The landscape of the NFT world has recently been shaken by a landmark decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In a move that has left many in the cryptocurrency community buzzing, the appeals court has significantly overturned a lower court’s ruling, which awarded $9 million to Yuga Labs, the brains behind the Bored Ape Yacht Club (BAYC). This pivotal ruling takes us into the heart of trademark law, consumer protection, and the ever-evolving nature of digital assets.
On July 23, 2025, the appeals court struck down key aspects of Yuga Labs’ prior victory against artist Ryder Ripps and his collaborator Jeremy Cahen, sending the case back to the district court for a jury to decide on critical questions surrounding consumer confusion and trademark infringement. Imagine the stakes: a landmark trademark case that could redefine how digital art and collectibles are treated legally in the U.S.
We just heard back from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on the RR BAYC case. 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…— Garga.eth (Greg Solano) (@CryptoGarga) July 23, 2025
In a broader context, this ruling is a crucial moment for the whole NFT sector. As the court confirmed the trademarkability of NFTs under federal law, this outcome not only protects the interests of Yuga Labs but also sets a precedent for other NFT creators aiming to secure their work legally. Ripps had entered the fray with the “Ryder Ripps Bored Ape Yacht Club” collection, mimicking Yuga’s original cartoonish apes to create a provocative commentary on what he characterized as problematic cultural symbols embedded within the BAYC series.
The initial legal battle saw the district court siding with Yuga Labs, resulting in substantial damages and a timeframe for the defendants to transfer their contested assets. However, the Ninth Circuit’s decision has challenged the lower court’s conclusions, arguing that more exploration of consumer perceptions is necessary. This fresh ruling underscores the complexity of the case where both parties are peddling their NFTs in overlapping markets, raising questions about consumer confusion.
🔥 What Does This Mean? This back-and-forth in the courts emphasizes the intricacies of trademark law—especially as it intersects with the fast-moving world of NFTs. It highlights how consumer perceptions are critical in determining the outcomes of these legal disputes. But more than just a legal battle, it illustrates the cultural clash between artistic expression and commercial interests.
As the appeals court employed the multi-faceted “Sleekcraft” test to gauge the likelihood of consumer confusion, the findings were mixed. While Yuga Labs enjoyed recognition from consumers and a strong brand identity, the specifics of the Ripps’ modified branding played a significant role. The inclusion of “RR/” in their collection’s name notably differentiated it from the original BAYC offerings. Selling NFTs through their own platforms rather than Yuga’s established marketplaces further complicated matters.
Ryder Ripps’ artistic intentions were a double-edged sword. While he tried to invoke a critical narrative, he also stood accused of commercial exploitation, a contention that muddied the legal waters regarding his motivations. The court found that consumers of NFTs—typically affluent and tech-savvy—were quite capable of recognizing differences, especially given the stark price variance between BAYC NFTs, which fetch millions, and the RR/BAYC collection, priced at just a few hundred dollars.
But the marks aren’t so similar. While the defendants used Yuga’s marks in their NFTs, they sold most of them through their own website, which clearly referred to their collection as RR/BAYC—favors defendants. pic.twitter.com/TEpsndywoG— Michael Eshaghian, Esq. (@LAIPAttorney) July 24, 2025
In unraveling this legal tapestry, the ruling affirms that NFTs do, in fact, qualify as “goods” under the Lanham Act, critical for determining how these digital assets can be protected going forward. This pivotal distinction separates NFTs from mere bits of code or intangible content, highlighting their role as consumer commodities in digital marketplaces. The implications of this ruling extend far beyond the immediate parties; it sets a legal foundation for NFT ownership structure and the responsibilities that come with it.
🚀 Future Outlook: As this legal saga continues, both Yuga Labs and the defendants have indicated they are poised for further litigation. The stakes are high, particularly in a market that has experienced a steep downturn, with NFT trading volumes plummeting by 80% in recent months. The ramifications of this case will not only guide the future of trademarking digital assets but might also address broader industry standards and consumer education in the ever-complicated NFT arena.
🖼️ NFT trading falls fifth consecutive quarter down massive 80% to $823M as major platforms exit market and lending sector collapses 97% to $50M monthly volume.#NFT #NFTTrading https://t.co/fat3I4TA4a— Cryptonews.com (@cryptonews) July 8, 2025
With the legal complexities continuing to evolve alongside market dynamics, now is a pivotal moment for creators, investors, and collectors alike. The implications of this ruling are profound, and as we anticipate the battle in the district court, one thing is clear: the NFT landscape is not merely an art movement but an ever-evolving legal and economic frontier. Stay tuned as we continue to report on this story and its unfolding consequences in the NFT world.