Virtual Goods Ip Issues In Metaverse.
đź“Ś Intellectual Property Issues in the Metaverse
Virtual goods—avatars, wearables, NFTs, virtual cars, virtual land—raise IP issues because they often use existing brands, designs, or creative content. The main IP issues are:
Trademark infringement – using someone’s brand or logo without permission.
Copyright infringement – copying digital art, designs, or creative works.
Trade dress and dilution – mimicking the look-and-feel of products to confuse consumers.
Unfair competition – misleading users about who created, owns, or endorses a product.
Courts are increasingly treating virtual goods as “products” for IP law, meaning traditional rules apply even if the item exists only digitally.
đź“Ť Key Cases
1. Hermès v. Mason Rothschild (MetaBirkins NFT Case)
Jurisdiction: United States
Facts: Mason Rothschild created NFTs called “MetaBirkins,” digital images resembling Hermès’ iconic Birkin bags. He marketed them with the Birkin name.
Issues: Trademark infringement, dilution, unfair competition.
Ruling: The court sided with Hermès, holding that using the Birkin name and image in NFTs infringed trademark rights. Rothschild was blocked from selling the NFTs and ordered to pay damages.
Significance: NFTs can be treated as consumer products for trademark purposes, meaning brands can enforce IP rights in the virtual world.
2. Juventus F.C. v. Blockeras s.r.l.
Jurisdiction: Italy
Facts: Blockeras issued NFTs of Juventus player cards that used the team’s striped shirts, which were trademarked.
Issues: Trademark infringement in digital products.
Ruling: Court held that the use of Juventus’ trademark in NFTs without permission was infringement.
Significance: European courts recognize that trademark law applies to digital/virtual goods.
3. Nike v. StockX
Jurisdiction: United States
Facts: StockX sold sneakers and issued NFTs representing the sneakers’ images. Nike argued the NFTs themselves infringed their trademarks.
Issues: Trademark infringement, false designation of origin.
Ruling: Case highlighted that digital representations of real products can constitute trademark infringement if they use brand marks without authorization.
Significance: Virtual items tied to physical goods must respect IP rights.
4. Yuga Labs, Inc. v. Ryder Ripps (BAYC NFTs)
Jurisdiction: United States
Facts: Ryder Ripps created NFTs mimicking Bored Ape Yacht Club (BAYC) designs and sold them as similar NFTs.
Issues: Trademark infringement, false designation of origin.
Ruling: Court confirmed NFTs can be “goods” for trademark purposes and confusingly similar NFTs infringe trademarks.
Significance: Reaffirms that digital brand use in NFTs can violate trademark laws, even after original NFT sales.
5. Second Life Virtual Goods Disputes (Minsky v. Linden Research)
Jurisdiction: United States
Facts: In Second Life, a user used the same name as another’s registered trademark (“SLART”) in a virtual gallery.
Issues: Trademark infringement in a virtual environment.
Ruling: Court issued injunction preventing the infringer from using the name in Second Life.
Significance: Early example showing that virtual world IP enforcement is possible and recognized.
6. China Virtual Car Case (2025)
Jurisdiction: China
Facts: A mobile game sold virtual cars branded closely to real-life car trademarks without permission.
Issues: Trademark infringement, unfair competition for virtual goods.
Ruling: Court held virtual cars infringed trademark rights and ordered damages.
Significance: Shows virtual goods can be legally considered similar to physical products under trademark law.
🔍 Emerging Legal Principles
Virtual goods are “products” under IP law – trademarks and copyrights apply.
NFT sales do not transfer trademark rights – creators can enforce rights against confusingly similar products.
Consumer confusion matters – misleading users about origin or affiliation constitutes infringement.
IP enforcement is global but complex – anonymity and cross-border sales make enforcement challenging.
RELATED Blog
comments