Yuga Labs has settled its lawsuit against Ryder Ripps and Jeremy Cahen over the RR/BAYC NFT collection that reused Bored Ape Yacht Club imagery. The deal ends a two-year dispute and removes a looming jury-trial catalyst after an appeals court revived the case.

Key Takeaways

• Yuga Labs reached a settlement with Ryder Ripps and Jeremy Cahen that ends the two-year RR/BAYC dispute and avoids a trial.
• Proposed court orders tied to the deal would permanently restrict the defendants from using Yuga’s trademarks and Bored Ape imagery.
• A prior district-court win for Yuga worth nearly $9 million was later overturned on appeal, with the appellate court directing that a jury decide whether buyers were actually misled.
• The parties did not disclose settlement terms, leaving financial consideration and any admissions of liability unknown.

Yuga Labs Settles RR/BAYC Case, Sidestepping a Jury Trial

Yuga Labs has settled its California federal lawsuit against artist Ryder Ripps and Jeremy Cahen over the RR/BAYC NFT collection, a project that reused Bored Ape Yacht Club imagery. The agreement closes a two-year legal fight and, critically for market participants, removes the near-term binary catalyst of a public jury trial tied to the BAYC brand.

The underlying dispute was not just about copying. It centered on whether RR/BAYC functioned as protected satire and commentary or crossed into trademark infringement by confusing buyers about source, sponsorship, or affiliation. Yuga alleged the pair sold lookalike tokens, confused buyers, and earned millions by trading on BAYC’s brand equity. Ripps and Cahen argued the work was a satirical response to BAYC.

BAYC’s status as one of the most recognizable NFT brands from the market’s peak made the case a recurring sentiment overhang. With the settlement, that overhang shifts from courtroom uncertainty to paperwork and enforcement.

The Proposed Permanent Bar on BAYC Trademarks and Imagery

The settlement is paired with proposed court orders that would permanently bar Ripps and Cahen from using Yuga’s trademarks and imagery. That framing matters. It suggests the resolution is structured around future conduct restrictions, even as the parties have not disclosed whether any money changed hands or whether either side conceded liability.

For traders, the practical implication is narrower than a headline “win” or “loss.” A permanent injunction-style restriction can reduce the probability of future copycat distribution using the same marks and visuals, but it does not deliver a fresh public finding on consumer confusion. The exact scope is also not fully visible from the limited details available, including which specific trademarks are covered, how “imagery” is defined, and what enforcement mechanics look like once entered.