14 lines
1.9 KiB
JSON
14 lines
1.9 KiB
JSON
{
|
||
"HubID": "2155",
|
||
"Date": "2/15/2023",
|
||
"HubTags": [
|
||
"External Platform Posts"
|
||
],
|
||
"Contacts": "",
|
||
"Companies": "Hermes",
|
||
"File": "",
|
||
"Image": "",
|
||
"Summary": "Outcome of the Hermès v Metabirkins #trial",
|
||
"Notes": "<p>Outcome of the Hermès v Metabirkins #trial</p><p>This is an important case to watch for how to characterize a companies #intellectualproperty in #web3</p><p>I referenced the #courtcase here in a previous post:</p><p>https://lnkd.in/g9rtCZRc</p><p>Hermès, a #luxury #consumerbrands won this round and Metabirkins says it will appeal.</p><p>This is a really good decision for web3 IP and hopefully will stand on appeal. This means that brands enjoy the same protections of their IP in web3 as they currently do everywhere else.</p><p>Quoting from Vogue Business: \"This decision is thus an endorsement of the value of digital goods and NFTs, suggesting that even digital representations of luxury goods have meaningful value even if they don’t perform the original function of, say, carrying one’s belongings or clothing one’s physical body. In this case, this communicates that a luxury handbag’s purpose is just as much about cultural status, whether that’s in the physical world or metaverse spaces.\"</p><p>Also quoting from Vogue Business, which I found interesting: \"The trial was ultimately evaluated under the so-called “Rogers test”, which refers to a 1989 case between Hollywood star Ginger Rogers and producer Alberto Grimaldi. The test essentially says that a trademark protection stands if the trademark has no artistic relevance to the underlying work, or if the work explicitly misleads as to the source or content of the work. Hermès and Rothschild disagreed on whether there was consumer confusion; a survey commissioned by Hermès found that 18.7 per cent of the NFT audience were confused, while 3.6 per cent of luxury handbag consumers were confused.\"</p>"
|
||
}
|