A California judge rules that the RR/BAYC NFTs, which featured primates in similar poses to the BAYC under the pretense of satire, violated Yuga Labs' copyright
Use of BAYC trademarks by Ripps' RR/BAYC was intended to confuse consumers, a U.S. judge in California has ruled
Context & Ripple Effects
The ruling follows an earlier marketplace fight over ape-themed NFT projects: OpenSea had already banned two projects contesting which was the authentic Bored Ape imitation, underscoring how authenticity disputes were being handled through platform rules as well as law.
This decision is an early judicial milestone in Yuga Labs' dispute with Ripps. The case later produced an appeals-court finding that NFTs can be trademark-protected goods and was ultimately resolved through a settlement between Yuga Labs, Ripps and Cahen.
First-order effects
- Yuga Labs gains a court ruling that RR/BAYC's use of BAYC marks was intended to confuse consumers, strengthening its position against the project.
- Ripps' RR/BAYC project is legally characterized as infringing Yuga Labs' BAYC intellectual property rather than protected satire, according to the ruling.
Second-order effects
- NFT creators that closely mimic an established collection's visual identity and branding face a clearer litigation risk, especially where consumer confusion is alleged.
- Marketplaces and other NFT intermediaries have added reason to scrutinize lookalike collections, building on earlier platform actions such as OpenSea's bans of rival ape-themed projects.
Third-order effects
- The dispute points toward NFTs being governed more like conventional branded goods in trademark conflicts—a direction later reinforced when an appeals court held that NFTs can qualify as trademark-protected goods.
- If courts continue to apply standard trademark analysis to NFT collections, ownership of a collection's brand may become a more durable competitive asset than claims that copying is artistic commentary.
The trend: NFT disputes are moving from platform-level authenticity enforcement toward conventional intellectual-property litigation over brands, consumer confusion and commercial use.