Welcome to the monthly NFT proceedings summary.
Non-fungible tokens (NFTs) are a topic of much debate and interest, and the questions, legal issues, and controversies surrounding them continue to grow.
When faced with such a high-growth phenomenon, the law can take some time to catch up. Boodle Hatfield closely monitors development and provides a monthly summary of key NFT disputes to watch out for.
Want to hear more? Follow the subscription link to sign up for upcoming Boodle Hatfield summaries and other content. here..
Lavinia Deborah Osborne v (1) Unknown person (2) Ozone Networks Inc traded as OpenSea
The background details of this case are covered and can be found in the April summary. here..
To be on the safe side, the proceedings relate to two NFTs (Boss Beauty Series Artworks) that were removed from Ms. Osborne’s digital wallet in January 2022. A court order issued in March 2022 granted its own freeze injunction regarding NFTs. A discovery order was issued to OpenSea to assist in identifying the defendant until the court proceedings were completed.
The judgment is now inherited. The important points are as follows.
- NFT as a property: The judge said that legally, there could be problems with the NFTs that make up the real thing.There are at least realistically controversial cases that such tokens should be treated as property as a matter of English law.“.
- Where are the crypto assets?: The judge has determined that the applicant is to be treated as having owned an NFT in the United Kingdom. This follows previous case law that treats crypto assets as if they were in the place where the owner resides.
- Damages are not an appropriate remedy: The judge said that Boss Beauty is “an asset of specific personal and unique value to the applicant, beyond the value of mere fiat currency. The court has an injunction to protect the asset in such situations. It’s easy to grant orders. ” He also noted that he was not convinced that they had the means to respond to a claim for damages because there was no information about the “unknown person.”
- Services outside the jurisdiction: Cited earlier case law that established the principle that property acquired by fraud (in the same way as it is at hand) is impressed with constructive trust in the hands of the person responsible for removing the property. rice field. Therefore, the judge was pleased that “Gateway 15” (for claims related to the trust) was met. “”Applicants may provide claim forms outside their jurisdiction with the permission of the court under Rule 6.36. Occurring within this jurisdiction or related to assets within the jurisdiction … As far as that is concerned, at least the reality of saying that an asset has been removed from the applicant’s account, as already explained earlier in this judgment. There is a controversial case I explained that the applicant resides in England and should be treated as being located in England. “
Yuga Labs, Inc.v. RyderRipps, et al.
- Bored Ape’s creator (Yuga Labs) has sued artist Ryder Ripps, who creates the “replica” Bored Ape NFT, “as a protest and parody against the Bored Ape Yacht Club.” Ripps is said to have earned more than $ 5 million from this project, and Yuga claims to have reduced the value of the Bored Ape brand.
- Ripps have been accused of false advertising, cybersquatting, trademark infringement, and unfair competition (among other claims). Yuga said that Lips’ behavior was “a rudimentary trademark infringement: [the defendants] We sell the same or related products at the same location and under the same mark. “
- Ripps wrote on Twitter: “The proceedings are a major misunderstanding of the characteristics of the RR / BAYC project. People who booked RR / BAYCNFT (non-fungible tokens) have their NFT made as a protest and parody against BAYC. I understood. ” “And no one was impressed that RR / BAYCNFT was a replacement for BAYCNFT or allowed access to Yuga’s clubs. They explicitly granted a disclaimer at the time of purchase. “
Jay-Z / Roc-A-Fella Records v Damon Dash
The background details of this case are covered and can be found in the March and May summaries. here..
- The parties have now settled Reasonable doubt NFT proceedings.
- In a document filed on June 13, Dash was able to sell one-third of the shares of Roc-A-Fella Records, but said, “Dispose of the profits of property that is prima facie prima facie in some way“The agreement was reached by Roc-A-Fella Records.”Own all rights“To reasonable suspicion, including copyright, and add it.”Shareholders or members of Roc-A-Fella Records do not own direct ownership of Reasonable Doubt.“.
- The agreement is almost as Jay-Z / Rock a Bella Records sued Dash, one of the label’s co-founders, for trying to create and sell a reasonable suspicious copyright as an NFT. It will be done a year later. Dash disputed the claim, claiming that he wasn’t trying to sell a prima facie NFT, but rather a stake in Roc-A-Fella Records.
- Dash’s lawyer said,Proceedings without merit“It started with, so it ended.”Each party in the same position as before the proceedings of this proceeding“.
MFT (Music Fungible Token) company is aiming for defeat Lil Yachty Claims on reasons for jurisdiction
- Earlier this year, American rapper Lil Yachty told Oplus, the seller of “MFT”, “Maliciously“Use his portrait and name without his consent.
- Opulous launches a series of music NFTs, “A must-see NFT drop … led by world-renowned artists including Lil Yachty“The NFT collection provides buyers with access to new music from rappers, his prominently featured images, and his press interviews about the project. Lil Yachty, how many times in 2021 Claims to have talked to the company,No contracts or transaction terms“Has reached.
- He said the ad was “Can cause confusion in the minds of consumers with respect to associations, causing real confusion [between himself and the defendants]”He condemned Opulous’ trademark infringement, unfair competition, and publicity rights infringement. He argued that this was the cause and will continue.”Large and irreparable injuries and injuries [his] Goodwill with business“.
- In response, Opulous issued the following statement:All use of Lil Yachty’s name and portrait was approved by Lil Yachty and his representatives“The formal response was submitted by Opulous’ sister company Ditto Music and founder Lee Parsons, both defendants based on their posts on the launch of NFTs on social media channels. The Defendant Court has demanded that the complaint be dismissed under jurisdiction.
- However, in response, Lil Yachty’s statutory agent commented:In this case, the allegations filed by the defendant cannot address the actual issue. “-” We look forward to addressing these claims in court and have no further comments at this time.“.
Disputes between NFT platforms and museums over NFTs based on “fake”
- Huanhe, a Chinese NFT trading platform, is in a copyright dispute with the Peon Art Museum, a memorial museum built in Xu Beihong’s former home, also known as the Chinese painter Ju Péon.
- Huanhe has published a series of digital ink horse collections based on artwork by Chinese painters. However, the museum claims that Huanhe does not allow the distribution of digital collections, saying, “Some digital platforms sell related digital collections under the name of Xu Beihong. However, these digital collections cannot be based on fake works or provide proof of originality. Some people have nothing to do with Mr. Xu. These mixed collections seriously undermine consumer rights and interests and violate Mr. Xu’s reputation and identity rights, as well as various intellectual property rights acquired by his descendants in accordance with the law. “