MetaBirkin on trial: Hermès v Rothschild

ARTICLE SUMMARY

A pivotal IP trial has just begun in the US concerning IP rights in non-fungible tokens (NFTs) related to French fashion house Hermès’ iconic Birkin bag.

authors
Related Services
Related Industries

A pivotal IP trial has just begun in the US concerning IP rights in non-fungible tokens (NFTs) related to French fashion house Hermès’ iconic Birkin bag.

This week a US court is considering whether trade mark and other IP rights in Hermès’ Birkin tote bag have been infringed by artist Mason Rothschild’s “MetaBirkin” NFT collection.

Hermès is the French luxury fashion house behind the iconic Birkin bag. The Birkin bag has been considered as a beacon of prestige since launching in 1984, costing anywhere between £9,000 to £250,000.

Rothschild has minted NFTs over digital images in the style of Hermès’ Birkin bag and has named them “MetaBirkins”. Whilst the Birkin is made from a range of leathers, the MetaBirkins are covered in “faux fur” (see the full collection here). As unique digital assets, successful NFTs can trade for significant value. Some MetaBirkins, for example, have resold for over $20,000.

Many fashion brands are embracing NFTs as a new stream of revenue, and are seeking to protect their rights in relation to these unique and scarce digital assets. The present case brings one aspect of this to a head. Hermès argues that the MetaBirkin infringes its trade mark for Birkin and rides on the reputation of the Birkin in order to generate value.

Rothschild has sought to defend its MetaBirkin by drawing parallels with Warhol's iconic Campbell’s Soup Cans, whereby Warhol famously used images of Campbell’s soup cans in its work without authorisation. Whilst it is reported that on day 1 of the trial (yesterday) the court dismissed Rothschild’s expert witness in support of this argument, it will be interesting to see how the court determines judgment on this issue when it is handed down.

This case is also important as it will tell us, in the US at least, whether rights which protect physical assets will also protect assets in the virtual world.

As the trial is currently live in the US, we will provide an update on the outcome of this case in due course.

Related News

The Autumn Budget 2026: Why UK innovators must focus on competitive advantage, not just innovation

The Autumn Budget 2026: Why UK innovators must focus on competitive advantage, not just innovation

Should startups be focusing on investor attractiveness rather than investor readiness?

Should startups be focusing on investor attractiveness rather than investor readiness?

ValueLicensing v Microsoft, GTA 6, and the death of the physical videogame

ValueLicensing v Microsoft, GTA 6, and the death of the physical videogame

Trade mark disputes: choosing your next move

Trade mark disputes: choosing your next move

How can content creators turn social media success into a sustainable business?

How can content creators turn social media success into a sustainable business?

Can AI-generated content be protected by copyright?

Can AI-generated content be protected by copyright?

Protecting an iGaming brand internationally

Protecting an iGaming brand internationally

G 1/25: Description amendments at the EPO - business as usual?

G 1/25: Description amendments at the EPO - business as usual?

See All News