metaverse is like the internet in the 1990s. At first it seemed utopia, but then no one else lived without it. Want or not, the world of virtual and shared reality is reality, with the forgiveness of the pun.
companies have started to explore this new market by offering products and services within platforms, such as: Fortnite, Decentraland (Mana), Axie Infinity (Axs), The Sandbox (Sand), Enjin Coin (ENJ), WAX (WAXP) etc. Holders can scan their creations and, through a NFT ( non fungible token , or non -fungible token) to occupy the virtual world.
NFT is in vogue, as it ensures exclusivity of what it represents; adds value because it is unique, collectible. From it, it is known where the intangible good came from, as it allows the traceability of transactions, although it is not possible to state that its representation is of a given author. In other words, prove where it came from (the transaction itself), but not the authorship.
Considering that everything can currently be tokenized, as long as it is an active in digital format (be an yacht, a meme , a painting, a tennis, a photo, a service), the exploration of Representation of these intangible goods in communities, especially in the Games , made the metaverse conducive to business and business marketing.
The point is that, just as the commercialization of real goods generate rights, contractual bonds and violations, the same happens in the virtual world, but the challenge to curb imitations is even greater.
Let's see: while the protection of an industrial design requires registration in each country in which the holder intends to explore the good, protecting his creation in the “real” world, preventing third parties from copying, imitating or reproducing; These same goods can be resold, without authorization from the author in the metaverse, in games or by an avatar, for example, because there is no protective organ in the metaveverse.
The challenge is that the virtual world does not have a specific territoriality, and there is no regulation, so that the unauthorized use is facilitated. And more; The (intangible) goods are not manufactured, do not require physical store, nor transportation or raw material. Another factor is the difficulty of identifying the offender and the different legislation of the countries.
companies like Nike and Hermès have been victims in this new business environment. Hermès sued artist Mason Rothschild for placing the famous Birkins bags on the metaverse under the “Metabirkins” brand, breaking the French fashionista's marked law. Nike is litigating with reseller Stockx for alleged sale of tennis that requires license to do so. These brands differ because they have special protection in the real world, but in the metaverse, which law apply?
Companies that want to avoid the same headaches should protect their intangible, registration assets in countries where there are more providers and metaverse users. What's more, it is also worth paying attention to the protection niches, turning, for example, for the registration of brands designed for unloading virtual goods (class 09), retail trade of virtual products (Class 35) and non-low-lowering cyber entertainment services ( Class 41).
In addition, they can focus on countries that allow the protection of sound marks or even movement with movement, aiming to curb violation by third parties, bringing greater effectiveness to the immediate removal of violating contents.
It is true that the virtual world, however idealized, does not exclude the anguish, uncertainties and insecurities that permeate the real world. But certainly being in the metaverse will allow companies to be more attention and protected from their assets, as they will occupy their space and be present not only for the new competition, but to the newest and potential consumer market. /P>
