NFTs and Intellectual Property: What the USPTO and Copyright Office's Joint Study Means for Your Brand

A joint federal study just confirmed what we've been telling clients for two years: owning an NFT does not mean owning the intellectual property behind it.

For brands moving into Web3, that distinction is not academic. It's the difference between a licensing structure that holds up and one that creates liability the moment a dispute arises.

What the study actually addressed

The USPTO and the US Copyright Office conducted a joint study examining NFTs and intellectual property — responding to a wave of unresolved questions following the explosive growth of NFT markets. The core issue: when someone buys an NFT, what exactly do they own?

The answer, even within the agencies' own analysis, is more layered than most marketplaces communicate to buyers. NFTs are created through a process called minting, in which a token is published to a blockchain — typically through an NFT marketplace platform. What the buyer receives is legal title to that token and, in most cases, a license to use the associated digital asset. What they do not automatically receive is ownership of the underlying creative work, the brand, or the right to reproduce, modify, or commercialize it beyond what the license specifically permits.

This distinction has already generated real disputes — not hypothetical ones. Litigation has emerged over unauthorized minting of branded content, trademark use within NFT collections, and conflicts over NFT-linked domain names that function simultaneously as identifiers and cryptocurrency wallet addresses.

Why this creates a two-sided risk for brands

If your brand is launching its own NFT collection, the licensing terms attached to that NFT need to explicitly define what buyers actually receive: a collectible, a usage license, commercial rights, or something else entirely. Ambiguous licensing language is one of the most common sources of post-launch disputes — buyers assume broader rights than they were actually granted, and brands face reputational and legal exposure when expectations don't match the legal reality.

If your concern runs the other direction — someone using your brand without authorization within an NFT collection — your existing trademark registration may not automatically extend to that use. Trademark protection is class-specific. A registration filed years ago under traditional goods and services categories may not cover blockchain-based tokens, virtual goods, or NFT marketplaces unless it was specifically structured to do so. The 2026 Nice Classification update consolidated NFTs and blockchain-based tokens under Class 9 — but brands whose registrations predate this consolidation often have coverage gaps they are not aware of until enforcement becomes necessary.

The pattern we see most often

Brands entering Web3 frequently treat NFT launches as a marketing initiative rather than an IP event. The creative and marketing teams move quickly — a collection gets designed, minted, and launched — while the legal structure underneath is assumed to be covered by existing brand protections that were never actually built for this use case.

By the time a dispute surfaces — a buyer claiming rights the brand never intended to grant, or a third party using the brand within an unauthorized NFT collection — the cost of resolving it is significantly higher than the cost of structuring it correctly from the start.

What proper NFT and Web3 IP structuring actually requires

A trademark audit confirming whether current registrations cover blockchain-based tokens, virtual goods, and digital marketplaces under the current classification framework. Clear, explicit licensing language defining exactly what rights NFT buyers receive — collectible ownership, usage rights, commercial rights, or resale rights. Active monitoring of NFT marketplaces and blockchain platforms for unauthorized use of brand assets. And a coordinated strategy connecting trademark protection, copyright ownership of the underlying creative work, and the smart contract terms governing the token itself.

What we recommend before any Web3 or NFT launch

This is one of the most common gaps we find when brands move into Web3 without updating their IP strategy first — and one of the most preventable. At Name & Fame, we help brands structure NFT licensing terms, audit trademark coverage against current classification standards, and build enforcement strategies for the Web3 environment before launch, not after a dispute forces the issue.