NFT and metaverse disputes are no longer theoretical. From trademark infringement on OpenSea to copyright violations in generative drops, blockchain domain squatting in .eth or .crypto, and cross-border smart contract claims, Dreyfus combines IP litigation, blockchain analytics and international coordination to defend your digital assets quickly and effectively.
Reviewed by Nathalie Dreyfus, European Trademark and Patent Attorney, Founder of Dreyfus & Associés. Last updated: June 2026.
Trademark infringement cases. Unauthorised NFTs reproducing or imitating your trademark on marketplaces, in metaverse environments or in blockchain domain extensions. Remedies include marketplace takedowns, civil action for infringement, criminal complaints for counterfeit and compensatory damages.
Copyright disputes on tokenised works. Disputes over moral rights, economic rights, fair use limitations, derivative works, AI-generated outputs minted as NFTs, and unauthorised licensing of works on chain. We act for authors, rights holders, licensees and collectors.
Blockchain domain disputes. Conflicts over .eth, .dcl.eth, .crypto, .nft, .wallet, .coin and .bitcoin extensions. Outside the UDRP framework, we combine direct negotiation, marketplace delisting, on-chain seizure when possible, and civil action.
Contract and platform disputes. Disputes related to NFT contracts, smart contract bugs, marketplace terms, royalty enforcement, land agreements in The Sandbox or Decentraland, and crypto-asset transactions.
On 8 February 2023, a New York federal jury found that MetaBirkins NFTs infringed Hermès trademark rights and trade dress, awarding 133,000 US dollars and applying the Rogers test to artistic NFTs.
Source: Hermès Int’l v. Rothschild, S.D.N.Y., 2023.
On 20 July 2022, the Court of Rome granted Juventus FC a preliminary injunction against Blockeras for minting NFTs bearing the club’s trademarks without authorisation, ordering takedown and destruction of the tokens.
Source: Tribunale di Roma, 20 July 2022.
Nike sued StockX in the Southern District of New York over Vault NFTs linked to physical sneakers and the use of Nike trademarks. The case raised questions of trademark use, counterfeiting and consumer confusion in Web 3.0 commerce. The parties reached a confidential settlement in 2025, before any binding ruling on the merits of NFT trademark liability.
Source: Nike Inc. v. StockX LLC, 22-cv-983, S.D.N.Y.
EUIPO Boards of Appeal have begun to apply Article 59(1)(b) EUTMR to refuse virtual goods trademark applications filed in bad faith when the applicant reproduces well-known third-party brands.
Source: EUIPO Boards of Appeal practice, 2023-2024.
We capture metadata, smart contract addresses, transaction hashes, mint dates and wallet holders. We secure timestamped evidence through chain explorers and certified bailiff reports, ready for marketplace takedown and litigation.
We send tailored notices to infringers and marketplaces (OpenSea, Rarible, Magic Eden, Blur, Crypto.com NFT, Mintable, Solanart). Where appropriate, we negotiate buy-back of infringing tokens, transfer of squatted domains and amicable settlements.
When negotiation fails, we run civil and criminal proceedings before French and EU courts, alternative dispute resolution and arbitration. Through our international network, we coordinate parallel actions in the US, UK, India, China and Singapore.
Trademark mirrored in ENS or Decentraland names, often listed for resale on OpenSea or marketplaces.
Unstoppable Domains and similar zones used for phishing, fake stores or unauthorised brand pages, with no UDRP recourse.
Copycat drops on OpenSea or Magic Eden reproducing your brand assets, with secondary sales draining your royalties.
NFT projects exploiting copyrighted works (art, music, photography) without licence from the rights holders.
Disputes over land titles, store leases and IP exploitation in The Sandbox, Decentraland or OVR.
Royalty enforcement, terms breach, marketplace deplatforming, smart contract bugs and oracle failures.
When the holder is identifiable and the price is reasonable, we negotiate a transfer through a trusted escrow or marketplace, secured by an off-chain settlement agreement.
We trace wallet activity, identify the holder when possible through KYC channels or chain analytics, and engage in negotiation, mediation or civil action depending on jurisdiction.
We trigger delisting on secondary marketplaces, push platforms to flag the asset, and, where the technical model allows, block renewal to recover the name once it expires.
Act fast and preserve evidence. Capture on-chain data, contract addresses and screenshots, then engage counsel. Early action allows marketplace takedowns, freezes secondary sales and preserves your right to claim damages before infringement spreads.
Register trademarks in virtual goods classes, document the chain of title before mint, draft clear mint terms and royalty mechanics, and put in place continuous marketplace monitoring. Prevention is cheaper than litigation.
Settlements resolve disputes faster, often within weeks, with controlled costs and confidentiality. They allow targeted remedies (token destruction, royalty redirection, domain transfer) that courts cannot always order, and preserve commercial relationships when relevant.
We combine automated watch on marketplaces (OpenSea, Rarible, Magic Eden, Blur, LooksRare, Crypto.com NFT), blockchain domain registries, virtual lands and social platforms, with human review by IP attorneys to filter false positives and trigger swift action.
Yes. We assess merits, evidence, jurisdiction, enforceability against pseudonymous actors, expected damages and reputational impact, and deliver a written opinion that supports your decision to pursue, settle or monitor.
Yes. We integrate compliance by design: MiCA mapping, AML and KYC, DSA duties for marketplaces, AI Act for generative tools, and clear IP licences. Most disputes we see come from gaps in these foundations.
