In a sudden turn of events, non-fungible token giant Yuga Labs has lost a $9 million judgment after a U.S. appeals court ordered a trial in its lawsuit against the creators of a contested NFT collection accused of copying Bored…In a sudden turn of events, non-fungible token giant Yuga Labs has lost a $9 million judgment after a U.S. appeals court ordered a trial in its lawsuit against the creators of a contested NFT collection accused of copying Bored…

Yuga Labs’ $9m judgment overturned in Bored Ape copycat case

In a sudden turn of events, non-fungible token giant Yuga Labs has lost a $9 million judgment after a U.S. appeals court ordered a trial in its lawsuit against the creators of a contested NFT collection accused of copying Bored Ape Yacht Club.

Summary
  • U.S. appeals court has overturned a $9 million judgment against the defendants.
  • Court said jury must decide if rival NFT collection infringed on Bored Ape Yacht Club brand.
  • A ruling affirmed that NFTs qualify as “goods” under U.S. trademark law, setting key legal precedent.

Yuga Labs was yet to prove that the rival NFT project was likely to cause consumer confusion, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said in a ruling issued Wednesday. The decision reverses a prior federal court order and returns the case to a lower court for trial.

Yuga Labs Vs Ripps & Cahen

Yuga Labs filed its original lawsuit in 2022, accusing Ryder Ripps and Jeremy Cahen of launching an NFT collection called “Ryder Ripps Bored Ape Yacht Club” that allegedly mimicked its Bored Ape Yacht Club brand. 

Yuga claimed the project not only copied its name and imagery but also intended to mislead buyers and profit off its reputation.

The creators of the rival project defended their actions as a form of protest art. One of them argued that the collection was a commentary on what he described as racist imagery in Yuga’s original artwork. They denied any commercial intent to confuse or deceive buyers.

Another participant, Thomas Lehman, who was sued for his technical involvement in developing RR/BAYC project, settled separately with Yuga Labs outside of court at the time.

In 2023, a California federal court sided with Yuga Labs and awarded the company $1.6 million in damages. That figure later rose to $9 million after the defendants lost a counterclaim. 

However, Wednesday’s decision by the Ninth Circuit wiped out that award, stating the case required a full trial.

Why did the court overturn the $9 million judgment?

The appeals panel concluded that the central question—whether the contested NFT collection violated Yuga’s trademark rights—must be resolved through trial. 

The court said Yuga’s claims of trademark infringement and cybersquatting could not be resolved as a matter of law, citing unresolved questions about the likelihood of consumer confusion.

The ruling found that although the rival NFTs used similar names and imagery, Yuga Labs had not sufficiently demonstrated that the average consumer would mistake the copycat project for its own. 

The Ninth Circuit also stated that determining intent and consumer perception required factual findings that only a jury could make.

While overturning the monetary judgment, the court did uphold one of Yuga’s key legal positions: that NFTs can qualify as “goods” under U.S. trademark law. 

This is a very important ruling as this basically sets a legal precedent that may strengthen future claims brought by NFT creators against copycat projects.

However, while the court ruled that the case must proceed to trial, it rejected the defense’s argument that the copycat NFTs were protected expressive works under the First Amendment. 

The panel also dismissed claims of nominative fair use, saying the rival project’s use of Yuga’s trademarks did not meet the legal threshold for such protection.

What happens next in the case?

The case will now return to the district court in California, where a jury will consider whether the rival NFT collection infringed on Yuga Labs’ trademarks. The trial is expected to address issues such as brand confusion, artistic intent, and the commercial nature of the project.

Yuga Labs co-founder Greg Solano posted on X that the company would “finish the fight” in the lower court. 

“The Ninth Circuit confirmed: BAYC NFTs are protectable trademarks, which is an important win for every NFT holder.

We’ll now finish the fight in the district court, where the judge already fined the RR BAYC founders $9m+ in damages,” Solano wrote.

Market Opportunity
TokenFi Logo
TokenFi Price(TOKEN)
$0.002449
$0.002449$0.002449
+0.41%
USD
TokenFi (TOKEN) Live Price Chart
Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact service@support.mexc.com for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.

You May Also Like

Building a DEXScreener Clone: A Step-by-Step Guide

Building a DEXScreener Clone: A Step-by-Step Guide

DEX Screener is used by crypto traders who need access to on-chain data like trading volumes, liquidity, and token prices. This information allows them to analyze trends, monitor new listings, and make informed investment decisions. In this tutorial, I will build a DEXScreener clone from scratch, covering everything from the initial design to a functional app. We will use Streamlit, a Python framework for building full-stack apps.
Share
Hackernoon2025/09/18 15:05
Which DOGE? Musk's Cryptic Post Explodes Confusion

Which DOGE? Musk's Cryptic Post Explodes Confusion

A viral chart documenting a sharp decline in U.S. federal employment during President Trump's second term has sparked unexpected confusion in cryptocurrency markets
Share
Coinstats2025/12/20 01:13
Google's AP2 protocol has been released. Does encrypted AI still have a chance?

Google's AP2 protocol has been released. Does encrypted AI still have a chance?

Following the MCP and A2A protocols, the AI Agent market has seen another blockbuster arrival: the Agent Payments Protocol (AP2), developed by Google. This will clearly further enhance AI Agents' autonomous multi-tasking capabilities, but the unfortunate reality is that it has little to do with web3AI. Let's take a closer look: What problem does AP2 solve? Simply put, the MCP protocol is like a universal hook, enabling AI agents to connect to various external tools and data sources; A2A is a team collaboration communication protocol that allows multiple AI agents to cooperate with each other to complete complex tasks; AP2 completes the last piece of the puzzle - payment capability. In other words, MCP opens up connectivity, A2A promotes collaboration efficiency, and AP2 achieves value exchange. The arrival of AP2 truly injects "soul" into the autonomous collaboration and task execution of Multi-Agents. Imagine AI Agents connecting Qunar, Meituan, and Didi to complete the booking of flights, hotels, and car rentals, but then getting stuck at the point of "self-payment." What's the point of all that multitasking? So, remember this: AP2 is an extension of MCP+A2A, solving the last mile problem of AI Agent automated execution. What are the technical highlights of AP2? The core innovation of AP2 is the Mandates mechanism, which is divided into real-time authorization mode and delegated authorization mode. Real-time authorization is easy to understand. The AI Agent finds the product and shows it to you. The operation can only be performed after the user signs. Delegated authorization requires the user to set rules in advance, such as only buying the iPhone 17 when the price drops to 5,000. The AI Agent monitors the trigger conditions and executes automatically. The implementation logic is cryptographically signed using Verifiable Credentials (VCs). Users can set complex commission conditions, including price ranges, time limits, and payment method priorities, forming a tamper-proof digital contract. Once signed, the AI Agent executes according to the conditions, with VCs ensuring auditability and security at every step. Of particular note is the "A2A x402" extension, a technical component developed by Google specifically for crypto payments, developed in collaboration with Coinbase and the Ethereum Foundation. This extension enables AI Agents to seamlessly process stablecoins, ETH, and other blockchain assets, supporting native payment scenarios within the Web3 ecosystem. What kind of imagination space can AP2 bring? After analyzing the technical principles, do you think that's it? Yes, in fact, the AP2 is boring when it is disassembled alone. Its real charm lies in connecting and opening up the "MCP+A2A+AP2" technology stack, completely opening up the complete link of AI Agent's autonomous analysis+execution+payment. From now on, AI Agents can open up many application scenarios. For example, AI Agents for stock investment and financial management can help us monitor the market 24/7 and conduct independent transactions. Enterprise procurement AI Agents can automatically replenish and renew without human intervention. AP2's complementary payment capabilities will further expand the penetration of the Agent-to-Agent economy into more scenarios. Google obviously understands that after the technical framework is established, the ecological implementation must be relied upon, so it has brought in more than 60 partners to develop it, almost covering the entire payment and business ecosystem. Interestingly, it also involves major Crypto players such as Ethereum, Coinbase, MetaMask, and Sui. Combined with the current trend of currency and stock integration, the imagination space has been doubled. Is web3 AI really dead? Not entirely. Google's AP2 looks complete, but it only achieves technical compatibility with Crypto payments. It can only be regarded as an extension of the traditional authorization framework and belongs to the category of automated execution. There is a "paradigm" difference between it and the autonomous asset management pursued by pure Crypto native solutions. The Crypto-native solutions under exploration are taking the "decentralized custody + on-chain verification" route, including AI Agent autonomous asset management, AI Agent autonomous transactions (DeFAI), AI Agent digital identity and on-chain reputation system (ERC-8004...), AI Agent on-chain governance DAO framework, AI Agent NPC and digital avatars, and many other interesting and fun directions. Ultimately, once users get used to AI Agent payments in traditional fields, their acceptance of AI Agents autonomously owning digital assets will also increase. And for those scenarios that AP2 cannot reach, such as anonymous transactions, censorship-resistant payments, and decentralized asset management, there will always be a time for crypto-native solutions to show their strength? The two are more likely to be complementary rather than competitive, but to be honest, the key technological advancements behind AI Agents currently all come from web2AI, and web3AI still needs to keep up the good work!
Share
PANews2025/09/18 07:00