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​ 

July 27, 2026
A new decree on penalties for violations related to the crypto asset market creates compliance risks for offshore crypto asset exchanges in Vietnam that do not hold, and practically cannot obtain, a Vietnamese license, and for Vietnamese users who continue to transact on those platforms. Decree No. 284/2026/ND-CP (Decree 284), issued by the government of Vietnam on July 16, 2026, formally establishes an administrative penalty framework for violations related to crypto assets and the crypto asset market. The decree takes effect on September 1, 2026, and will remain in force for the duration of the five-year pilot program under Resolution No. 05/2025/NQ-CP, which is scheduled to end in September 2030. Direct Penalties on Vietnamese Users The most immediate commercial risk to offshore platforms is that their Vietnamese users now face direct personal liability for using their exchanges. Vietnamese users who trade crypto assets outside of a Ministry of Finance-licensed service provider face fines of up to VND 50 million (approximately USD 1,900). Vietnamese users trading in crypto assets that are offered or issued to foreign users face higher penalties of up to VND 100 million (approximately USD 3,800). It is expected that Vietnamese users will be more willing to migrate away from offshore platforms now that there is a risk of real enforcement against them. Penalties on Unlicensed Service Providers Violations of providing crypto asset services or advertising crypto-related services without a license face fines of up to VND 200 million (approximately USD 7,700). Operating a crypto asset trading market without proper authorization falls within the same highest penalty bands. Organizations that violate issuance, provision, or disclosure rules may face fines of up to VND 200 million. Although the maximum administrative fine per violation is capped at VND 200 million for organizations and VND 100 million for individuals, these
Read More
July 21, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) published a notification establishing an expedited court-ordered takedown mechanism for online content in cases of “urgent necessity.” The notification, which was issued on July 17, 2026, under the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007), as amended, took effect the following day. It significantly expands the categories of content subject to rapid government-initiated removal. Content Categories Subject to Takedown The notification defines “urgent necessity” (section 20, paragraph 5, of the Computer Crime Act) as circumstances where any delay in suppressing computer data may impact national security, religion, the monarchy, good morals, social culture, or public order. In this regard, it establishes four broad categories of content: Computer Crime Act offenses. National security offenses. IP and other criminal offenses, where it is contrary to public order or good morals and a competent officer has requested its suppression. Content contrary to public order or good morals, a broad residual category encompassing 14 subcategories approved by the Computer Data Screening Committee. The fourth category is the most expansive. Its 14 subcategories include: Content defaming, mocking, satirizing, or devaluing the monarchy. Online gambling advertising or facilitation. Offering illegal firearms for sale. Offering baraku (hookah) products or e-cigarettes for sale. Offering cannabis inflorescences or processed cannabis products for sale. Advertising or soliciting prostitution. Content inciting violence, hatred, or social division. Unauthorized overseas employment advertising. Offering boiled kratom juice for sale. Online sale or advertising of alcoholic beverages. Content satirizing or degrading Buddhism. Money lending at interest rates exceeding legally prescribed limits. Advertising or disseminating information about surrogacy services. Forgery of documents, cards, or official documents. Enforcement Procedure In cases of urgent necessity, a competent official assigned by the MDES permanent secretary must file a petition with supporting evidence to the court with jurisdiction, requesting an order to
Read More
July 20, 2026
On July 16, 2026, Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) published a notification in the Government Gazette establishing detailed rules governing data subjects’ right of access under section 30 of the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA). The notification will take effect 60 days after publication—mid-September 2026—giving data controllers a limited window to bring their processes into compliance. Scope The notification covers requests to access or obtain copies of personal data and requests for disclosure of the source of data collected without consent. Data subjects may exercise their rights directly or through authorized representatives. Key Requirements Important requirements set by the notification include the following: Required request channels. Controllers must provide at least two request channels: direct submission at the business location and registered mail. Electronic channels are optional but, if offered, may also be used for fulfilling requests. Request contents. Requests must be in writing or in electronic form and include the data subject’s name, the preferred access method, details of the data requested, and the requester’s signature. Controllers may request additional identifying information as needed. Identity and authority verification. Controllers may require official identity documents for verification. Authorized representatives must provide authorization documents and identity documents for both the data subject and the representative. Alternative verification methods (e.g., digital authentication) are permitted if they do not unreasonably obstruct data subjects’ rights. Review and response timelines. Controllers must review requests within 15 days. If the request is incomplete, the controller must notify the requester and allow at least 15 days to correct deficiencies. If not corrected, the request may be treated as abandoned. Once verified, controllers must fulfill requests within 30 days, extendable by another 30 days for large-volume or complex requests with notice to the requester. Methods for providing access or copies. Controllers may fulfill
Read More
July 16, 2026
Thailand’s Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) published a series of draft guidance documents for public consultation on July 7, 2026. Issued under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA), the drafts address a range of compliance issues and offer insight into the regulator’s current enforcement priorities. This article examines two of those drafts: one on lawful bases for processing personal data, and another on marketing and direct marketing. Together, they reflect the Office of the PDPC’s evolving expectations on lawful-basis selection, accountability, and the use of personal data in marketing. Organizations operating in Thailand should assess the practical implications now, before the guidance is finalized. Lawful Bases: A Structured Selection Process The draft guidance on lawful bases introduces a systematic five-step process for selecting an appropriate lawful basis for each processing activity. Organizations are expected to: Identify the processing activity involved. Assess the appropriate lawful basis. Evaluate whether the data is necessary for the processing. Conduct a legitimate interest assessment (LIA) where applicable. Ensure transparency through privacy notices. The guidance provides practical explanations and examples for each lawful basis under section 24 of the PDPA—including archiving, research, statistics, vital interests, contractual necessity, legal obligation, public task, legitimate interests, and consent—as well as the bases applicable to sensitive personal data under section 26. The aim is to promote more consistent and accurate lawful-basis selection across public- and private-sector organizations. A recurring theme throughout the guidance is that organizations should select the lawful basis that most accurately reflects the actual purpose and circumstances of the processing activity. The guidance cautions against treating consent as a default or catch-all basis where another lawful basis is more appropriate. For processing based on legitimate interests, organizations should conduct and document an LIA. Processing involving sensitive personal data may require
Read More