Ipr In Nft-Based Gaming Asset Licensing.
IPR IN NFT-BASED GAMING ASSET LICENSING
(Conceptual Framework)
NFT-based gaming assets include:
Characters
Skins
Weapons
Land (metaverse real estate)
In-game items
Avatars
When these assets are tokenized as NFTs, ownership of the NFT ≠ ownership of intellectual property unless explicitly licensed.
Key IP Rights Involved
Copyright – artwork, characters, game assets, music, code
Trademark – logos, brand names, distinctive designs
Design Rights – visual appearance of characters/items
Contract Law – licensing terms via smart contracts or EULAs
Core Legal Problem
NFT buyers often believe they own the asset outright, while legally they usually receive only a limited license to use the IP.
LEGAL ISSUES IN NFT-BASED GAMING LICENSING
Scope of License
Personal use vs commercial exploitation
In-game use vs cross-platform use
Unauthorized Minting
NFTs minted without IP owner consent
Derivative Works
Modifications, reskins, mashups
Trademark Dilution & Confusion
NFTs suggesting brand affiliation
Secondary Market Royalties
Enforcement of creator royalties
CASE LAWS (DETAILED ANALYSIS)
1. Hermès International v. Mason Rothschild (MetaBirkins Case)
Facts
Mason Rothschild created “MetaBirkins” NFTs, depicting digital fur-covered Birkin bags.
Sold them as NFTs without Hermès’ authorization.
Hermès claimed trademark infringement and dilution.
Legal Issues
Whether NFTs can infringe trademarks
Whether artistic expression protects NFT creators
Likelihood of consumer confusion in digital goods
Court’s Reasoning
NFTs are commercial products, not merely art
Use of “Birkin” name caused brand confusion
Consumers believed Hermès endorsed or was affiliated
Judgment
Court ruled in favor of Hermès
NFTs infringed trademark rights
Relevance to NFT Gaming
Game studios must license trademarks explicitly
Even stylized or “artistic” NFTs can infringe IP
Branding inside NFTs is legally risky without permission
2. Nike, Inc. v. StockX
Facts
StockX issued NFTs tied to physical Nike sneakers
NFTs used Nike trademarks prominently
Claimed NFTs were just “receipts” for physical goods
Legal Issues
Whether NFTs constitute independent commercial products
Trademark infringement in digital assets
Nike’s Argument
NFTs were separate virtual goods
Trademark used without authorization
Created consumer confusion
Court’s Position
NFTs are not merely receipts
NFTs are tradable digital assets
Trademark law applies fully to NFTs
Current Status
Case established strong precedent that NFTs are goods
Relevance to NFT Gaming
In-game NFTs using branded items need licensing
Linking NFTs to real-world assets does NOT bypass IP law
Marketplaces can also be liable
3. Yuga Labs v. Ryder Ripps (BAYC NFTs)
Facts
Yuga Labs owns Bored Ape Yacht Club NFTs
Ryder Ripps created “RR/BAYC” NFTs using identical ape images
Claimed it was satire and protest art
Legal Issues
Copyright infringement
Trademark infringement
Fair use and parody defense
Court’s Reasoning
NFTs were sold commercially
Use was intentionally confusing
Parody defense failed due to profit motive
Judgment
Court ruled in favor of Yuga Labs
Confirmed NFT images are protected IP
Relevance to NFT Gaming
Game asset NFTs are copyrightable
Copying game NFTs, even for commentary, can infringe
Parody defense is weak in commercial NFT sales
4. Miramax LLC v. Quentin Tarantino
Facts
Tarantino minted NFTs of Pulp Fiction screenplay scenes
Miramax owned rights to the film and screenplay
Tarantino claimed retained rights to “screenplay publication”
Legal Issues
Interpretation of old contracts in NFT context
Whether NFTs fall within reserved rights
Court’s Observations
NFTs were not contemplated in original agreement
Minting NFTs was a new form of exploitation
Outcome
Case settled, but court leaned toward Miramax’s interpretation
Relevance to NFT Gaming
Developers cannot assume NFT rights from old IP contracts
Studios must explicitly reserve NFT rights
Licensing agreements must address future technologies
5. AM General LLC v. Activision Blizzard
Facts
Activision used Humvee vehicles in Call of Duty
AM General sued for trademark infringement
Legal Issues
Use of real-world assets in games
Artistic relevance vs trademark infringement
Court’s Decision
Use was artistically relevant
No consumer confusion
Protected under First Amendment
Relevance to NFT Gaming
Important distinction:
Games may use real-world assets under artistic relevance
NFTs are commercial goods, not just expressive works
Tokenizing in-game assets changes the legal analysis
6. Blizzard Entertainment v. Lilith Games
Facts
Lilith copied characters, artwork, and UI from Blizzard games
Used them in a mobile game and monetized them
Legal Issues
Copyright infringement
Unauthorized commercial exploitation
Judgment
Court ruled in favor of Blizzard
Substantial similarity and copying established
Relevance to NFT Gaming
Copying game assets into NFTs = infringement
Even “inspired by” designs can be risky
Asset originality is crucial in NFT projects
COMPARATIVE LEGAL PRINCIPLES EMERGING
| Principle | Application in NFT Gaming |
|---|---|
| NFT ≠ IP Ownership | Buyers only get limited license |
| NFTs are Goods | Trademark law applies fully |
| Commercial Use Matters | Profit defeats parody/fair use |
| Licensing Must Be Explicit | Especially NFT & Web3 rights |
| Marketplaces Can Be Liable | Secondary infringement risk |
PRACTICAL LICENSING MODEL FOR NFT GAMES
A well-drafted NFT gaming license should specify:
Ownership of underlying IP
Permitted uses (in-game only / resale / commercial)
Royalty structure
Revocation rights
Cross-platform restrictions
Jurisdiction & governing law
CONCLUSION
NFT-based gaming asset licensing sits at the intersection of:
Intellectual Property Law
Contract Law
Digital Commerce
Courts are consistently holding that:
NFTs are not legal loopholes
IP rights survive tokenization
Licensing clarity is mandatory
RELATED Blog
comments