Developments in Yuga Labs, inc. vs Ripps. The case is still pending; however, the defendant (Ripps) has chosen his legal team to proceed forward with.
There you have it. On Twitter, Yuga Labs has remained relativley silent about the issue, while Ripps has posted some more thought points against Yuga Labs artwork and defenses of their artwork. Click the links to see more.
For the now, I believe we will have to wait until the trial starts to get the rest of the juice.
There was an interesting read on Decrypt.co by Sander Lutz on the subject of why Yuga Labs will pursue trademark infrigement over copyright infrigement or defamation.
The difference between the two? Copyrights concern the product or idea, while trademarks concern the business or entity.
So why would Yuga choose trademark over copyright infringement, when the "copycat" in question is in the product? Well, to be real, with every sale of a Bored Ape NFT, the copyright is being sold. Once the purchaser receives his Ape NFT, he/she can do whatever he wants with it, as it's his/her property. And this has led to the creation, independent of Yuga, of various merchandises and advertising featuring the purchased Apes. Also, as Ryder has contended, because the underlying code of the Ripps NFTs are independent from the ones that Yuga has produced, they are different products, no matter how similar the picture.
Why trademark infrigement? Yuga would like to contend, as the legal documents stated, that Ripps is infriging and impeding upon their business interests in order to further his business interests. In other words, Ripps is deliberately riding the BAYC logo to fill his own bag.
This is both true and (to my understanding) untrue. It is true in the fact that if BAYC did not exist, then RR/BAYC would not exist. Without the widespread influence and marketing of BAYC, RR/BAYC would most likely not catch any traction.
It is untrue (to my understanding), in the way that Ripps did not have the intention (to my understanding) on swindling or confusing consumers, and even made efforts to distinguish his creations from Yuga Labs' creations. It is untrue in the fact that the BAYC connection was not to imitate or present a false connection, but, rather, to distinguish a protest or non connection to Yuga Lab's work.
Did Ryder Ripps interfere with potential economic gains? I believe he did, and I believe that was his point. To what extent is this intention legal will be for the jury to deliberate.
As far as why not defamation, Lutz said this in his article:
"Because in a defamation suit, both sides have access to discovery. Ripps would be granted the legal right to request any number of Yuga’s private correspondences to try and prove his claims that Bored Apes are secretly racist. Even if Ripps is just trolling—and it certainly wouldn’t be the first time—such an opportunity likely would amount to a months-long field day for the artist and his followers, and a never-ending PR nightmare for Yuga."
/\ /\ /\ Let me know what you think of that.
I am dedicated to providing unbiased coverage of this story; especially given that unbiased info on this story is hard to come by. However, I'd like to point out some inaccuracies, on Ripp's behalf. This information comes from the UniCourt initial case summary of Yuga Labs, inc. vs Ripps et al.
The plaintiff also alleged, “Ripps, Cahen, and Does 1-5’s website (https://rrbayc.com) claims that minting exact replicas of Yuga Labs’ Bored Ape NFTs and reselling them at a profit is ‘satire’ In reality, this is part of a longstanding harassment campaign against Yuga Labs and an attempt to devalue the price of authentic Bored Ape NFTs. At the same time, Ripps, Cahen, and Does 1-5 stand to make millions of dollars by tricking consumers into buying these fake Bored Ape NFTs. Indeed, on information and belief, Ripps has made well over $5 million through this scheme of pumping and dumping fake NFTs.”
There's absolutely no consumer trickery going on here; consumers were obligated to sign a disclaimer stating that they were aware of the difference between BAYC and RR/BAYC. Millions of dollars, probably, but as entities with competent knowledge of web3.0 have already asserted over a year ago, there is no such thing as a "fake NFT." Whether it's meant that these are authentic NFTs that are "fake BAYC", or that they are "fake NFTs," both are innaccurate. In my humble, non legal opinion, the only leg Yuga has to stand on is that Ripps used the term RR/BAYC which includes "BAYC."
Disclaimer- Now that the story is covered in a non-bias fashion, I may let my humble opinion slip through. Don't worry, it's based on fact.
Here's the fact, and I challenge you to argue with me. Every single purchaser of RR/BAYC apes was in protest of BAYC Apes; you'll understand that if you follow the conversations on Twitter. Every single purchaser. not only signed a disclaimer in advance, but also, had been at least following Ripps protest and exposure* of BAYC "racism." I would put my BTC up for bets that not one person chose to buy a RR/BAYC ape over a BAYC ape (especially given that they were "misled"). The fact that the RR/BAYC apes were on OpenSea has been brought up as evidence of trademark infridgement; perhaps this could get tricky. I wouldn't doubt there's blind purchasers on OpenSea buying any crap they see is trending. But in that case, isn't it free market competition? Besides the free market competetion, Ripps essentially gave away protest NFTS to his followers for a donation. Rocking a RR/BAYC (even though we can't tell the difference) means that you don't side with Yuga.
News flash. Trying to silence protestors is TOTALLY NAZI. Damn.
So make this fake business make sense.
Follow me yall.
Thank you to Sander Lutz on Decrypt for his informative article that I referenced.
