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​ 

June 11, 2026
Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) has released a revised draft Electronic Transactions Act (ETA) for public hearing from May 12, 2026, to June 15, 2026. This is not merely an amendment to certain provisions of the current ETA, but a comprehensive redrafting of the entire act. The revised draft ETA introduces several significant changes from the current framework, with practical implications for businesses operating in Thailand. Unified Coverage of Public and Private Sectors The current law segregates government transactions into a separate chapter with distinct rules. The draft ETA eliminates this division, defining “transaction” to encompass civil and commercial juristic acts as well as administrative procedures, administrative contracts, and other acts of government agencies. Enhanced E-Signature Definition The definition of “electronic signature” is broadened to expressly include biometric data and refocused on identifying the signatory and demonstrating intent regarding the content of the electronic data. Shift in Burden of Proof When a party challenges the reliability of electronic data created using a “trusted electronic method” or a method prescribed by the ETDA, the burden of proof and the cost of proving unreliability shifts to the challenger. Introduction of New Digital Method Concepts The draft ETA introduces several new digital method concepts that are not currently recognized under the existing ETA framework. These include: Electronic timestamping (e-timestamp) Electronic registered delivery Electronic company seals Electronic stamp duty compliance Electronic identity authentication and verification Electronic transferable records (electronic bills of lading, promissory notes, and similar negotiable instruments) Recognition of Automated Systems and Electronic Contracting The draft ETA expressly recognizes the legal validity and enforceability of contracts formed through automated systems, including contracts concluded entirely between automated systems or between an automated system and a person. A party may not deny the binding effect of such contracts solely because no human review
Read More
June 5, 2026
Vietnam’s AI regulatory framework has reached an important milestone. While the Law on Artificial Intelligence No. 134/2025/QH15 (AI Law) established the foundation for AI governance, many practical compliance requirements were left to implementing regulations. On April 30, 2026, the government issued Decree No. 142/2026/ND-CP (Decree 142), which took effect on May 1, 2026, and provides the first detailed guidance on the implementation of the AI Law. Although an official list of high-risk AI systems is still pending from the prime minister, Decree 142 provides valuable insight into how Vietnam’s risk-based AI regulatory framework will operate in practice. Risk Classification Framework The AI Law adopts a risk-based approach under which AI systems are classified as high-risk, medium-risk, or low-risk. Decree 142 builds on this framework by providing detailed guidance on how these classifications are determined. High-risk AI systems are determined based on factors such as (i) their potential impact on life, health, property, human rights, public interests, or national security; (ii) the sector in which they are deployed; and (iii) the scale of affected users or integration with critical infrastructure. The latest draft list of high-risk AI systems appears to follow these same principles. Medium-risk AI systems generally include systems that may mislead, influence, or manipulate users, particularly where users may not realize they are interacting with AI or AI-generated content. The focus is therefore on transparency and authenticity risks rather than broader societal or safety concerns. Low-risk AI systems are those that do not meet the criteria for either high-risk or medium-risk classification. Importantly, Decree 142 seeks to avoid over-classification. Certain systems may fall outside the high-risk or medium-risk regimes, including internal-use systems, office-support tools, technical editing applications, certain back-end processing systems, and AI systems used in artistic, gaming, cinematic, or other creative contexts. Providers must also review and
Read More
June 5, 2026
On May 11, 2026, Thailand’s Ministry of Social Development and Human Security released a draft Child Protection Act (“CPA”) for public review. The draft CPA would completely repeal and replace the current Child Protection Act B.E. 2546 (2003). This represents the most comprehensive overhaul of Thailand’s child protection framework in over two decades, reflecting the government’s stated objective of modernizing the law to address evolving social challenges—including those arising from digital technology—and to promote greater coordination among government agencies, local authorities, and civil society. The public review period closes on June 9, 2026. Key changes introduced by the draft CPA that could have significant implications for businesses, particularly online platform providers, media companies, and entities operating child-related services in Thailand, are set out below. Expanded Definition of “Child” Under the current CPA, a “child” is defined as a person under the age of 18, excluding those who have attained legal majority through marriage. The draft CPA removes the marriage exception entirely, broadening the scope of the law’s protections to include all individuals under 18 without exception. Replacement of “Abuse” with Broader Concept of “Violence” The current CPA uses the term “abuse/cruelty,” which covers acts causing harm to a child’s liberty, body, or mind; sexual offenses against children; and using children in harmful or immoral activities. The draft CPA replaces this with the broader concept of “violence,” which encompasses any act or omission causing harm to a child’s body, mind, or development; abandonment or neglect; improper exploitation; and sexual abuse. Notably, the new definition adds developmental harm as a recognized category of injury and captures all forms of misconduct regardless of the child’s consent. New Standalone Definition of Sexual Abuse, Including Online Conduct One of the most significant additions in the draft CPA is the introduction of a standalone definition
Read More
May 25, 2026
After several years of policy discussion and continued efforts led by the Ministry of Commerce (MOC) to relax the list of reserved businesses under the Foreign Business Act B.E. 2542 (1999) (FBA), the reform process has now reached a significant milestone. On May 12, 2026, the Thai cabinet approved in principle two draft subordinate legislative instruments aimed at delisting certain reserved business activities under the FBA and reducing licensing requirements for foreign business operators. These developments signal a renewed and concrete effort by the government to modernize Thailand’s business regulatory framework in order to attract foreign investment and boost Thailand’s competitiveness in the global market. Nine Businesses Set for FBA Delisting Below is a list of the nine businesses that are being targeted for delisting from the FBA’s restrictions. A draft ministerial regulation would delist the first eight reserved businesses, while a royal decree has been drafted to delist the ninth business: Telecommunications services (Type 1 license only, covering operators without their own telecommunications infrastructure), under the supervision of the Office of the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission. Treasury center services subject to the Foreign Exchange Control Act B.E. 2485 and under the supervision of the Bank of Thailand. Securities-collateralized lending, pursuant to the laws governing securities and exchange and derivatives regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Agency, dealer, advisory, or fund management services relating to derivatives where the underlying assets fall outside the scope of the Derivatives Act B.E. 2546 (2003) Intra-group shared services, including administrative, human resources, and IT functions Intra-group domestic debt guarantee services Leasing of partial space for installation of financial service machines and automatic vending machines for employee use Petroleum drilling services Trading of agricultural product derivatives through a futures exchange, with physical delivery or receipt of agricultural products at a futures exchange–designated
Read More