Oh yes, I did litigation and there are clients who make a business decision to litigate everything, as a deterrent (and I understand). However, taking this to a jury will be dangerous! And I really don’t see the likelihood of confusion for a consumer, which is the fundamental issue. Maybe an IP attorney will chime in.
Hermes and Birkin NFTs
- Thread starter needmoneyforbirkins
- Start date
TPF may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, and others
BREAKING NEWS:
Just saw news ‘Hermès Wins ‘MetaBirkin’ NFTs Trial’ !!
CONGRATULATIONS Hermes!!!
Adding Article: Hermès Gets Win Over MetaBirkins in First NFT Trademark Trial
news.bloomberglaw.com
Just saw news ‘Hermès Wins ‘MetaBirkin’ NFTs Trial’ !!
CONGRATULATIONS Hermes!!!
Adding Article: Hermès Gets Win Over MetaBirkins in First NFT Trademark Trial
Hermès Gets Win Over MetaBirkins in First NFT Trademark Trial
Luxury brand Hermès International SA won its lawsuit against the digital artist behind “MetaBirkin” nonfungible tokens after convincing a Manhattan federal jury that Mason Rothschild’s sale of the NFTs violated Hermès’ rights to the “Birkin” trademark.
I know there's that transparent/PVC Kelly that was made for some event in early 2000's...
WAIT, is it OT to ask if Hermès ever made a Jelly Kelly (or Birkin)?
I had a lime green one tho, ahaha.
Hermès Wins MetaBirkins Lawsuit; Jurors Not Convinced NFTs Are Art
The verdict means First Amendment protections did not apply to a digital project blurring the line between art and business.
Boomer here. YES! I am owning it.
DH and I just shared a bottle of Frank Family Zinfandel….
So, here I go.
But I just don’t get NFTs. Does it stand for, “No Freaking Thought”?!!! Bought with Block(head) Chain.
I’m a Mac person. Control / Shift / F4 gives me a lovely screen shot of whatever’s on my screen.
So why in the name of G*d, the Creator, or anyone else would anyone buy an NFT when Control / Shift / F4 exists!!!
Puleeze. I. Want. To. Understand.
That being said, I am glad Hermes is not standing for this nonsense.
DH and I just shared a bottle of Frank Family Zinfandel….
So, here I go.
But I just don’t get NFTs. Does it stand for, “No Freaking Thought”?!!! Bought with Block(head) Chain.
I’m a Mac person. Control / Shift / F4 gives me a lovely screen shot of whatever’s on my screen.
So why in the name of G*d, the Creator, or anyone else would anyone buy an NFT when Control / Shift / F4 exists!!!
Puleeze. I. Want. To. Understand.
That being said, I am glad Hermes is not standing for this nonsense.
IMO, this case is larger than Hermes itself because it sets precedence on copyrights in the digital age (especially such gray area like metaverse) when laws have yet to catch up. Very exciting case and results! I wonder how this help shape out Metaverse (or it's subsequent virtual reality).
Reminds me of those jokes, 'When is a bag not a bag?'
Answers...
Answers...
NFTs are about owning the rights to the image (and often with some perks, like membership somewhere). The easiest way I can think to explain it is like musical catalog ownership. While one could tape it from the radio without likely repercussion, the rights to distribute and profit of it were held by the catalog owner.
To me, Hermes had to go after this and swiftly; otherwise, I can see the NFT owners trying to claim their rights were being infringed upon. I recall there being an NFT sold of the digital of a piece of art in the public domain or something similar. While the world collectively laughed, this alleviates hassle moving forward.
He should be serving a life sentence (w/o parole) for how ugly his MetaBirkins are 
An NFT is not just an image. As far as it's been explained to me by a professional in law, an NFT is closer to something like a digital ticket/access to a digital product. That product can be an image, a video, a song, an entire concert, or even simply access to more NFTs.
NFTs initially belong solely to the creator who can then keep or sell it. Critically, NFTs also carry residuals (made up term. I am not a lawyer) to its creator.
For example with the NFT Birkins, Rothschild may have sold the original NFT for $450, but every time those NFTs are sold, he will receive a percentage of that sale.
Made Up Example:
Initial sale = $450
Resale 1 = $2000
Let's say that Rothschild has a 20% (made up number) residual* gain every time that NFT is sold.
Then after Resale 1, Rothschild gets $400
Resale 2 = $1500
Residual continues, Rothschild still gets $300 from that sale.
Total gain so far from 3 sales = $450 + $400 + $300 = $1150 and will continue to grow every time that item is sold.
So why would someone ELSE buy the NFT?
In theory because you can sell it at a higher price than you bought it for. Or the NFT offers something exclusive. (access to Beyonce's exclusive concert for NFT holders only)
The advantages for things like digital concerts makes a lot of sense because it allows people access to an experience they wouldn't otherwise be able to have without digital space. An NFT means that access can still be bought and traded perpetually so long as the servers work. All the while Beyonce gets a cut every time the NFT tickets to said concert are sold.
That being said, the fuzzy birkin is a messy and rather lazy way to create interest for that particular NFT. I am a professional writer in a different field where NFTs are being explored as a method to provide living wages for starving authors through access to exclusive content. Of course that means the Big Publishers and other major media conglomerate (my previous industry) are also looking to see how they can use this system to their financial advantage.
The fight will continue, but either way there is a lot of money to be made and so of course everyone is trying to rake in the profits before regulations start to reduce the potential gains from this new market.
(And I haven't even touched the moral issues. The most obvious is the electricity required to keep this system going, but there are tons of ethic concerns. Again, I'm not a lawyer or anything but a professional trying to figure out what to do with the NFT clause in my potential publishing contracts)
edited several times for additional info an clarification.
NFTs initially belong solely to the creator who can then keep or sell it. Critically, NFTs also carry residuals (made up term. I am not a lawyer) to its creator.
For example with the NFT Birkins, Rothschild may have sold the original NFT for $450, but every time those NFTs are sold, he will receive a percentage of that sale.
Made Up Example:
Initial sale = $450
Resale 1 = $2000
Let's say that Rothschild has a 20% (made up number) residual* gain every time that NFT is sold.
Then after Resale 1, Rothschild gets $400
Resale 2 = $1500
Residual continues, Rothschild still gets $300 from that sale.
Total gain so far from 3 sales = $450 + $400 + $300 = $1150 and will continue to grow every time that item is sold.
So why would someone ELSE buy the NFT?
In theory because you can sell it at a higher price than you bought it for. Or the NFT offers something exclusive. (access to Beyonce's exclusive concert for NFT holders only)
The advantages for things like digital concerts makes a lot of sense because it allows people access to an experience they wouldn't otherwise be able to have without digital space. An NFT means that access can still be bought and traded perpetually so long as the servers work. All the while Beyonce gets a cut every time the NFT tickets to said concert are sold.
That being said, the fuzzy birkin is a messy and rather lazy way to create interest for that particular NFT. I am a professional writer in a different field where NFTs are being explored as a method to provide living wages for starving authors through access to exclusive content. Of course that means the Big Publishers and other major media conglomerate (my previous industry) are also looking to see how they can use this system to their financial advantage.
The fight will continue, but either way there is a lot of money to be made and so of course everyone is trying to rake in the profits before regulations start to reduce the potential gains from this new market.
(And I haven't even touched the moral issues. The most obvious is the electricity required to keep this system going, but there are tons of ethic concerns. Again, I'm not a lawyer or anything but a professional trying to figure out what to do with the NFT clause in my potential publishing contracts)
edited several times for additional info an clarification.
Last edited:
Thank you everyone for educating me on this topic. While I see the advantage for experience (non-static image) type of content, especially if the content creator wants control, static content makes no sense (to me) because technology is available to make a good digital replica. I would not buy one of these as an investment with the thought that it can be resold for a profit.
Where I can see this NFT content making sense, is if museums want to have virtual guided tours. Can’t make it to the Louvre?, buy a limited rights (1 time access) NFT for particular areas of the museum.
I can see music concerts and videos being contentious because streaming services that currently profit from these things won’t give up that revenue without a fight.
Where I can see this NFT content making sense, is if museums want to have virtual guided tours. Can’t make it to the Louvre?, buy a limited rights (1 time access) NFT for particular areas of the museum.
I can see music concerts and videos being contentious because streaming services that currently profit from these things won’t give up that revenue without a fight.