The encyclopedia · Legal & Compliance · Legal decision · 2021–2023
An artist sold $1.1m of fake fur Birkins as NFTs — Hermès sued and won every count
Dec 2021: 100 furry MetaBirkin NFTs, first one resold at $42k. Feb 2023 jury: infringement on all counts, $133k; permanent ban followed in June.
Hermès · MetaBirkins · 2023-02
What happened
In December 2021, artist Mason Rothschild — born Sonny Estival — released MetaBirkins: 100 NFTs linked to digital images of furry, Birkin-shaped handbags, described as 'metaverse ready' and framed as a tribute and a commentary on fur-free fashion. The first one sold on December 3, 2021 for $42,000, from an initial mint price of $450; total transaction volume reached about $1.1 million, with Rothschild collecting a 7.5 per cent royalty on resales. Hermès, which had no NFT Birkin of its own, watched its most protected product name become someone else's digital product line.
On January 14, 2022, Hermès sued in Manhattan federal court: trademark infringement, dilution and cybersquatting. Rothschild answered with the First Amendment — the NFTs were art, he argued, as protected as Warhol's Campbell's soup cans. Judge Jed Rakoff let the case go to a jury, which on February 8, 2023, after an eight-day trial, returned a unanimous verdict for Hermès on every count, finding Rothschild had intentionally designed the project to confuse the public. Damages: $133,000, against the $231,055.76 Hermès had sought. 'This is far from over,' Rothschild said.
It got worse. On June 23, 2023 the court denied Rothschild's bid for a new trial, granted Hermès a permanent injunction, ordered the metabirkins.com domain transferred and profits disgorged. In December it refused to pause collection of the judgment or accept the NFTs as collateral — their value was 'not ascertainable.' Oral argument on his appeal followed at the Second Circuit in October 2024. The case stood as the first landmark ruling that a luxury trademark reaches goods that exist only as images.
Why it happened
- The NFTs traded entirely on the Birkin name — the project's value was Hermès' trademark, and the 7.5 per cent resale royalty made it a business, not a one-off artwork.
- The First Amendment defence asked the jury to treat 100 collectibles sold at mint prices as artistic commentary; the jury found intent to confuse instead.
- Every post-trial move failed — new trial denied, injunction granted, the NFTs rejected as collateral because their value could not be ascertained.
The lesson
A trademark built over decades in leather reaches the metaverse too — MetaBirkins' $1.1m of sales were ruled, count by count, a business built on Hermès' name.
Aftermath
Rothschild was permanently barred from selling MetaBirkins NFTs, surrendered the domain and owed the disgorged profits; his appeal was argued before the Second Circuit in October 2024. Fashion houses read the verdict as permission to police the metaverse, and the MetaBirkins case became the reference point for luxury versus digital goods.
Sources
- Hermès v. Rothschild: A Timeline of a Case Over Trademarks, NFTs — The Fashion Law (2022–2024)
- Hermès wins case against Metabirkins over digital NFTs, Rothschild to appeal — Vogue (Feb 2023)
spotted an error? The club wants to know.
More like this
Chanel sued the reseller that guaranteed its bags — won on all four counts
Essilor kept online rivals from selling its lenses for 11 years — the bill was €81M
Urban Outfitters sold 'Navajo panties' — the Nation trademarked the name in 1943
Somewhere, someone solved the problem this company failed at. 2nd Opinion →

Comments · 0
Sign in to join the comments.