Click to enter your existing username and password or create a new account. Click to purchase an individual user subscription with your credit card.
Not For Reprint
Page printed from:
“Not Merely Monkey Business”: The Bored Ape Case and NFT Branding in the Ninth Circuit
On July 23, 2025, the Ninth Circuit issued a pivotal decision regarding digital art, blockchain technology, and trademark law. The ruling not only clarifies that non-fungible tokens (NFTs) are protectable “goods” under federal trademark law, but also sets important standards for how courts should analyze consumer confusion, fair use, and First Amendment protections surrounding artistic expression in the rapidly evolving NFT marketplace.
9 minute read July 31, 2025 at 11:01 PM
By
Howard Shire and Di’Vennci K. Lucas
Image from court documents
On July 23, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Yuga Labs Inc. v. Ripps, No. 24-879, 2025 WL 2056060 (9th Cir. 2025),issued a pivotal decision regarding digital art, blockchain technology, and trademark law.
This premium content is locked for Cybersecurity Law & Strategy subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN Cybersecurity Law & Strategy
Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
The combination of increasing operating costs and uncertain government reimbursement funding continues to place health care providers under financial pressure, and in many cases, financial distress. Given the importance of Medicare/Medicaid funding of claims under provider agreements with the federal government, how courts interpret and apply the interplay between the Bankruptcy Code and Medicare Program Act determines the disposition of hundreds of millions of dollars of claims for reimbursement that support the health care system.
As AI becomes embedded in everyday business and legal operations, organizations are confronting a new expectation: simply disclosing AI use is no longer enough. A critical shift is taking place in the legal industry: transparency is no longer just about disclosure; it’s about comprehension.
Clients have pushed back on what they are willing to pay for since long before anyone heard of a large language model. AI is the latest chapter in a long story about legal fees. But it introduces a wrinkle that prior tools did not.
If you want sustainable revenue growth, you cannot treat rainmaking as a personality trait. You must treat it as a professional discipline — one that is intentionally developed through structured partner development based on a proven framework.
Patents are not static assets. They are legal instruments shaped over time by prosecution, continuation practice, post‑grant proceedings, and cross‑border filings. Treating them as fixed objects in a fixed landscape misstates the risk.