For several years now, two terms in particular have been enjoying considerable popularity among crypto enthusiasts: the first is NFT (Non-fungible token), and the second is Metaverse. In this post, I'd like to focus on the latter, in this case, through the lens of the EUIPO's (European Union Intellectual Property Office) position/guide on trademark placement in the Metaverse.
First, we should begin by attempting to explain what the Metaverse is. In simple terms, it's a fusion of physical, digital, and augmented reality. More figuratively, it's an "enhanced Internet" where we can experience a virtual world with a specific digital personality tailored to the user, leveraging an independent, new economy and allowing the user to experience things in previously unheard-of ways. Ultimately, this could lead to, for example, attending school through the Metaverse, not to mention attending lectures and conferences.
Let us move on to the position of the EUIPO; due to the great interest in registering projects related to the topic of Metaverse and NFT, it decided to conduct training that indicates the position of the EUIPO on the above-mentioned topics and directs how specific goods should be practically approached when registering trademarks.
The EUIPO describes the Metaverse as follows: "an immersive and constant virtual 3D world where people may interact through an avatar"; i.e. loosely translated: "an immersive and constant virtual 3D world where people can interact through an avatar." According to the EUIPO, goods such as fashion, gaming, entertainment, and education can benefit greatly from the Metaverse; therefore, it is desirable to develop a generally applicable position.
The most commonly used classes from the Nice Classification (the classification of goods and services for trademark applications in the European Union) that reference the Metaverse are Classes 9, 35, and 41, i.e., those that refer to goods listed by the EUIPO, including fashion, gaming, entertainment, and education. But what's the problem? The Metaverse raises many questions about various aspects of trademarks, such as:
- The issue of territoriality, where in the case of the Metaverse, the territorial scope isn't obvious or easily discernible. Of course, it's possible to determine which audience a given product is intended to reach, but in the case of a virtual world, where there are no common indicators (such as product price), this may seem more difficult to address;
- The issue of licensing, when a rights holder allows their intellectual property to be used in the Metaverse, doesn't necessarily mean they're allowing it to be used in every possible way (the scope of the license granted is important). The problem becomes even more complex when we realize that the Metaverse will significantly expand the number of potential uses for someone else's intellectual property, and predicting these possibilities will be a significant challenge.
There are more problems, but I think the ones mentioned above provide a good idea of the seriousness and scale of the undertaking. As the EUIPO points out, it is required to specify the appropriate content for virtual goods and the type of digital item authenticated by an NFT (which is found in the Metaverse). Examples include downloadable virtual goods, specifically digital art (under Class 9 of the Nice Classification), or downloadable music authenticated by an NFT.
The EUIPO's practical approach to the metaverse and trademarks, as reflected in the "guide" published by the EUIPO, was received with great enthusiasm. Such a complex topic requires cooperation between authorities and businesses to develop a common framework and principles of cooperation. As mentioned above, the EUIPO, and those interested in the metaverse, still face many challenges, but the changes brought about by the metaverse may be comparable to the revolution that the internet undoubtedly was.
This alert is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
author:
