In a stunning reversal that sends shockwaves through the NFT legal landscape, a U.S. federal appeals court has overturned Yuga Labs’ $9 million court victory against Ryder Ripps, the creator of the satirical RR/BAYC NFT collection. The ruling, issued on July 23, 2025, by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, requires Yuga Labs to prove its trademark infringement claims at a new trial — a decision that could reshape how NFT creators protect their intellectual property.
TL;DR
- Ninth Circuit appeals court overturns Yuga Labs’ $9 million win against Ryder Ripps and Jeremy Cahen
- Court ruled Yuga Labs failed to adequately prove consumer confusion from RR/BAYC collection
- Case sent back to district court for a new trial on trademark infringement claims
- Ripps argued his RR/BAYC collection was satirical commentary, not counterfeiting
- Ruling raises the bar for NFT trademark enforcement and could impact future IP disputes
The Origins of the Dispute
The conflict between Yuga Labs and Ryder Ripps dates back to 2022, when Yuga — the company behind the billion-dollar Bored Ape Yacht Club NFT collection — sued Ripps and his collaborator Jeremy Cahen for trademark infringement and cybersquatting. Ripps had created the RR/BAYC collection, which used images virtually identical to the original Bored Ape Yacht Club artwork but framed as a satirical response to what Ripps characterized as problematic aspects of the BAYC ecosystem.
Ripps maintained throughout the legal proceedings that his collection constituted protected artistic expression and commentary — a deliberate form of satire rather than an attempt to deceive buyers or profit from Yuga’s brand. Each RR/BAYC token was clearly marked as part of the Ripps collection, and the project explicitly framed itself as a critique of Bored Ape Yacht Club.
Original Court Ruling Favored Yuga Labs
In 2023, a district court issued a partial summary judgment finding that Yuga Labs does own valid trademarks to its Bored Ape Yacht Club NFT collection and that Ripps’ RR/BAYC collection caused consumer confusion due to the visual similarity of the images. The final ruling included an order for Ripps and Cahen to pay over $8 million in damages to Yuga Labs, representing one of the largest financial penalties in an NFT-related trademark dispute.
The district court’s reasoning centered on the likelihood that ordinary consumers could be misled into purchasing RR/BAYC tokens believing they were authentic Bored Ape Yacht Club NFTs, despite the different branding and explicit framing as satire.
Appeals Court Disagrees on Key Evidence
The Ninth Circuit took a notably different view. While the appellate judges acknowledged that Yuga Labs holds priority on the Bored Ape Yacht Club trademarks due to being the first to use the marks in commerce, they found that the company had not adequately demonstrated that Ripps’ NFTs were actually causing consumer confusion in the marketplace.
The appeals court emphasized that proving trademark infringement requires showing more than just visual similarity — it requires evidence that buyers were genuinely deceived or likely to be deceived. The three-judge panel concluded that the district court’s analysis was insufficient on this critical point and sent the case back for a new trial where Yuga must present stronger evidence of actual confusion.
“Yuga may ultimately prevail on these claims, but to do so it must convince a factfinder at trial,” the court filing stated, leaving the door open for Yuga to eventually win but raising the evidentiary standard it must meet.
Implications for NFT Intellectual Property Law
The ruling carries significant implications for the broader NFT market and the emerging body of intellectual property law surrounding digital collectibles. The appeals court’s decision suggests that simply owning a trademark for an NFT collection may not be sufficient to win infringement claims against derivative or satirical works — the trademark holder must also demonstrate real consumer confusion.
This raises the bar for NFT creators seeking to protect their brands through litigation and potentially opens the door for more satirical, commentary-driven, or derivative NFT projects. Legal experts note that the decision aligns NFT trademark law more closely with traditional art and media, where parody and satire receive significant First Amendment protections.
The case also highlights the tension between the decentralized, remix-friendly culture of Web3 and the traditional intellectual property framework designed for physical goods and centralized media distribution. As NFTs continue to evolve as both artistic expression and commercial products, courts will increasingly need to navigate these competing interests.
What Comes Next
The case now returns to the district court for a new trial, where Yuga Labs will have the opportunity to present more compelling evidence of consumer confusion. The company may introduce survey data, actual instances of buyer confusion, or other evidence showing that RR/BAYC tokens were purchased by people who believed they were buying authentic Bored Ape Yacht Club NFTs.
For Ripps and Cahen, the appellate victory provides a second chance to defend their collection as legitimate artistic commentary. The outcome of the retrial could establish important precedent for how trademark law applies to NFTs, derivative collections, and the broader digital art ecosystem.
Meanwhile, the NFT market continues to mature and evolve, with July 2025 seeing a dramatic resurgence in trading volumes and blue-chip collection valuations. The legal framework surrounding digital collectibles is evolving alongside the market, and cases like this one will play a crucial role in defining the boundaries of creative expression and brand protection in the Web3 era.
Why This Matters
This ruling matters because it establishes that NFT trademark disputes require rigorous proof of consumer confusion — not just visual similarity between collections. For NFT creators, it means that brand protection through the courts may be more challenging than previously assumed. For artists and commentators in the Web3 space, it represents a victory for creative expression and the right to produce satirical or critical works without facing crippling financial penalties.
The decision also signals that courts are beginning to treat NFTs with the same nuance they apply to traditional art and media, recognizing that the digital collectible space encompasses both commercial products and forms of artistic expression deserving of legal protection. As the NFT market continues its July resurgence with billions in trading volume, the legal infrastructure governing these assets is catching up to their cultural and economic significance.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal or financial advice. NFT markets involve significant risk. Always conduct your own research before making any investment decisions.
ryder ripps was making satirical commentary and the original court punished him for it. glad the ninth circuit corrected this
this sets a real precedent for NFT IP disputes. satire is protected speech even when it uses the same imagery. huge win for artists
The consumer confusion argument was always weak. Every RR/BAYC token was clearly labeled as part of the Ripps collection.
Yuga Labs spent millions in legal fees to lose a $9M judgment on appeal. Sometimes the best legal strategy is knowing when to settle.