Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 8 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2023

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement
Sponsored content

Applying EUIPO guidelines on the metaverse to Mexico

Sponsored by


Mariana Patiño of Olivares discusses the EU Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) guidelines on the protection of intangible assets in the metaverse

As a result of interactions in the so-called metaverse and digital assets such as non-fungible tokens (NFTs), multiple business opportunities have arisen. In line with this, the debate about the general regulations of intangible assets has evolved.

Regarding the guidance notes published by EUIPO on June 23 2022 in relation to the classification of trademarks that distinguish virtual goods, it has been determined that according to their nature they correspond to international Class 9, insofar as they are treated as digital content. Furthermore, EUIPO has stated that the term ‘virtual goods’ should be specific according to the composition of the goods. For example, the content could be referred to as ‘virtual goods, namely virtual headgear and clothing’.

As concerns NFTs, the EUIPO has proposed to publish a 12th edition of its Nice Classification system, to be published in 2023, including ‘downloadable digital files authenticated by non-fungible tokens’. This would provide clarity and precision, because in EUIPO's opinion, NFTs only act as authentication certificates for digital files or elements.

In general practice, we have observed that rights holders, on the recommendation of their specialised attorneys, have applied for trademarks intended for use in the metaverse. These trademarks are in Class 9 for virtual goods, Class 35 for retail stores with virtual goods, and Class 41 for entertainment services, including the provision of virtual goods that are not downloadable online.

Considering that precision is a key objective to obtain adequate trademark protection, EUIPO has specified that services related to virtual goods and NFTs will be classified according to the classification principles established for services. This means services will be classified according to the branches of activities defined by the service class headings and their explanatory notes, or, if not specified, by analogy with other similar services in the alphabetical list.

The existing debate among the Intellectual Property Niche Academy I is whether NFTs should be considered unique digital certificates for the authentication of digital items, or whether it would be more useful to clarify that they are not limited to authenticating digital items only. If the latter, there is a possibility that NFTs could transfer to the physical or material realm in that they could be downloaded, and with the support of 3D printing models.

It is worth mentioning the way in which the Mexican Institute of Industrial Property (IMPI) interprets these new regulations in the classification of trademarks to distinguish goods or services in the metaverse. Up to this point, we have observed that examiners have adopted the criterion of accepting NFTs in Class 9 without further elaboration. However, specific clarification has been requested with respect to the generality of virtual goods or products as set forth by EUIPO.

It will be interesting to see if an interpretation is made with respect to the use of trademarks in the metaverse and their possible transformation by download to the everyday, physical world.

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Counsel are eying domestic industry, concurrent PTAB proceedings and heightened scrutiny of cases before institution
Jack Daniel’s has a good chance of winning its dispute over dog toys, but SCOTUS will still want to protect free speech, predict sources
AI users and lawyers discuss why the rulebook for registering AI-generated content may create problems and needs further work
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
A technical effect must still be evident in the original patent filing, the EBoA said in its G2/21 decision today, March 23
Brands should not be deterred from pursuing lookalike producers, and an unfair advantage claim could be the key, say Emma Teichmann and Geoff Steward at Stobbs
Justice Mellor’s highly anticipated ruling surprised SEP owners and reassured implementers that the UK may not be so hostile after all
The England and Wales High Court's judgment comes ahead of a separate hearing concerning one of the patents-in-suit at the EPO
While the rules allow foreign firms to open local offices and offer IP services, a ban on litigation and practising Indian law could mean little will change
A New York federal court heard oral arguments this week in a copyright case pitting publishing giants against a digital library