Bored Ape Yacht Club creator Yuga Labs has secured what it calls a “landmark legal victory” in its trademark infringement lawsuit against artist Ryder Ripps and co-defendant Jeremy Cahen. The ruling, issued on April 21 by Judge John F. Walter of the Central District of California, found that the pair had infringed on Yuga Labs’ trademarks by creating and selling copycat NFTs under the RR/BAYC banner.
TL;DR
- Judge John F. Walter ruled that Ryder Ripps and Jeremy Cahen infringed on Yuga Labs’ BAYC trademarks
- The copycat RR/BAYC project was created in May 2022 and sold near-identical copies of Bored Ape NFTs
- The court rejected First Amendment defenses, ruling the project was commercial activity, not artistic expression
- Ripps claimed his project was a protest against alleged racist imagery in BAYC
- Damages will be determined at a trial scheduled for June 2023
The Court’s Decision
Judge Walter found that Ripps and Cahen had acted in bad faith with the intent to profit from their infringing activities. The court determined that the defendants’ copycat NFTs were linked to identical online images connected to the original BAYC collection rather than expressing any ideas or points of view. This distinction proved crucial in the judge’s reasoning.
The ruling specifically addressed the First Amendment defense mounted by Ripps and Cahen. Judge Walter concluded that their project did not constitute protected artistic speech but rather commercial activity designed to capitalize on the Bored Ape Yacht Club brand.
Background of the Dispute
Bored Ape Yacht Club, one of the most successful NFT collections in history, features digital images of cartoon apes that have sold for over $1 million each at peak prices. The collection has attracted high-profile celebrity owners including Snoop Dogg and Paris Hilton, who have promoted their apes on national television.
However, BAYC has also faced controversy. Critics alleged that some imagery referenced neo-Nazi symbolism and used apes as a racist trope. Ripps, a conceptual artist, created a website detailing these claims and launched the RR/BAYC project in May 2022, offering near-identical copies of Bored Ape NFTs at significantly lower prices. He claimed the project served as both an artistic statement on the nature of NFTs and a protest against Yuga Labs’ practices.
Yuga Labs’ Response
Yuga Labs filed suit shortly after the RR/BAYC launch, accusing Ripps and Cahen of trademark infringement, false advertising, and unfair competition. The company argued that the defendants had deliberately misused BAYC trademarks to confuse community members into purchasing the copycat NFTs instead of official ones. Yuga Labs has consistently denied any association with neo-Nazi imagery or racism.
The company publicly celebrated the ruling as a significant win for intellectual property rights in the NFT space, with legal observers noting that the decision could establish important precedents for how trademark law applies to digital assets and blockchain-based collectibles.
What Happens Next
While the court has ruled on liability, the question of damages remains unresolved. A trial to determine the financial penalty is scheduled for June 2023. Ripps’ attorney, Louis Tompros, has indicated plans to appeal the ruling, challenging both the validity of Yuga Labs’ trademarks in the NFT context and the First Amendment issues that the defense argues were not adequately addressed in the court’s decision.
The broader NFT market was already navigating a challenging environment at the time of the ruling, with Bitcoin trading around $27,800 and Ethereum near $1,874 amid a broader market pullback. The legal clarity provided by this case could help stabilize the NFT sector by giving creators stronger protections against copycat projects.
Why This Matters
This ruling represents one of the first major court decisions addressing trademark infringement in the NFT space. It signals that existing intellectual property frameworks can and will be applied to digital assets, giving legitimate creators a legal pathway to protect their work. For an industry still finding its regulatory footing, the decision provides a degree of certainty that could encourage more traditional brands and creators to enter the NFT market. The upcoming damages trial and potential appeal will be closely watched by legal experts and industry participants alike.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal or financial advice. NFT investments carry significant risk, and readers should conduct their own research before making any investment decisions.
ripps had a point about the racist imagery concerns but selling near-identical nfts was never going to fly as artistic expression. wrong venue, wrong approach entirely
agree with the ruling but the damages trial will be fascinating. how do you even calculate damages on jpeg copies
royalties from secondary sales and the price difference between real and copy BAYCs would be my guess for damages. the court has data to work with
Lina damages on jpeg copies will be fascinating. secondary market royalties vs real BAYC floor price differential is the calculation
Mateusz K. the approach was wrong but the racist imagery concerns were never properly addressed by Yuga either. both sides lost
bad faith intent to profit is the key phrase here. if he had just made a blog post criticizing bayc none of this happens. the nft sale was the problem
selling near-identical NFTs with the same branding was never gonna work as free expression. he tried to have it both ways
mintwatcher the branding was identical on purpose to make the protest point. he was deliberately using BAYC imagery to call them out. the court just wasnt buying protest as a defense when money changed hands
the First Amendment argument was dead on arrival for a commercial project with financial gain. any first-year law student could see that
first year law students also know that protest art has won First Amendment protections repeatedly. the commercial angle was the nail in the coffin, not the artistic intent