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 4, 2026
Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) could soon see some important changes, as a draft bill to amend the PDPA has been introduced in the House of Representatives. The draft amendment is currently in the public consultation phase, with comments accepted from July 16 to August 15, 2026. If enacted in its current form, the amendment would make three key changes: expanding the government exemption to cover anticorruption operations, introducing a statutory definition of “government agency,” and restructuring the lawful bases for personal data processing to align with international standards. Background The PDPA has encountered several enforcement challenges since its implementation, including three core problems identified by the bill’s sponsors: (1) the current exemptions for government agencies do not cover anticorruption and misconduct-prevention operations; (2) the PDPA lacks a clear statutory definition of “government agency,” causing legal uncertainty as to which entities are covered; and (3) the existing framework for lawful bases of data processing does not align with international standards—particularly the multiple-lawful-bases system in the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)—making compliance inflexible for both government and private sector entities. Expanded Government Exemption The current PDPA exempts government agencies performing duties related to national security (including fiscal security), public safety, anti-money laundering, forensic science, and cybersecurity. The proposed amendment adds “prevention and suppression of corruption and misconduct” to this list of exempted functions. This would allow anticorruption bodies—most notably the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), which is identified as a directly affected party—to collect, use, and disclose personal data without being subject to PDPA requirements when carrying out their duties. New Statutory Definition of “Government Agency” Notably, while the current PDPA use the term “government agency” in several provisions, the term is not comprehensively defined, creating potential uncertainty as to its scope. The draft bill therefore
Read More
August 3, 2026
On July 23, 2026, the Bank of Thailand (BOT) released for public comment its draft Notification on Digital Channel Security, which would significantly expand the scope and stringency of Thailand’s existing mobile banking security framework. If finalized in its current form, the draft notification would extend mandatory security requirements to credit card providers and credit providers, cover internet banking in addition to mobile applications, phase out SMS one-time passwords (OTPs) for transaction authentication, and introduce biometric verification requirements for high-value transactions. The public comment period is open through August 24, 2026. Background The BOT’s existing Mobile Banking Security Notification, issued in 2024, sets minimum security standards for financial institutions, specialized financial institutions (SFIs), and e-money providers, significantly reducing “money-draining app” fraud. However, fraudsters have since shifted to nonbank providers and internet banking channels, prompting the BOT to propose broader security requirements. Expanded Scope of Regulated Entities and Channels The existing Mobile Banking Security Notification covers only financial institutions, SFIs, and e-money providers offering mobile banking services. The draft expands coverage in two key areas: entities and channels. On the entity side, it adds credit card providers and credit providers that offer fund transfers to third parties at other financial service providers or that provide cash withdrawal services to individual retail customers. On the channel side, it broadens coverage to include internet banking in addition to mobile banking. Strengthened Customer Authentication The draft introduces enhanced authentication requirements in three areas: Service enrollment and device changes. Providers must implement rigorous identity verification, notify customers of enrollment results through out-of-band communication channels, and adopt risk-mitigation measures such as cooling-off periods and temporary transaction limits. Transaction-level authentication. Providers must use two-factor authentication for fund transfers, cardless ATM withdrawals, and transaction limit increases. Secure authentication factors. Key requirements include the following: “What-you-know” factors must
Read More
July 28, 2026
Data protection officers (DPOs) have become a fixture of Thailand’s privacy compliance landscape since the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) took full effect and the Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) began requiring certain organizations to appoint them. On July 7, 2026, the Office of the PDPC presented draft guidance on DPOs as part of a public consultation on a series of draft personal data protection manuals and recommendations. The draft offers the clearest indication yet of how the regulator expects the DPO role to work in practice, addressing recurring implementation issues under the PDPA—including when an organization must appoint a DPO, how the DPO should operate independently, how to manage conflicts of interest, and how data subjects and regulators should be able to contact the DPO. Because it remains in draft, organizations have an opportunity to weigh the practical implications now before the guidance is finalized. When a DPO Must Be Appointed The draft guidance clarifies the triggers for mandatory DPO appointment, including: Regular and systematic monitoring of personal data or systems on a large scale, such as tracking, analyzing, or predicting behavior, attitudes, or individual characteristics. Core activities involving large-scale processing of sensitive personal data, such as health data, biometric data, or criminal records. Certain foreign-organization representative arrangements. Public-sector coverage under relevant notifications identifying government entities that must appoint a DPO. Processing involving 100,000 or more data subjects may be considered large-scale. The guidance also contemplates voluntary DPO appointment for organizations that wish to raise their privacy governance standards, and such organizations should still comply with the standards applicable to DPOs under the law. Independence and Reporting Lines The draft guidance identifies lack of DPO independence as a core risk because an ineffective or constrained DPO may be unable to raise deficiencies
Read More
July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one
Read More