THE US “METABIRKINS” CASE IN THE LIGHT OF EU IP AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54934/ijlcw.v2i3.61Keywords:
crypto art, trademark infringement, digital content supply contract, legal defect, consumer protectionAbstract
In early 2023 a United States (US) court ruled that a crypto art collection named “Metabirkins”, which depicts the famous “Birkin” bag of Hermès in several colorful motives, infringes the trademark rights of the fashion house on its signature accessory. This ruling conferred Hermès the power to ban the commercial exploitation of Metabirkins by their designer, through a permanent injunction order. By the time that order was issued, however, several Metabirkins had already been sold to third parties, allegedly for considerable prices. Taking this case as a point of reference, the paper at hand aspires to examine crypto art transactions from the perspective of EU intellectual property (IP) and consumer protection law. First, it clarifies the conditions under which the purchasers and licensees of Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) fall under the consumer concept. Subsequently, it examines whether the critical facts would constitute a trademark infringement in the EU legal order, and what would have been the impact of such an infringement on the rightful use of the controversial NFTs by their right-holders. Finally, the paper presents the rights granted by Directive 2019/770 to consumers in case they are supplied with digital content bearing legal defects, and comments upon their applicability and enforcement in the blockchain ecosystem. In this discourse, the paper takes a stand on the following contemporary issues: a) What is an “NFT artwork” from the perspective of EU IP law?, b) Is non-fungibility equal to originality?, c) Are NFT artworks subject to IP exhaustion?
References
M. Alber, & A. Brandi-Dohrn, „Auswirkungen der Digitale-Inhalte-Richtlinie auf die Erschöpfung des urheberrechtlichen Verbreitungsrechts bei unkörperlichen digitalen Inhalten“, IT-Rechtsberater, vol. 12, no. 11, pp. 261-267.
M. Bohaczewski, “Conflicts between trademark rights and freedom of expression under EU trademark law: Reality or illusion?”, International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law (IIC), vol 51, published online, pp. 856-877.
M. Bohaczewski, “Special Protection of Trademarks with a Reputation under European Union Law”, (Kluwer Law International, 2020).
E. Bonadio, & L. McDonagh, “Artificial intelligence as producer and consumer of copyright works: evaluating the consequences of algorithmic creativity”, Intellectual Property Quarterly (I.P.Q.), 2020, no. 2, pp. 112-137.
E. Bonadio, & R. Mohnot, “NFTs and copyright: some burning issues”, European Intellectual Property Review (E.I.P.R.), 2023, vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 150-153.
J. M. Carvalho, “Sale of Goods and Supply of Digital Content and Digital Services – Overview of Directives 2019/770 and 2019/771”, Journal of European Consumer and Market Law (EuCML), vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 194-201.
J. Hugendubel, “Technische und rechtliche Grundlagen von Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs)”, IPRB, 2022, pp.135-139.
J. Miosga, „Vernichtungs- und Rückrufansprüche, §18“, in A. Kur, V. v. Bomhard, & F. Albrecht (Eds), Kommentar zum MarkenG – UMV, 4. Auflage 2023, C.H.Beck.
R. Moskat, & R. Schaar, „Kryptokunst - eine steuerliche Einordnung“, Betriebsberater, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 28-31.
J. Moringiello, & C. Odinet, “The property law of tokens”, Florida Law Review, vol. 74, no. 4, pp. 607-670.
D. Rapp, & C. Bongers, „Kryptokunst in der Steuerbilanz“, Deutsches Steuerrecht (DStR), 2021, pp. 2178-2185.
M. Ryan, “Intellectual property considerations and challenges in the metaverse”, European Intellectual Property Review (E.I.P.R.), 2023, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 80-84.
L. Kuschel, & D. Rostam, „Urheberrechtliche Aspekte der Richtlinie 2019/770: Eine Analyse der Bereiche: EULA, Second Hand Market, Overblocking und Nutzung nach Vertragsbeendigung“, Computer und Recht, vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 393-400. https://doi.org/10.9785/cr-2020-360613
J. Lai, “Cryptoassets: goods, services, digital content, or a sui generis category?”, International Company and Commercial Law Review (I.C.C.L.R.), 2023, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 287-300.
C. - H. Massa, & A. Strowel, “The scope of the proposed IP enforcement directive: torn between the desire to harmonise remedies and the need to combat piracy”, European Intellectual Property Review (EIPR), 2004, vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 244-253.
K. Middelhoff, & A. Zarm, “NFTs - marken-, urheber- und persönlichkeitsrechtliche Facetten des Phänomens”, IPRB, 2022, pp. 270-274.
M. Molins, Blockchain technology, foundations, protocols and aesthetic considerations, Technoetic Arts, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 349-364.
M. Murray, “NFT ownership and copyrights”, Indiana Law Review, vol. 56, pp. 367-391.
L. Oprysk, & K. Sein, “Limitations in end-user licensing agreements: is there a lack of conformity under the new Digital Content Directive?”, International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law (IIC), 2020, vol. 51, no. 5, pp. 594-623.
E. Perot, “NFTs: copyright foe or friend?”, European Intellectual Property Review (E.I.P.R.), 2021, vol. 43, no. 12, pp. 793-799.
E. Rosati, “Online copyright exhaustion in a post-Allposters world”, Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, vol. 10, no. 9, pp. 673-681.
A. Sattler, „Neues EU-Vertragsrecht für digitale Güter: Die Richtlinie (EU) 2019/770 als Herausforderung für das Schuld‑, Urheber‑ und Datenschutzrecht“, Computer und Recht, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 145-154. https://doi.org/10.9785/cr-2020-360305
M. Senftleben, “Robustness check: Evaluating and strengthening artistic use defences in EU trademark law”, International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law (IIC), vol. 53, no 4, pp. 567 – 603.
T. E. Synodinou, “The concept of authorship in international copyright law”, in: T. E. Synodinou (ed.), “Pluralism or Universalism in International Copyright Law”, Kluwer Law International (2019), pp. 563-583.
E. Tzoulia, The blockchain ecosystem in the light of intellectual property law, JIPITEC, 2022, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 290-301.
T. Uhlenhut, & J. Bernhardt, „Markenrecht im Metaverse“, Wettbewerb in Recht und Praxis, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 139-146.
S. Weidert, Verbraucher oder Unternehmer? Umfassende Einzelfallbetrachtung erforderlich, GRUR-Prax, vol. 10, no. 21, p. 510.
M. Witzel, Der neue Mangelbegriff für digitale Produkte, IT-Rechtsberater, vol. 12, no. 12, pp. 289-292.
N. Zdraveva, “Digital content contracts and consumer protection: status quo and ways further”, EU and Comparative Law Issues and Challenges Series (ECLIC), 2021, no. 5, pp. 398-421.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Eleni Tzoulia
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
