You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

January 31, 2022

Immersing Intellectual Property Rights in the Metaverse

Subscribe to Updates

What is the Metaverse?

For now and the foreseeable future, the metaverse can be explained as an immersive online experience that utilizes virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) technology and devices—theoretically, a world of unlimited imagination. Although many believe the metaverse to be the next-generation of the Internet, it is not a new concept. In fact, it has been under serious discussion and in development for at least 10 years, building on a concept that has been well-established in science fiction for decades.

Of late, the metaverse has gained a higher profile because major tech companies, such as Meta (formerly Facebook) and Microsoft, have announced their plans to develop new metaverse platforms  for both entertainment and working purposes. This has stimulated enthusiasm from other industry players to develop ecosystems compatible with the major players’ metaverse visions, in a manner that is increasingly accessible for general users. However, we are yet to witness the creation of actual products and services, which will be necessary for general users to truly understand this technology.

The industries most likely to experience an immediate impact from the metaverse are entertainment, gaming, education, and finance. In addition, cryptocurrencies are likely to be used heavily in the metaverse ecosystem, providing a boost to that already rapidly expanding industry.

Amid all these changes, it will be crucial for anyone involved in the metaverse to understand the intellectual property rights (IPRs) associated with the digital components that comprise it. This article will discuss the anticipated challenges and opportunities of IPR owners with respect to the upcoming world of the metaverse.

Opportunities for IPR Owners

In the short term, there will likely be new opportunities for brand owners in the technology industry to develop AR and VR devices, enhance their user-friendliness, and make them cheaper and more comfortable for longer use. There will also be more opportunities for AR technology-related devices for use with a larger variety of items, such as eyewear and other objects that make AR and VR more accessible to general users.

As a result, there will also be new opportunities for IPRs in this field, such as new patents for device- and software-related technologies. With new technologies, we will see the creation of new brands or product lines, and thus, new trademarks which may be used in both the physical and virtual worlds.

To fulfill their proper function in the immersive experience of the metaverse, these trademarks will likely be nontraditional (such as moving image marks or sound marks), which will lead to an increase in the volume of protection afforded to such nontraditional trademarks. Moreover, it will be very important for IP owners to consider the proper classification of these new trademarks since they will be used with new types of goods and services. For example, some existing trademark classifications that may apply to metaverse goods and services include class 9 (downloadable virtual goods), class 35 (retail store services featuring virtual goods), and class 41 (online entertainment services).

As new online platforms are created, there will be opportunities for new patentable technologies and copyright protection for software-related inventions and games, including patents for blockchain-related technologies and cryptocurrencies.

Managing and Mitigating Risks of Infringement

As identifying and locating infringers in the metaverse could be more challenging, more advanced investigation methods will be necessary. This risk applies to all categories of IP assets in the metaverse. For example, the sale of copyrighted NFT artwork in the metaverse may consist of both authentic and fake NFT artwork, and there may be risks of trademark infringement in the buying and selling of items in the virtual marketplace. Patent infringement issues might also arise as the process of developing technologies could infringe patents related to the metaverse, and potential trade secret misappropriation issues could occur in virtual meeting rooms hosting discussions of confidential information.

These challenges and risks can be guarded against by proactive trademark registration for new types of products and services—especially nontraditional trademarks. Using a trademark consistently while conducting business in the metaverse can create acquired distinctiveness, which can make a nontraditional trademark registrable. Furthermore, regular monitoring and searching to collect evidence and identify patterns of online infringement can help strengthen the development of new IP enforcement strategies.

Proactive Enforcement Strategies for the Metaverse

Brand owners can stay in control of their trademarks or copyrights by engaging in more advanced investigation methods, adapted to identifying risks of infringement in the metaverse. In addition to regularly monitoring and searching for potential infringement, virtual investigators (involving people, automated systems, and artificial intelligence) will possibly need to be deployed to help IP owners keep track of how their intellectual assets are used in the metaverse.

Essentially, the metaverse is made up of online services, and major service providers may be located outside the country where infringement occurs. A host server being located outside the IPR holder’s country can pose challenges to online enforcement, so laws in each country may have to be individually analyzed to assess local notice-and-takedown procedures and website-blocking mechanisms. This is complicated, however, by differences in the development of IP legislation and practices in different jurisdictions. In some countries, IP enforcement tends to take place through administrative procedures, whereas in countries with more mature IP practices, court injunctions tend to be more common and accessible. Regardless, the collection of infringing evidence is a very important preliminary step, and it may be most effective to focus on comprehensive trademark and patent prosecutions in countries with large numbers of users.

Future of IPRs in the Metaverse

IP appears to have a promising future in the metaverse, which will usher in new types of nontraditional trademarks, new goods and services encompassing a range of trademark classifications, and new patentable VR- and AR-related technology. The shift to virtual reality may also create additional issues related to maintaining the confidentiality of trade secrets. As the establishment of appropriate measures to maintain secrecy is one of the fundamental legal requirements for protecting trade secrets, the virtual landscape will require new methods to maintain this secrecy beyond the orthodox methods of signing nondisclosure agreements or limiting access with biometric technology.

The metaverse will present challenges for IP law and IPR holders, but there will also be important opportunities for IP to evolve and become compatible with the metaverse ecosystem. Grasping these new opportunities to adapt to the metaverse will be both valuable and necessary to sustain the continued adaptation of IP law to novel technological advancements.

Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Practices

Intellectual Property

Locations

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 11, 2026
On July 27, 2026, the State Bank of Vietnam (SBV) released a draft decree proposing amendments to Decree No. 52/2024/ND-CP dated May 15, 2024, on non-cash payments (Decree 52). The draft decree would amend 17 of Decree 52’s 38 articles, with several key changes directly affecting providers of intermediary payment service (IPS). The key proposed changes affecting IPS providers are outlined below. Streamlining IPS Licensing Procedures A central objective of the draft decree is to simplify regulatory procedures for IPS providers. Notably, it would significantly reduce IPS licensing documentation requirements by removing the need to submit enterprise registration certificates, investment registration certificates, and documents evidencing the qualifications of the legal representative and general director. Instead, the SBV would retrieve this information directly from national business registration and other specialized databases, requesting additional documents only where the relevant information cannot be verified electronically or is incomplete. The draft decree also removes the current limit of two rounds for dossier supplementation and shortens processing timelines for several IPS licensing procedures such as issuance, amendment, and reissuance of IPS licenses. The processing time for new IPS license applications would be thereby reduced from 90 to 60 working days. In addition, several continuing IPS business conditions would be removed. For example, IPS providers would no longer be required to maintain certain representations relating to corporate restructuring or the legality of contributed capital. Likewise, the IPS project plan (đề án) would become a one-time application document rather than an ongoing licensing condition. If retained in the final decree, this change could provide IPS providers with significantly greater flexibility to implement post-licensing technology upgrades, system integrations, and corporate restructuring transactions without needing to revisit the originally approved project plan. The draft decree also removes the requirement for the SBV to consult the Ministry of Public
Read More
August 10, 2026
Thailand has finalized its social media KYC (“know your customer”) rules under Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers (No. 2), which was published in the Government Gazette on May 5, 2026, and will take effect on November 1, 2026. While an early draft of the notification proposed requiring social media platforms to arrange identification of every user account, the final notification is significantly more targeted, focusing on paid online advertising and advertiser identity verification. Though the regulatory initiative primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes, it also has important consequences for intellectual property enforcement, because the verified platform records that will be generated under the new requirements can help IP rights holders to identify anonymous online infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The notification requires social media service providers to verify the identity of advertisers before their paid advertisements are published and disseminated in Thailand through social media, regardless of whether the advertising fees come from the advertisers or third parties. Verification of an advertiser is valid for one year, after which verification would have to be performed again before the platform could publish additional paid advertisements from the advertiser. Permitted verification methods are specified under the notification. A platform may verify an advertiser by checking identity evidence and confirming the connection between the advertiser and that identity evidence, with the notification giving facial comparison against certain government-issued identity documents as an example. Alternatively, platforms may verify advertisers through a digital identity verification and authentication system with an identity-proofing assurance level not lower than the level prescribed by Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Commission. The notification further requires platforms to retain only the advertiser’s information necessary to identify the advertiser, beginning from the start of the advertising activity and for
Read More
August 10, 2026
On July 31, 2026, Thailand’s Big Data Institute (BDI) launched a public consultation on the principles of a proposed new data-sharing law, with comments accepted until August 31, 2026. If enacted, the law would establish Thailand’s first comprehensive framework for government and private-sector data sharing, creating a systematic, secure, and transparent regime to support analytics, policymaking, research, and innovation. Central Data-Sharing Platform The draft law establishes a central system for data sharing, managed by the BDI. Government agencies would be required to connect to the BDI’s Data Integration and Intelligence Platform (also referred to as D2), in accordance with the BDI’s rules and procedures. Five Dimensions of Data Sharing The draft law covers five key types of data sharing between government (G), businesses (B), and consumers (C): G2B: Private organizations may request government data specifically for research and development purposes. The BDI will assess the applicant’s data governance, security, and privacy capabilities whether such measures meet prescribed standards before forwarding the request to the relevant government agency within 90 days. Any dispute may be escalated to a newly established Data-Sharing Promotion Committee for final determination. G2G: Government agencies may request data from other agencies through the central system. The data-holding agency must respond within 90 days, taking legality, necessity, proportionality, public interest, and personal data protection into account. Disputes may be referred to the Data-Sharing Promotion Committee for adjudication. B2G: In emergency situations involving public safety, economic security, or disaster response, the Minister of Digital Economy and Society may require private entities to provide data through the central data-sharing system. Government agencies must specify the data requested, demonstrate its necessity and expected benefits, and request only data reasonably available to the data holder. Requests for personal data must be limited to the minimum amount necessary. B2C: Royal decrees may
Read More
August 10, 2026
Thailand’s Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) recently released draft guidance on records of processing activities (ROPA) for personal data controllers and processors under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA). The draft guidance, which was presented to the public on July 7, 2026, addresses both controller records of collection, use, and disclosure of personal data and processor records of processing activities carried out on behalf of controllers. If implemented, the guidance will significantly expand organizational expectations for ROPA preparation, maintenance, and use across all sectors. Key Takeaways The draft guidance contains several important implications for organizations subject to the PDPA: ROPA reframed as a core accountability tool. The guidance elevates ROPA from an administrative record to a central accountability mechanism, connecting controller duties with recordkeeping obligations. ROPA as a source for privacy notices and governance documents. ROPA should serve as the primary source for privacy notices and align with consent management, retention schedules, DPIAs, incident response plans, and vendor contracts. Expanded scope across all activities. ROPA must cover all processing activities across the organization—including security, finance, HR, and external contractors—with correct controller or processor classification for each. Ongoing maintenance and auditability. ROPA must be updated for any change to systems, purposes, or processors, reviewed at least annually, and maintained with version control and a designated owner. Enhanced vendor, processor, and cross-border transfer requirements. Organizations must document all processors, external recipients, and cross-border transfers, specifying purposes, access scope, and destination countries. Linkage with risk assessment, DPIAs, and LIAs. ROPA should assign risk levels to each activity and identify when data protection impact assessments (DPIAs) or legitimate interests assessments (LIAs) are required, functioning as a risk-management tool. ROPA and data breach readiness. Incomplete ROPA can delay breach response and notification. Organizations should map data flows, vendors,
Read More