1. Yuga Labs vs. Ryder Ripps and Jeremy Cahen: NFTs and trademark rights
Yuga Labs, the creator of the famous Bored Ape Yacht Club (BAYC) NFTs, sued two artists, Ryder Ripps and Jeremy Cahen, in 2024. The lawsuit claimed that their “RR/BAYC” NFTs were too similar to BAYC and were meant to confuse buyers and profit off Yuga’s brand.
NFTs are digital collectibles sold online. While they aren’t physical objects, Yuga argued that they are still commercial products that can carry a brand, just like sneakers or soda. The first court ruling in early 2025 sided with Yuga, awarding over $8 million and stopping the artists from selling their NFTs.
On July 23, 2025, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the summary judgment. The court said NFTs can indeed be protected by trademark law, but it wasn’t clear whether the RR/BAYC NFTs were likely to confuse consumers. Since the artists openly criticized BAYC and presented their work as satire, a jury would need to decide if buyers were actually misled. The court also found that the website names the artists used weren’t automatically confusing.
Why it matters: This case is a first in defining trademark rights for digital products like NFTs. It shows that while brands can protect their digital creations, courts must carefully balance trademark protection with artistic freedom.
2. Iceland Foods vs Iceland: Can you trademark a country name?1.
Iceland Foods, a British supermarket chain, had registered trademarks using the word “Iceland” for their products. In 2016, Promote Iceland, a marketing group from Iceland’s government, challenged these trademarks, saying that the word “Iceland” is descriptive and shouldn’t be owned by a company.
In its July 16, 2025 judgment, the GC upheld the EUIPO Grand Board of Appeal’s decision that the marks were indeed descriptive under Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No. 2017/1001. The court clarified that a geographical term can be refused registration if the relevant public associates it with the category of goods or services at issue. The decision emphasized that factors such as the nature of the goods, reputation of the geographical location, public familiarity, and customary business practices must all be considered.
The GC concluded that, in this instance, the word “Iceland” had a descriptive character for the goods and services covered, reinforcing that consumer perception is central in assessing trademarks with geographical elements.
Why it matters: These rulings reinforce the principle that descriptive geographical terms cannot be monopolized as trademarks if consumers naturally associate them with a category of goods. For global brands, it’s a reminder to choose trademark names carefully, especially when the name also refers to a country or region.
3. Dewberry Group vs. Dewberry Engineers: How to calculate profits in trademark cases
Dewberry Engineers, a design and engineering firm, sued Dewberry Group, a real estate company, in 2023 for using the “Dewberry” name. The question was how much money Dewberry Group had to pay if they were found guilty of trademark infringement.
The lower courts originally counted profits from Dewberry Group and its related companies, awarding nearly $43 million to Dewberry Engineers.
In 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned this decision. Only the profits of the company actually named in the lawsuit (Dewberry Group) could be considered. Money made by other companies, even if related, couldn’t be counted. The case was sent back to recalculate damages.
Why it matters: This decision clarifies that companies can’t be penalized for money earned by other, separate companies, even if they share a name. It sets limits on how far trademark claims can reach in complex business structures.
Honorable mention: Jack Daniel’s vs. VIP Products (the battle continues)
Since 2014, Jack Daniel’s has been in a long legal battle with VIP Products over a dog toy called “Bad Spaniels,” which looks like a Jack Daniel’s whiskey bottle. The case is about whether the toy’s parody is allowed or if it hurts the Jack Daniel’s brand. In 2023, the Supreme Court said parody isn’t a free pass when a product uses a famous brand as its own label, sending the case back to lower courts.
In early 2025, a court decided the toy didn’t confuse customers, but it damaged Jack Daniel’s reputation because of its toilet-humor theme, and the court limited its sale. The case is still ongoing in 2026, with more appeals likely.
Beyond the legal lessons on parody and brand protection, this saga serves as a cautionary tale for smaller brands. Taking on a bigger company in court can end up draining resources for years, which is why it’s much cheaper to have a lawyer review your trademarks before products hit the market. Getting legal advice early can help avoid disputes and save time and money that might otherwise be spent in lengthy litigation.
