A U.S. appeals court is delving into the contentious case between luxury brand Hermes and artist Mason Rothschild, known for his “MetaBirkins” NFTs, which depict the iconic Birkin bags in vibrant, faux-fur aesthetics. During a recent hearing at the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Senior Circuit Judge Pierre Leval raised eyebrows over the initial trial’s jury instructions that led to a ruling against Rothschild.
Leval questioned whether upholding Hermes’ win might stifle artistic expression, particularly works that comment on well-known commercial brands—echoing the spirit of Andy Warhol’s transformative art. “Could this essentially preclude artists from creating pieces based on famous commercial icons?” he pondered, directing his inquiry at Hermes’ legal representative.
The controversy traces back to Hermes’ 2022 lawsuit, where the company labeled Rothschild a “digital speculator” and characterized the MetaBirkins as a mere cash grab that misled consumers into thinking the brand endorsed his work. Rothschild, whose real name is Sonny Estival, argued that his creations serve as a satirical critique of luxury culture and are protected under the First Amendment.
A jury sided with Hermes last year, imposing $133,000 in damages and granting a permanent sales ban on the MetaBirkins. However, the appeals court is now weighing the delicate balance between trademark protections and the right to free expression, especially following a Supreme Court decision favoring Jack Daniel’s in a similar dispute involving parody products.
As the judges wrestle with the implications of their decision, Circuit Judge Denny Chin probed whether Rothschild’s artistic approach was exploitative, drawing parallels to a recent ruling where the court sided with Vans against artists selling altered versions of its shoes.
This legal showdown not only questions the boundaries of trademark rights but also tests the resilience of artistic commentary in a commercialized world.
