Yuga Labs, Inc. v. Ripps
24-879
| 9th Cir. | Jul 23, 2025Background
- Yuga Labs created the Bored Ape Yacht Club (BAYC) NFT collection (10,000 unique NFTs), which function as both digital art and membership passes; Yuga used multiple BAYC marks and monetized secondary-market royalties.
- Defendants Ryder Ripps and Jeremy Cahen minted a competing collection (RR/BAYC) that used the same Bored Ape images and incorporated BAYC marks in names, symbols, and marketplace listings; they sold primary and secondary NFTs and promoted them online.
- Yuga sued for Lanham Act false designation of origin and ACPA cybersquatting; Defendants counterclaimed under the DMCA and sought declaratory relief on copyright and defamation issues.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Yuga on trademark and ACPA claims, found Defendants’ use likely to cause confusion, entered a permanent injunction, and awarded monetary remedies; it granted summary judgment for Yuga on Defendants’ DMCA counterclaim and dismissed declaratory claims for lack of jurisdiction.
- The Ninth Circuit held NFTs can be "goods" under the Lanham Act (trademarkable), affirmed the rejection of Defendants’ counterclaims, but reversed the district court’s summary judgment on trademark infringement and cybersquatting because consumer-confusion questions are factual and unsuitable for resolution as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are NFTs "goods" under the Lanham Act? | NFTs are marketable commercial goods and membership tokens; marks identify source. | NFTs are intangible/authored content akin to Dastar/Slep-Tone holdings and not "goods." | NFTs can be "goods" for Lanham Act purposes. |
| Trademark priority, ownership, and abandonment | Yuga first used BAYC marks and retained goodwill; T&Cs did not assign trademark rights. | Yuga unlawfully sold unregistered securities; T&Cs granted IP to buyers or abandoned marks/failed to police. | Yuga retains enforceable trademark rights; alleged securities issues and T&Cs do not preclude protection. |
| Nominative fair use / First Amendment defense | (N/A) | Use of BAYC marks was expressive critique / satire and nominative reference, protected by First Amendment. | Defendants used the marks as source identifiers for their own NFTs; nominative/First Amendment defenses fail as threshold showings. |
| Likelihood of consumer confusion (trademark infringement) | RR/BAYC used identical images, BAYC names/symbols, same marketplaces → confusion. | Distinguishing features ("RR/" prefix, different primary site rrbayc.com), buyer sophistication, price differentials, disclaimers. | Mixed Sleekcraft factor results; factual disputes preclude summary judgment for Yuga—go to trial. |
| Cybersquatting (ACPA) — domain similarity | rrbayc.com and apemarket.com are confusingly similar to bayc.com/BAYC marks. | Addition of "RR" or "ape market" differentiates domains; no confusing similarity as matter of law. | Reversed summary judgment on ACPA; Yuga failed to show domains confusingly similar as a matter of law (bad faith not reached). |
Key Cases Cited
- Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 539 U.S. 23 (2003) (distinguishes trademark protection for source of tangible goods from protection of underlying expressive content)
- Jack Daniel’s Props., Inc. v. VIP Prods. LLC, 599 U.S. 140 (2023) (First Amendment exception to trademark enforcement is narrow; trademark law controls where mark is used for source identification)
- AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341 (9th Cir. 1979) (establishes multi-factor likelihood-of-confusion test)
- Network Automation, Inc. v. Advanced Sys. Concepts, Inc., 638 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. 2011) (apply Sleekcraft flexibly in Internet context; three factors especially important online)
- Rearden LLC v. Rearden Com., Inc., 683 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2012) (plaintiff bears burden to prove likelihood of confusion under Lanham Act)
- Slep-Tone Ent. Corp. v. Wired for Sound Karaoke & DJ Servs., LLC, 845 F.3d 1246 (9th Cir. 2017) (distinguishing trademark and copyright contexts for intangible/replicated content)