November 15, 2022
Over the past few years, NFTs have emerged from nowhere to become a big deal — even if a lot of people are fuzzy on the details of what an NFT is. And, as with any new creation, especially one that reaches across art, entertainment, finance and culture, conflicts over NFTs raise new legal issues. On this, I’m especially fascinated by Hermès International vs. Rothschild, 22 Civ. 384 (S.D.N.Y.). It raises so many questions: What is art? Who is an artist? What is an NFT? How do art and commerce interact and where does the First Amendment fit into all this?
This is a very “meta” case (in more ways than one).
It’s a simple story. In 2021, Mason Rothschild, a Los Angeles-based digital artist, launched his “MetaBirkin” project. The project involved the sale of 100 NFTs, each linked to a digital image created by Rothschild. The images are of imaginary, Birkin-style bags covered in distinctively colored fur. (Birkin bags are very expensive handbags made by Hermès, the French luxury fashion brand. They are often made from leather or exotic animal skins and can cost more than $100,000.)
Rothschild promoted MetaBirkins on social media with hashtags like #NotYourMothersBirkin and #MetaBirkin and created a Discord group for followers. His stated intention was to use the NFTs to raise awareness of the fashion world’s “fur-free” initiatives and promote the use of ethical textiles. Sales of these NFTs quickly took off.
Hermès was not amused and sent Rothschild a cease and desist letter. A few weeks later, it filed suit, claiming, among other things, trademark infringement, unfair competition and cybersquatting stemming from the use of “MetaBirkin” and hashtags containing the word “Birkin.” OpenSea, the world’s largest NFT marketplace, removed the MetaBirkins from its site and resale prices, which had reached as high as $46,000 for a single NFT, plummeted.
Hermès makes several arguments, but its central claim is that Rothschild is misleading consumers into thinking Hermès authorized the NFTs and otherwise trading on Hermès’ goodwill. Here, the company points to posts on Rothschild’s social media accounts and in the news indicating confusion over Hermès’ relationship to MetaBirkins.
It also vehemently argues that the Court should ignore Rothschild’s images of fanciful, fake fur covered Birkin-style bags because “[t]he MetaBirkin NFTs are data recorded on the Ethereum blockchain,” which Rothschild could swap out for something completely different and unrelated. In other words, Hermès argues Rothschild’s work is just bits of code that can be disassociated from the images. Thus, according to Hermès, his work is not art and, therefore, outside the scope of the First Amendment. In support of this claim, Hermès notes that when the MetaBirkins were first minted, the image was covered in a shroud and didn’t show the actual picture being sold. It also repeatedly claims that Rothschild is a marketer and not an artist.
In response, Rothschild asserts the First Amendment allows him to make and sell art that depicts Birkin bags. In his words: “I am not creating or selling fake Birkin bags. I’ve made works of art that depict imaginary, fur-covered Birkin bags. I have the right also to use the term ‘MetaBirkins’ to describe truthfully what that art depicts, and to comment artistically on those bags and the Birkin brand.” What’s more, he goes on, “[t]he fact that I sell the art using NFTs doesn’t change the fact that it’s art.”
Mason Rothschild also claims his use of “Meta” is an indication that the images are part of a commentary and argues that Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994 (2d Cir. 1989) requires the Court to dismiss Hermès’ case.
As a refresher, the dancer Ginger Rogers sued the makers of a movie called “Ginger and Fred,” claiming that the movie’s use of her name impermissibly implied that she sponsored the movie, which was about fictional cabaret performers named Ginger and Fred. The Second Circuit rejected her claims. It held that the First Amendment requires courts to dismiss trademark claims involving artistic works unless the public’s interest in avoiding consumer confusion outweighs the public interest’s in free expression. With celebrity names in titles, the court held that a trademark claim must be dismissed unless “the title has no artistic relevance to the work whatsoever, or if it has some artistic relevance, unless the title explicitly misleads as to the source or content of the work.”
Based on this, Rothschild argues that the images associated with his NFTs have sufficient artistic content to bring this case within the ambit of Rogers and he has not explicitly misled anyone about the source of the NFTs. Specifically, he notes that it is not in his interest to have consumers think the NFTs were created by Hermès because he wants to be credited as the artist.
It’s hard to say where the court is going to come out on this, but it doesn’t seem terribly likely that Hermès will prevail here. Courts don’t want to be in the business of deciding what is and isn’t art and are likely to err on finding something is art. Moreover, the lengths to which Hermès goes to try to disassociate the images from the NFTs would seem to support a conclusion that the images are, in fact, art.
And, while it’s true that Rothschild could substitute the images linked to the NFTs, that’s pure speculation and doesn’t bear any relationship to the actual facts here. If anything, the fact that in the minting process the NFTs were associated with images on a pedestal covered with a shroud make it seem even more like these digital images are, in fact, art because that specifically calls to mind the unveiling of a statue or other artwork.
Thus, for Hermès to prevail, it’s going to have to show the NFTs explicitly misled people about their source. It’s hard to see that happening.
This will be fascinating to see where the court comes out and watch for this case’s impact on the new, evolving world of NFTs, the market for them, and how they further develop.
October 7, 2022
When she gives her employer broad rights to use her name even after her employment ends.
Of course, of course.
This may sound like a bad (or completely nonsensical) Mr. Ed joke, but allow me to explain. Here is the story of renowned wedding dress designer Hayley Paige Gutman, who recently announced she will henceforth be known as Cheval (aka “horse” in French). Why? Because, as a result of an agreement with her former employer, she no longer owns the Instagram account she created and which bears her name.
This case is particularly interesting to me because (1) it shows how existing laws — here, contract and the work-for-hire doctrine — are applied to new platforms and novel situations, and (2) the Court went to great lengths in an attempt at resolution, but ultimately, simply went back to existing laws to reach a decision.
Let’s begin with the facts: In 2011, Gutman entered into an employment agreement with a company named JLM Couture, which designs and manufactures luxury bridal gowns. The agreement stated Gutman would neither compete with her employer nor use her name in connection with wedding dresses and bridal items during its term and for two years after its termination. Gutman also agreed that JLM would own everything she created in connection with her employment and could trademark her name — some pretty broad rights. In exchange, JLM promised to invest money into the “Hayley Paige” brand and pay Gutman a salary and royalties. Of course, this being the modern age, a vital marketing element for the venture was the Instagram account @misshayleypage that Gutman created shortly after entering into the contract and which was used to promote the dresses she designed for JLM.
Everything was fine — at least, from a legal standpoint — until 2019 or 2020, when negotiations over a new contract broke down. Gutman locked JLM out of the Instagram account and began using it to promote non-JLM products. JLM sued Gutman for, among other things, breaching her agreement by taking over the account; JLM also sought to prevent Gutman from using the @misshayleypage Instagram unless approved by JLM. The lower court agreed with JLM.
Gutman appealed and the Appellate Court found the lower Court wrong to restrain Gutman without first deciding whether JLM could show it owned the social media accounts and sent the case back to the lower Court to figure that out.
Once there, Gutman argued this question was answered by the fact that she created the Instagram account as a personal account. The lower Court was not convinced. It said that the issue needed to be resolved by looking at: (1) how the Instagram account was described to the public; (2) how it was used; and (3) if JLM employees accessed it. Based on this, the Court held that JLM was likely to succeed on its claim that it owns the Instagram account or, at least, show it had superior rights to the account because it linked to JLM websites and was regularly used to promote JLM’s business and communicate with its customers.
The Court also noted that, under her contract with JLM, Gutman agreed that anything she developed in connection with her employment belonged to JLM. To me, it seems like the Court could have saved itself a lot of time by starting there. In my view, there was no need to dissect the use of the Instagram account in order to determine ownership just as there would have been no need to debate ownership of, say, a printed JLM catalog featuring a dress designed by Gutman. The employment agreement covered all materials related to the Hayley Paige brand regardless of media type or who initiated its creation.
As a result, the “Hayley Paige” brand and Instagram account continue to be owned by JLM, and Gutman is operating as Cheval. I’m really curious to see whether the @misshayleypaige followers will follow her Cheval Instagram and whether she will be able to monetize this new persona. Will the answer be yay or… neigh?
Sorry, it had to happen.
July 14, 2022
On June 9, 2022, Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Thom Tillis (R-NC), the Chair and Ranking Member of the Senates Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, sent a letter to the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) and the Director of the United States Copyright Office (Copyright Office) asking them to complete a study on various issues related to non-fungible tokens (NFTs). The non-exhaustive list of topics in this letter includes:
- What are the current and future intellectual property and intellectual property-related challenges stemming from NFTs?
- Can NFTs be used to manage IP rights?
- Do current statutory protections for copyright, for example, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, apply to NFT marketplaces, and are they adequate to address infringement concerns?
On July 8, 2022, the PTO and Copyright Office responded to the Senators. In their response, they stated that they would consult with relevant stakeholders and complete the requested study.
While the list provided by the Senators is a good starting place, the fact that they gave the PTO and Copyright Office until June 2023 to complete the study, means that it’s going to be a while until we have any additional information from the PTO and Copyright Office. Moreover, while the PTO and Copyright Office certainly have a role to play here, the legal framework will continue to develop as Courts rule on cases involving NFTs.
June 19, 2017
Until today, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) could refuse to register trademarks (or cancel trademarks) on grounds that they were potentially disparaging or offensive. In 2014, the USPTO used this provision to cancel trademarks for the Washington Redskins find they were offensive to Native Americans. It also relied on this provision to deny a trademark to a band called the Slants, a term the USPTO concluded was offensive to Asian-Americans, but which the Slants said was an effort to reclaim a previously derogatory term. The Supreme Court today concluded: “Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend.”
If you’re curious, the decision is available here.
