US district judge Jed Rakoff said the permanent injunction was justified because Rothschild’s continued marketing of the NFTs would likely confuse consumers and irreparably harm the company.

Rakoff denied Rothschild’s requests to throw out the verdict or hold a new trial.

Why is China obsessed with luxury brands? Here are a few factors …

“Defendant’s entire scheme here was to defraud consumers into believing, by his use of variations on Hermès’ trademarks, that Hermès was endorsing his lucrative MetaBirkins NFTs,” Rakoff said. “Nothing in the First Amendment insulates him from liability for such a scheme.”

Representatives for Hermès and Rothschild did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the decision.

Hermès called Rothschild a “digital speculator” and the NFTs a “get rich quick” scheme that infringed its Birkin trademark and created the false impression that the fashion house endorsed the tokens.

Rothschild, whose legal name is Sonny Estival, countered that the works were an absurdist statement on luxury goods and immune from the lawsuit based on protections in the First Amendment of the US Constitution for art that uses trademarks in an artistically relevant way without explicitly misleading consumers.

Block by block: 4 ways the art world needs blockchain

Despite a jury ruling against his right to sell NFT art based on Hermès’ famous Birkin bags, Rothschild has continued to promote them on his MetaBirkins website, according to the brand.

Hermès said in a filing in March that Rothschild continued to market his NFTs after the jury’s verdict. It asked the court to force him to stop and to turn over his remaining tokens and post-trial profits.

Rothschild told the court that Hermès’ request went “far beyond what is appropriate in a case, like this one, that involves artistic expression”.

Rakoff largely granted Hermès’ request, but decided not to order Rothschild to transfer the tokens out of an “abundance of caution” for First Amendment concerns.