On February 8, a jury trial in the Southern District of New York reached a verdict in Hermès’ lawsuit against Metabirkin. Court rules that artist Mason Rothschild violated brand Hermès trademark protections: Rothschild’s 100 ‘metabirkin’ NFTs were not artistic commentary and therefore US constitutional amendments It turns out that you are not protected by Article 1.
according to report A nine-member jury found Rothschild responsible for trademark infringement, trademark dilution and “cybersquatting,” awarding Hermès $133,000 in damages, according to Vogue Business. . Notably, the decision marks the first time the relationship between digital art, NFTs, and physical fashion has been addressed in court. Hermès argued that NFTs are a new product category, while Rothschild argued that there is no such thing as a digital twin. Rothschild said he plans to appeal the ruling.
Following the court’s decision, the artist expressed his disappointment on his Twitter account.
“A broken judicial system that doesn’t allow art professionals to talk about art, but allows economists to talk about it. That’s what happened today. What happened today was wrong. We If we don’t keep fighting, what happened today will keep happening.This isn’t over yet.”
Take nine people off the streets right now and have them tell you what art is, but the kicker is what they say, now becoming the undisputed truth. That’s what happened today.
A multi-billion dollar luxury fashion house that says it “cares” about art and artists, but…
— Mason Rothschild (@MasonRothschild) February 8, 2023
The case is expected to have far-reaching implications for the use of NFTs by artists and the protection of intellectual property in the metaverse. Blockchain and technology attorney Michael Kasdan, who has followed the case for some time, shared his thoughts on the ruling on Twitter. According to him, “If the Rothschilds had won, it would have been more surprising and a ‘bigger deal’ in terms of changing the status quo.”
I’m not too surprised that the jury found Hermès. Anecdotally, when someone I know heard or saw “Metabirkin,” many thought, “Oh, that’s Hermes.”
— Michael Kasdan (@michaelkasdan) February 8, 2023
RELATED: Intellectual Property Does Not Fit Well with Web3 Decentralization — Lawyer
As previously reported by Cointelegraph, according to court documents filed on Jan. 23, Hermès said the collection improperly used the Birkin trademark, confusing customers and prompting the luxury brand to drop the project. It is possible that he was misled into believing that he was supporting him.
In September 2022, Cointelegraph spoke to David Kappos, partner at Cravath, Swain & Moore LLP. Pointed out that there is no solution. world. “