This week’s featured collector is thebluedan
TheBlueDan is an artist living in Brazil. Check out their creations at lazy.com/thebluedan
What’s the most exciting use case for Liquefaction?
Last week’s poll on “the most exciting use case for Liquefaction” drew a clear lead for sharing soul‑bound credentials, which captured 40 % of the vote, suggesting the community sees credential portability as the protocol’s most compelling value‑add. Renting out NFT perks and monetizing DAO voting power tied for second at 20 % each, indicating solid but secondary enthusiasm for liquidity and yield strategies. Interestingly, 20 % of respondents admitted they still don’t understand Liquefaction, signaling a need for clearer education.
What the Ninth Circuit’s Mixed Ruling in Yuga Labs v. Ryder Ripps Means for NFT Collectors
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has handed down a mixed yet momentous decision in Yuga Labs v. Ryder Ripps, a case closely watched by anyone who holds or trades NFTs. At its core, the court affirmed that Bored Ape Yacht Club NFTs are “goods” entitled to trademark protection under the Lanham Act—the same federal law that shields designer sneakers and luxury handbags. That finding alone brings long‑awaited clarity to the status of NFTs in U.S. intellectual‑property law and strengthens the legal toolkit available to blue‑chip projects that want to police copy‑minting or outright counterfeits.
But the ruling was hardly a slam‑dunk for Yuga Labs. The appellate panel wiped out an earlier district‑court order that had awarded roughly eight million dollars in damages and imposed an injunction against Ryder Ripps’ RR/BAYC collection. Concluding that likelihood of consumer confusion is a “fact‑intensive” question, the judges said a reasonable juror might not equate RR/BAYC tokens—sold for under two hundred dollars and clearly labeled with an “RR” prefix—with the six‑figure originals. Because of those evidentiary gaps, the case now returns to the lower court for a full trial, where Yuga must prove actual or likely confusion among typical NFT buyers before any financial recovery or injunction can be reinstated.
The opinion also strikes a nuanced balance on fair‑use and First‑Amendment claims. While the panel rejected Ripps’ contention that his work is automatically protected parody or nominative use, it refused to rule out those defenses altogether. Instead, the judges left it to a fact‑finder—potentially a jury—to decide whether Ripps’ “expressive appropriation art” meaningfully distinguishes itself from genuine BAYC assets in the eyes of the market. In practical terms, appropriation artists can still invoke commentary or satire as a shield, but they must show unmistakable context, clear labeling, and other signals that avert confusion.
For collectors and investors, the immediate take‑away is twofold. First, trademark owners now have precedent to litigate look‑alike NFTs as readily as counterfeit merchandise, a development that could bolster brand value across established collections. Second, the ruling underscores how provenance tools, explicit disclaimers, and price signals affect the legal calculus. As marketplaces tighten verification badges and token issuers refine license terms, due‑diligence steps—checking contract addresses, cross‑referencing marketplace warnings, scrutinizing floor‑price anomalies—will matter more than ever.
Looking ahead, the remand sets the stage for a trial that could run late into 2025. Although Ripps portrays the appellate outcome as a “resounding victory,” he must still persuade a jury that his project was satirical commentary rather than an infringing cash‑grab. Yuga, meanwhile, has fresh incentive to settle: another year of depositions, expert reports, and cross‑examination poses reputational risks and mounting legal bills on both sides. If the parties cannot strike a deal, any final verdict could be appealed yet again, and a cert petition to the Supreme Court—though unlikely to be granted—remains possible.
From a policy perspective, the Ninth Circuit’s restraint feels healthy. By declining to impose blanket liability at the summary‑judgment stage, the court signals that new technologies deserve careful, evidence‑driven analysis rather than snap judgments that might chill artistic experimentation. At the same time, the explicit recognition of NFTs as trademark‑eligible goods offers the crypto ecosystem a firmer legal foundation and should reduce the “regulatory‑gray‑area” discount investors often apply to digital assets. In short, the decision brings order without foreclosing creativity: brand owners gain a clearer shield, but artists still have room—albeit narrower—to critique, parody, or repurpose so long as confusion stays off‑chain.
Ultimately, the ruling advances legal certainty in Web3 without locking it into an overly rigid mold. Collectors who prize provenance and long‑term value can view it as a net positive, while creators pushing conceptual boundaries are reminded that the First Amendment protects commentary, not camouflage. As the case returns to trial and similar disputes percolate in other circuits, one principle is already settling in: on‑chain or off‑chain, commerce and culture will share the same courtroom rules.
Learn more at Court House News.
How do you think the Ninth Circuit’s BAYC ruling will affect the NFT space?
We ❤️ Feedback
We would love to hear from you as we continue to build out new features for Lazy! Love the site? Have an idea on how we can improve it? Drop us a line at info@lazy.com