NFTs issued without trademark owners’ consent infringe their rights and constitute an act of unfair competition

29 November 2022 | Knowledge, News

NFTs may infringe trademark protection rights, as the Court of Rome has ruled in a case involving Juventus F.C., the legendary football club. This undoubtedly ground-breaking verdict will set the tone for rulings rendered in similar cases by other EU courts.

Consent of a club icon to use his image is not enough

The court dispute concerned the protection of the JUVE and JUVENTUS word marks and the word-figurative mark depicting a football shirt with black and white stripes – the traditional colours of Italy’s most successful football club.

The Blockeras platform offered for sale NFTs and other digital content related to trademarks belonging to Juventus, with the NFTs also containing the image of former Juventus footballer Chistian Vieri wearing the club shirt.

Interestingly, Blockeras obtained permission to use his image in 2024. However, the most interested party, Juventus, had not given its permission either for the use of the JUVENTUS logo or the image of the club shirt. The multiple Serie A champions considered the actions of the platform, in the form of Blockeras minting and marketing its NFT-based cards, as infringing their trademark rights and constituting an act of unfair competition.

As a result, the club filed for injunctive relief to stop Blockeras’ actions.

In the course of the proceedings, Juventus proved that a total of 529 cards depicting the footballer (not only wearing the Juventus shirt) had been sold via the platform, with Vieri’s sale proceeds totalling USD 35 796.87.

The Court of Rome: NFTs infringe Juventus’ rights

First, the Court of Rome considered the trademarks invoked by Juventus to be well known, since they concerned Italy’s most successful football club.

It further emphasised that Juventus was engaged in various merchandising activities (clothing, accessories, games), involving the use of the trademarks, carried out both online and via dedicated stores across Italy.

The Court found that the defendant company had used Juventus’ trademarks in merchandising and had done so without just cause.

Interestingly, Blockeras’ arguments that the registration of the marks did not cover NFT-related goods and services were not upheld. The Court acknowledged that the football club had actively participated in online games based on blockchain technologies, cryptocurrencies and/or NFTs.

When it comes to the authorised use of Vieri’s image, the Court held that Blockeras had been also required to obtain Juventus’ consent to use the club’s trademarks for commercial purposes.

In conclusion, the Court of Rome granted the injunctive relief, finding that Blockeras’ actions constituted an act of unfair competition.

How best to protect your brand against similar infringements

The Juventus case has proved that NFT- and Metaverse-related infringements have become a real issue. It may seem that the first cases have concerned only large, global players, but like all infringements on the Internet, such cases will soon become more widespread.

Nowadays it’s becoming clear that a failure to adequately update trademark applications and adjust the list of goods and services to their use in the virtual world may lead to a serious limitation of trademark protection in the real world.

Not long ago, the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) issued its own guidelines on virtual goods, NFTs and the Metaverse. We wrote about this in the “Well-known brands prepare to enter the Metaverse” article (https://www.kochanski.pl/en/well-known-brands-prepare-to-enter-the-metaverse/)

Find out how to effectively secure your brand for entry into the Metaverse and NFT world by contacting me directly

Tomasz Szambelan


See also:

Well-known brands prepare to enter the Metaverse

Latest Knowledge

Payment Services Regulation (PSR) – between consumer protection and due diligence

The draft Payment Services Regulation (PSR) is one of the most significant elements of the reform of the EU legal framework for payment services. Its principal aim is to enhance the security of cashless transactions and to reduce the scale of financial fraud, in particular that arising from the growth of digital channels. At the same time, the new rules are intended to introduce a liability model that will not result in risk being transferred entirely to financial institutions, whilst retaining an important role for independent due diligence on the part of the user.

Energy deregulation – key changes for businesses and energy consumers

The President has now signed the Energy Deregulation Act (UDER92). The new provisions cover both the relationships between energy undertakings and consumers, and matters relating to investment, district heating, and the administrative obligations of energy market participants. The Act introduces changes in the areas of billing, communication with consumers, grid connection, and the operations of undertakings in the energy and district heating sectors. We set out the key points to note.

Banking sector overview | Banking today and tomorrow | July 2026

Under the draft legislation, banks will be required to offer existing borrowers a switch from WIBOR-based to POLSTR-based interest rates, a mechanism intended to speed up the voluntary transition of financial instruments to the new benchmark. The banking sector has responded positively to the proposal, according to Tadeusz Białek, President of the Polish Bank Association.

“Withdraw from contract here” – what next for the new button in online shops, on trading platforms and in mobile apps?

From 19 June, national legislation was to require businesses in the European Union entering into distance contracts with consumers via an online interface to provide consumers with the option to withdraw from the contract via a dedicated function/button. However, due to Poland’s delay in transposing Directive 2023/2673, which requires the use of such a button, this obligation has been postponed in our country. We look at what remote contract withdrawal entails and which transactions the new feature will apply to.

Municipal master plans – new deadline, same old challenges

On 11 June 2026, the President signed into law a bill extending the deadline for municipalities to adopt their master plans (plany ogólne). The key deadline for adopting master plans was moved from 30 June to 31 August 2026. We examine the reasons behind this change and consider what the absence of a master plan might mean for potential investors and their future projects.

Record fines and the upcoming 21st sanctions package – what should businesses expect?

The past year has brought a series of enforcement actions that clearly signal a tightening approach by the Polish customs and revenue authorities towards breaches of the sanctions regime. Importantly, businesses should already be preparing for further changes, as the European Union has announced its 21st sanctions package and updated the list of designated persons and entities. We examine the key developments and offer guidance on how to minimise the risk of non-compliance.

A sea change in the rules governing board members’ liability for a company’s tax arrears

The bill amending the General Tax Code (No. UC138) fundamentally overhauls the rules governing the tax liability of third parties for capital companies’ tax arrears.  It comes in response to recent CJEU judgments, the Ombudsman’s February statement and the post-audit report of the Supreme Chamber of Audit (NIK) of December 2025. We examine what’s changing, who will be affected by the new rules and what steps are worth taking right now.

Partner in name, but only if male: the linguistic trap in Polish corporate law

One of the structures available under Polish law is the ‘spółka partnerska’ (professional partnership), modelled on the Anglo-Saxon Limited Liability Partnership. As defined in the Polish Commercial Companies Code, this is a vehicle for individuals practising liberal professions, such as doctors, architects and accountants. And yet, the provisions governing professional partnerships make no mention of their applicability to women. We therefore examine whether there is no room for female partners, feminine-gendered forms, or simply linguistic empathy.

Can you sue over words aimed at an entire community?

A damaging public statement does not necessarily refer to a specific individual. Sometimes, the author attributes negative characteristics to a whole group of people, portrays them as a threat or uses language that could be seen as demeaning. Statements of this kind frequently concern LGBTQ+ people. This raises the question: can a member of the targeted community bring a lawsuit seeking compensation or an apology, even if they were not named directly? We decided to look into this.

Contact us:

Tomasz Szambelan

Tomasz Szambelan

Advocate / Counsel / Intellectual and Industrial Property Law

+48 608 593 042

t.szambelan@kochanski.pl