some jurisdictions, it could also give rise to an infringement of the author’s moral rights if the NFT creation was seen as a distortion of the original work that could be detrimental to the artist’s reputation or more generally as a derogatory treatment of the work.

An example of the issue of the minting of an NFT causing IP problems, because of ownership, is the case of Miramax v Quentin Tarantino which is currently being heard before the US Federal Court. In late 2021, Tarantino minted and sold NFTs relating to his movie, Pulp Fiction. Miramax alleges that these NFTs were sold in breach of contract, and infringed trade marks and copyright owned by Miramax. Tarantino, conversely, asserts that his contract with Miramax from 1993 reserved him certain limited rights, including the right to engage in acts such as the sale of these NFTs. This case highlights the importance of clarifying contractual rights and limitations to ensure that the person wanting to mint an NFT based on copyrighted material indeed holds the right to do so. Parties may also seek to enter into a subsequent agreement which clarifies the position in relation to the creation and sale of NFTs, in cases where the earlier agreement does not expressly address this (which seems likely for any contracts pre-2021).

Infringement of IP rights and protection of brands

It is of course an infringement of IP rights where content is used in an NFT without permission. Most often (as above) it is a copyright issue, but trade marks can also be involved, in particular where branded goods are being reproduced via NFTs for use in a virtual environment such as the Metaverse.

Infringement or “fair use”: An example of how trade marks can play a vital role in product protection in relation to NFT is the Hermès/Birkin dispute. Hermès, the creator of the Birkin handbag, is currently engaged in trade mark litigation against an artist who minted and sold NFTs depicting the Birkin handbag, rendered in colourful faux fur (called the ‘MetaBirkins’ collection). This case explores whether the conduct of the artist constitutes trade mark infringement including trade mark dilution (if the consumers would be misled and perceive the MetaBirkin NFT as coming from Hermès), or if the NFT collection is actually a tribute to the iconic handbag and constitutes a lawful use of IP protected asset according to the US “fair use” doctrine (as the Campbell’s Soup cans were for Andy Warhol).

Descriptive use: The minting and sale of an NFT may also give rise to issues with third party IP where it is being used in a purportedly descriptive manner. NFTs can function as a digital certificate over physical goods, which may enable consumers of those physical goods to conveniently sell, store and buy the goods. However, this raises the question about whether or not a trader is allowed to mint and sell an NFT that contains the trade mark/s of a third party, with the intention of describing the goods with which the NFT is associated. This question is currently being considered in the case of Nike v StockX by the New York District Court

The issue before the court is whether the use of third party trade marks in an NFT to sell branded goods is an infringement. StockX, an online reseller of sneakers and other streetwear, introduced a series of NFTs called ‘Vault NFTs’, which feature the image of sneakers (including Nike-branded shoes). The NFTs entitle the holder to redeem the NFT in exchange for the shoes depicted by the image, but StockX will keep the shoes safely stored until they are redeemed. This promotes an active market in shoe reselling, without the need to physically transfer the shoes between seller and purchaser. However, Nike has argued that the use of its trade marks in the image associated with the NFTs constitutes trade mark infringement. StockX argues that it is merely using the marks in a descriptive manner, to inform the NFT holders the type of shoes to which the NFT relates.

In our next blog post we will look at what strategies brand owners and consumer product manufacturer can adopt to protect their rights.

See our earlier blog posts in this series here – including an explanation of what NFTs are; how they can create effective control over digital assets and the use of NFTs for provenance and anti-counterfeiting; and IP misconceptions and issues that we have seen arise in the NFT space in relation to rights transfer or use following purchase.

Follow our NFT blog series by subscribing to our blog IPNotes.

Contacts

The UPC Administrative Committee has issued confirmation of the location of the various local and regional divisions of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) (see below). Whilst all other participating states will have one local court (or participate in the Nordic-Baltic regional division announced), Germany will have three local division courts – Dusseldorf, Hamburg and Mannheim.

Under the UPC Agreement, where there has been on average more than 50 patent cases a year under current national patent litigation proceedings in the states where these UPC Courts of First Instance are to be set up, there will be judicial panels of three legally qualified judges, two of whom would be local nationals of that state (or of those states in the case of the regional division), plus one technically qualified judge. The announcement from the Administrative Committee has therefore also confirmed the numbers of local legally qualified judges that each court will have (see below). For more on the structure of the UPC courts and the judiciary see the Court Structure section of our UPC Hub.

The Administrative Committee’s decision lists the following locations for local divisions of the Court of First Instance of the UPC – and the numbers of legally qualified judges to be on the panel at each:

a. Vienna, Austria – 1 Legally Qualified Judge b. Brussels, Belgium – 1 Legally Qualified Judge c. Copenhagen, Denmark – 1 Legally Qualified Judge d. Helsinki, Finland – 1 Legally Qualified Judge e. Paris, France – 2 Legally Qualified Judges f. Düsseldorf, Germany – 2 Legally Qualified Judges g. Hamburg, Germany – 2 Legally Qualified Judges h. Mannheim, Germany – 2 Legally Qualified Judges i. Munich, Germany – 2 Legally Qualified Judges j. Milan, Italy – 2 Legally Qualified Judges k. Lisbon, Portugal – 1 Legally Qualified Judge l. Ljubljana, Slovenia – 1 Legally Qualified Judge m. The Hague, The Netherlands – 2 Legally Qualified Judges

In addition, one regional division of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court will be established: the Nordic-Baltic regional division, mainly located in Stockholm, with two legally qualified judges. This regional division is expected to cover cases from Sweden, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

The Courts of First Instance announced cover all the states that are have currently fully ratified the UPC Agreement. Ireland, Greece, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania and Slovakia which are yet to do so, but are expected to participate in the longer term, cannot have their court locations confirmed until they do fully ratify of course. The seats of the central division are currently fixed as Paris and Munich, with the location of the third seat which was to have been London still undecided, although Milan looks to be a front runner.

Our fully integrated, market leading European patent litigation team is ready to advise on all aspects of the practical and strategic issues which you should be considering in preparation for the UPC – please contact us for further information.

Find more about how the UPC will work, and other recent developments on the system on our UPC Hub www.hsf.com/upc.