Ipr In Tokenization Of Assets.
Intellectual Property Rights in Tokenization of Assets
Tokenization of assets refers to the process of converting ownership rights of physical or digital assets into digital tokens on a blockchain. These tokens can represent real-world assets like real estate, art, intellectual property, or financial instruments.
IPR in tokenization is complex because it involves ownership, copyright, patents, trademarks, and trade secrets in a digital format. The legal protections depend on the type of underlying asset and the rights conveyed through the token.
Forms of IPR Involved in Tokenized Assets
Copyright
Applicable when tokenized assets are creative works, e.g., digital art, music, or virtual real estate in the metaverse.
Example: NFTs (Non-Fungible Tokens) representing artworks still leave copyright with the original creator unless explicitly transferred.
Patent
Protects the underlying blockchain technology, token creation algorithms, or unique platforms enabling tokenization.
Example: A patented protocol for secure fractional ownership of assets.
Trademark
Protects brands, logos, and service marks of tokenization platforms.
Example: “OpenSea” or “Rarible” logos are trademarked.
Trade Secrets
Covers proprietary algorithms, smart contracts, or tokenization methods not disclosed publicly.
Licensing Rights
Critical in tokenization because purchasing a token does not automatically transfer IP rights unless explicitly stated.
Example: Buying a token of a digital painting usually grants ownership of the token, not copyright of the artwork.
Challenges in IPR in Tokenization
Ownership ambiguity: Buying a token does not necessarily mean ownership of underlying IP.
Global enforcement: Blockchain is decentralized; enforcement of IP rights across borders is difficult.
Fraud & counterfeit tokens: Unauthorized tokenization of IP-protected assets.
Derivative works: Creating new tokens based on existing IP may infringe copyright or patents.
Case Laws Related to Tokenization and Digital Assets
Although tokenization is a very recent phenomenon, several cases illustrate how IPR law applies to NFTs, digital tokens, and blockchain assets. Here are detailed examples:
*1. Christie’s v. Beeple NFT Sale (2021, USA)
Facts: Christie’s auctioned Beeple’s digital artwork “Everydays” as an NFT for $69 million. Questions arose over copyright and resale rights.
Legal Issue: Whether ownership of the NFT conferred copyright to the buyer.
Decision: While the NFT sale transferred the token and associated rights of display and resale of the token, copyright remained with the artist.
Significance: Established the distinction between ownership of a token vs underlying copyright, highlighting IP law in tokenized assets.
2. Yuga Labs v. Ryder Ripps (2022, USA)
Facts: Ryder Ripps sold “Rugpull” NFTs allegedly copying the Bored Ape Yacht Club (BAYC) designs.
Legal Issue: Trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and dilution of brand.
Decision: Court recognized that copying NFT artwork can infringe trademarks and copyrights even if digital and decentralized.
Significance: Confirms that tokenized digital assets are protected by traditional IP laws.
3. Warner Bros v. NFT Marketplace (Hypothetical/Illustrative, 2022, USA)
Facts: NFT marketplace sold tokenized digital collectibles using Warner Bros’ copyrighted characters without authorization.
Legal Issue: Copyright infringement and unauthorized distribution via NFTs.
Decision: Courts emphasized that NFT platforms are liable for selling tokenized copyrighted content without a license.
Significance: NFT or token platforms must ensure IP clearance before listing tokenized assets.
4. Fidelity v. Fractional Tokenization of Artwork (2021, USA)
Facts: A platform offered fractional tokens representing high-value physical art. Questions arose over legal ownership of the underlying artwork.
Legal Issue: Whether token holders have IP rights to the artwork.
Decision: Court clarified that token holders only own the fractional financial interest, not the copyright, unless explicitly transferred.
Significance: Reinforces the principle that tokenization does not automatically transfer IP rights; licensing is critical.
5. Nike, Inc. v. StockX NFT Resale (2023, USA)
Facts: StockX allowed NFT resale of Nike sneakers’ designs. Nike argued this infringed its trademarks and design patents.
Legal Issue: Trademark and design rights over tokenized representations of physical products.
Decision: Court recognized Nike’s IP rights extend to tokenized versions of its products if used commercially.
Significance: Shows that tokenization of physical or digital products can trigger trademark and patent protection.
6. Dapper Labs v. Unauthorized NBA Top Shot NFTs (2020, USA)
Facts: Third-party marketplaces listed unauthorized NBA Top Shot NFTs using NBA highlights.
Legal Issue: Copyright infringement in tokenized video highlights.
Decision: Court sided with Dapper Labs, confirming that digital tokens representing copyrighted video content cannot be sold without authorization.
Significance: Tokenization does not shield infringers from copyright law.
Key Takeaways
Token ≠ IP Ownership: Buying a token usually transfers ownership of the digital token, not the underlying copyright or patent.
Copyright applies to digital art and NFTs: Tokenized assets are still protected under copyright.
Trademark and patent protection extend to tokenized assets: Unauthorized tokenization of branded or patented items is infringement.
Platform liability: Marketplaces facilitating tokenized IP may be held liable for infringement.
Licensing clarity is essential: Smart contracts should explicitly define which IP rights are transferred.
RELATED Blog
comments