NFTs, Blockchain & IP: What Companies Need to Know in 2026
How Distributed Ledger Technology Intersects with Current IP Doctrine
The conversation around NFTs and blockchain has matured significantly since the initial wave of experimentation and speculation. In 2026, the question for most companies is no longer whether blockchain technology is real or lasting, but how it fits into existing legal frameworks, particularly intellectual property law.
Despite common assumptions, NFTs and blockchain do not replace copyright, trademark, or contract law. Instead, they sit on top of those systems, often creating new layers of complexity and risk. Companies using or exploring blockchain-based assets need to understand how IP rights are created, transferred, licensed, and enforced in this evolving environment.
What an NFT Actually Represents
An NFT is not intellectual property. It is a token recorded on a blockchain that points to something, often a digital file or asset. What that token conveys depends entirely on the underlying legal agreement.
In most cases, purchasing an NFT does not transfer copyright, trademark rights, or exclusive ownership of the underlying content. Without a clear license or assignment, buyers typically receive only a limited right to display or use the asset in narrow ways.
This disconnect between technical ownership and legal ownership is one of the most common sources of disputes in the NFT space.
Copyright Law and Blockchain Assets
Copyright law continues to govern ownership of creative works, regardless of whether they are associated with an NFT. Minting an NFT tied to artwork, music, video, or software does not automatically convey copyright rights unless those rights are explicitly transferred.
For companies issuing NFTs, this raises several important questions:
Who owns the underlying copyright?
What rights, if any, are granted to NFT holders?
Are commercial uses allowed?
Can the asset be modified or sublicensed?
Without clear answers embedded in enforceable agreements, companies risk losing control over valuable IP or facing infringement claims from creators, collaborators, or third parties.
Trademark Use in NFTs and the Metaverse
Trademarks present a separate but equally complex set of issues. Brands entering NFT or metaverse environments often assume that existing trademark registrations automatically cover digital goods or virtual services. In reality, coverage depends on how the marks are registered and used.
Unauthorized use of trademarks in NFTs has already led to high-profile litigation. Courts have made it clear that traditional trademark principles, including likelihood of confusion and dilution, still apply in virtual environments.
Companies should evaluate whether their trademark portfolios adequately cover digital and virtual uses and whether enforcement strategies need to evolve to address blockchain-based infringement.
Smart Contracts Are Not a Substitute for Legal Contracts
Smart contracts can automate certain actions, such as royalty payments or transfers, but they do not replace traditional legal agreements. They lack flexibility, interpretive nuance, and legal remedies that courts rely on when disputes arise.
From an IP standpoint, smart contracts should be viewed as tools that implement business logic, not as standalone licenses or assignments. The enforceable rights and obligations still need to be clearly defined in written legal agreements that courts can interpret and enforce.
Licensing, Royalties, and Secondary Markets
One of the most attractive features of NFTs is the ability to embed royalty payments into secondary market sales. While technically appealing, these mechanisms raise unresolved legal questions.
Royalty enforcement often depends on platform compliance rather than legal obligation. If a marketplace does not honor embedded royalties, creators and brands may have limited recourse without strong contractual protections.
Companies relying on NFT-based royalties should plan for enforcement beyond code and consider how licensing terms apply across platforms and jurisdictions.
Risk Management and Compliance Considerations
Blockchain does not eliminate risk. It shifts it.
Companies must still address:
Ownership and chain of title issues
Infringement and misappropriation claims
Consumer protection and advertising compliance
Jurisdictional and regulatory uncertainty
Failure to align blockchain initiatives with existing IP doctrine often leads to disputes that are more complex and costly than traditional IP conflicts.
How Trestle Law Advises Clients on Blockchain and IP
At Trestle Law, we help companies approach blockchain and NFTs through a legal and strategic lens rather than a speculative one. Our work focuses on aligning IP ownership, licensing, enforcement, and risk management with emerging technologies.
For businesses using blockchain as part of their brand, content, or revenue strategy, legal clarity is essential to long-term success.
Conclusion
In 2026, blockchain and NFTs remain powerful tools, but they do not exist outside the law. Intellectual property doctrine continues to govern ownership, use, and enforcement, even in decentralized environments.
Companies that succeed in this space will be those that integrate blockchain innovation with disciplined IP strategy, clear contracts, and realistic expectations about risk and enforcement.
If your business is exploring NFTs, blockchain assets, or virtual goods, now is the time to ensure your IP framework is built to support those initiatives.
Contact Trestle Law to discuss how blockchain technology intersects with intellectual property law and how to protect your assets in a digital-first economy.
Attorney Advertising Notice and Disclaimer
This blog is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Viewing or relying on this content does not create an attorney-client relationship with Trestle Law APC or its attorneys. Every situation is different, and you should consult with a qualified attorney licensed in your jurisdiction before making legal decisions.
Trestle Law APC is a California law firm. Attorney Kristen Roberts is licensed to practice law in California. This communication may be considered attorney advertising under the California Rules of Professional Conduct. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.