<\/p>\n
A question of big money, not art…<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
That’s how we might sum up Judge Jed Rakoff’s<\/strong> latest decision in the case between Herm\u00e8s<\/strong> and crypto-artist Mason Rotchschild.<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n The Manhattan federal judge has once again ruled in favor of the French luxury house, which had been opposing Mason Rotchschild’s sale of 100 non-fungible tokens (NFTs) dubbed “MetaBirkin<\/strong>” since last year. These were associated with images of the saddler’s famous Birkin bag, covered by the artist in colorful fur.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n NFTs, it should be remembered, are unique tokens used on blockchain<\/strong> networks to, in this case, authenticate digital works of art.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n However, the luxury house had little taste for Mason Rotchschild’s talent and sued him in New York.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n The artist, for his part, pleaded for the right to freedom of expression<\/strong> and his right as an artist. He bitterly criticized the attitude of Herm\u00e8s, “a billion-dollar company” that says it “cares about art and artists,” but “thinks it has the right to choose what art is and what an artist is.”<\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n He had also presented his work as an illustration of the absurdity of the luxury world,<\/strong> and compared his approach to that of Andy Wharol<\/strong>, who had delivered the “pop” portrait of soups to the Campbell brand with the success we know. And without the brand complaining. The value of a can of soup, however, is not the same as that of a Birkin bag…<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Mason Rotchschild’s comments did not move Herm\u00e8s, which saw in him only a “digital speculator”<\/strong> and in his NFTs a “get-rich-quick scheme” giving the false impression that the fashion house approved of them, and not respecting the rights of its “Birkin” brand…<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Back in February, a Manhattan jury found in favor of Herm\u00e8s, ordering the artist to pay $133,000 in damages<\/strong> (around 122,125 euros<\/strong>).<\/p>\n <\/p>\n But the saddler renewed his complaint a month later, after noting that Mason Rothschild continued “to promote sales of MetaBirkins NFTs<\/strong> via various social networks”, with, as a result, “royalties for sales of this type.” The saddler sought a halt to these sales, and the return of remaining tokens and revenue from pre-suit sales.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Mason Rothschild countered that Herm\u00e8s’ request went “far beyond what is appropriate in a case like this, which is about free speech.”<\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n But the federal judge disagreed. In a new decision, Jed Rakoff ruled that the designer could no longer promote and sell his Metabirkins NFTs.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n “The defendant’s strategy was to mislead consumers<\/strong> into believing, with his variations on Herm\u00e8s trademarks, that Herm\u00e8s approved his MetaBirkin NFTs,”<\/em> emphasized Jed Rakoff in his judgment.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The jurisprudence of the Herm\u00e8s\/Rotchschild case will be a landmark in bringing order to the Wild West of NFTs. And reassuring luxury brands on the subject…<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\nFreedom of expression<\/h2>\n
133,000 dollars in damages<\/h2>\n
Misleading consumers<\/h2>\n