On July 23, 2025, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Yuga Labs’ big trademark win over artists Ryder Ripps and Jeremy Cahen. The court reversed the nearly $9 million summary judgment from the Central District of California and sent the case back for trial.
What the Case Is About
Yuga Labs, the company behind the Bored Ape Yacht Club (BAYC), sued Ripps and Cahen for selling knockoff NFTs under the name “RR/BAYC.” Yuga claimed the duo intentionally used its trademarks and branding to confuse buyers into thinking Yuga Labs was the source of the knockoff NFTs.
Ripps and Cahen argued that their work was political art and parody. They claimed their use of Yuga’s trademarks was protected speech under the First Amendment. They also claimed that Yuga Labs did not have a trademark, because NFTs are not “goods” in the trademark sense. Finally, Ripps and Cahen argued that Yuga Labs did not own any trademarks because they granted all of the rights associated with the NFTs to the individual NFT purchasers.
Why the Appeals Court Threw Out the Ruling
The district court had granted summary judgment to Yuga Labs without a trial. It ruled that there was no real dispute of fact about whether consumers were confused by the knockoff NFTs.
Upon taking the case up on appeal, the Ninth Circuit agreed that NFTs are “goods” in the trademark sense and that the First Amendment does not apply to a defendant trading on the good will of the trademark owner to market its own goods. The Ninth Circuit disagreed with the lower court, however, on the critical issue of “likelihood of confusion.” After examining the lower court record, the Ninth Circuit still questions about whether Ripps and Cahen were actually trying to confuse people or just criticize Yuga Labs. Because of that, and the fact that summary judgment on likelihood of confusion grounds is generally disfavored, the court remanded the case back to the lower court, ordering a full hearing of the facts before a legal determination could be made on the issue of likelihood of confusion.
Key Takeaways
- NFTs are still goods under the Lanham Act. The court agreed with the lower court that NFTs qualify for federal trademark protection.
- You still need proof of confusion. Just because someone uses your mark doesn’t mean they’ve violated your rights. You have to show that their use likely confused buyers.
- First Amendment defenses might work—but not always. Parody is a possible defense to trademark claims, but it won’t automatically shield you if you are using the trademark to sell your own goods or services.
- A trial is coming. This case isn’t over. Now a factfinder, most likely a jury, will get to decide whether Ripps and Cahen went too far.
What This Means for Creators and Brands
If you’re building a brand in the NFT or Web3 space, this case reminds you that the rules haven’t changed just because the format is digital. You still need to protect your trademarks the old-fashioned way—with evidence and enforcement. But if you’re on the other side, using someone else’s mark for parody or protest, you can’t hide behind the First Amendment as a shield to hock your own wares.
Trademark law is still playing catch-up with emerging tech. But courts are making it clear: If you want protection, you need to prove actual confusion—and if you’re claiming parody, you better do it right.
Recent Comments