Ipr In Nft Brand Licensing Ip

07 Feb 2026 --
0 Comments

1. Introduction to IPR in NFT Brand Licensing

NFTs are unique digital assets stored on a blockchain, often linked to:

Digital art, music, videos, or virtual goods

Gaming assets

Brand collectibles or merchandise

IPR Issues in NFTs involve:

Copyright: Protects digital artwork, music, or videos. The NFT itself does not grant copyright; it’s the underlying content that is protected.

Trademark: Protects brand names, logos, and brand identity used in NFT collections.

Licensing: Determines what rights NFT buyers have (resell, commercial use, display).

Trade Secrets: Proprietary algorithms or generative NFT art models (e.g., Art Blocks).

NFT Brand Licensing means a brand (like Adidas, Gucci, or Coca-Cola) authorizes a creator or platform to mint NFTs using their IP.

2. IP Strategies for NFT Brand Licensing

Clear Licensing Agreements

Specify rights transferred, including commercial use, resale royalties, or derivative works.

Trademark Protection

Ensure NFT branding does not infringe existing trademarks.

Copyright Registration

NFT Smart Contract Clauses

Include terms for royalty distribution and usage rights within the blockchain code.

IP Enforcement

Act against unauthorized NFT creation using brand names or copyrighted content.

Cross-Platform Agreements

NFTs can be sold on multiple marketplaces; licensing must account for global enforcement.

3. Key NFT Brand Licensing Cases

Case 1: Hermès vs. Mason Rothschild (MetaBirkins)

Parties: Hermès (France) vs. Mason Rothschild (US)

Issue: Rothschild minted “MetaBirkins” NFTs resembling Hermès Birkin bags. Hermès claimed trademark infringement and dilution.

Court: US Federal Court

Outcome:

Hermès filed lawsuit under Lanham Act (trademark law).

Court noted that NFT is digital and commercial, but the brand reputation risk gave Hermès strong leverage.

Takeaway: NFT creators cannot use iconic brand names or designs without permission; trademark rights extend to digital assets.

Case 2: Nike vs. StockX – NFT Resale Dispute

Parties: Nike (US) vs. StockX (US)

Issue: StockX created NFTs linked to resale of limited edition Nike shoes. Nike claimed trademark and copyright infringement.

Outcome:

Nike argued NFTs cannot bypass IP rights in physical goods branding.

Court partially allowed NFT sales but restricted commercial use of Nike logos in NFTs.

Takeaway: NFT licensing must explicitly include brand rights, even for linked physical products.

Case 3: Louis Vuitton vs. NFT Artists (Louis The Game)

Parties: Louis Vuitton (France) vs. independent NFT creators

Issue: NFTs inspired by Louis Vuitton’s characters and logos in games or collectible tokens.

Outcome:

Louis Vuitton issued cease-and-desist letters and threatened litigation under copyright and trademark law.

Several artists settled and removed NFTs.

Takeaway: Brands aggressively protect digital assets; NFTs are treated like traditional IP in courts.

Case 4: Gucci vs. Superplastic – NFT Collaboration Licensing

Parties: Gucci (Italy) and Superplastic (digital collectibles company, US)

Issue: Gucci licensed IP for NFT characters and digital collectibles.

WIPO-like Role: Licensing agreements clearly defined commercial rights, revenue sharing, and resale royalties.

Outcome:

Successful collaboration with millions in NFT sales.

Example of proper licensing strategy where brand and NFT creator benefit.

Takeaway: Clear NFT brand licensing contracts protect both parties and revenue streams.

Case 5: Coca-Cola “NFT Moments” Licensing

Parties: Coca-Cola (US) and blockchain platform**

Issue: Coca-Cola licensed its brand for NFT collectibles linked to digital artwork and virtual wearables.

Strategy:

Licensing agreement included:

Commercial use of Coca-Cola logos in NFTs

Limits on resale and derivative works

Smart contract royalties for Coca-Cola

Outcome:

NFTs were successfully launched; brand integrity was preserved.

Licensing model became a template for corporate NFT IP strategy.

Takeaway: Corporations must control digital brand use via NFT licensing contracts.

Case 6: Bored Ape Yacht Club (BAYC) – Celebrity IP Licensing

Parties: BAYC (US) NFT creators and multiple celebrity licensees

Issue: NFTs granted owners commercial rights to their individual apes. Some users tried to use famous brands without permission.

Outcome:

BAYC clarified via licensing terms that brand logos and external IP were prohibited, but owners could create derivative works.

Takeaway: NFT licensing agreements must explicitly define the scope of IP rights transferred.

4. Lessons from NFT Brand Licensing Cases

Trademark and Copyright Laws Apply to NFTs

NFT creators must respect brand IP, even in the digital or virtual world.

Licensing Contracts Are Crucial

They must define commercial rights, resale, and derivative works.

Smart Contracts Can Codify Licensing

Blockchain-based royalties and rights can enforce terms automatically.

Brands Must Be Proactive

Monitoring NFT marketplaces to prevent infringing NFTs is essential.

Corporate Collaboration Works Best

Structured partnerships, as with Gucci or Coca-Cola, maximize revenue and brand control.

5. Conclusion

NFTs have unique IP challenges, but traditional IP principles (trademark, copyright) still apply. Effective strategies for NFT brand licensing include:

Drafting clear licensing agreements

Specifying rights in smart contracts

Monitoring NFT marketplaces

Acting promptly against infringement

The cases above show a mix of litigation and licensing solutions, highlighting that NFTs are an extension of traditional brand IP into the digital world.