The metaverse has become a frontier for brand expansion: virtual stores, NFT collections and digital fashion let companies engage customers in 3D online worlds. But this new playground also attracts copycats. Suddenly your trademarked logo on a virtual sneaker or a designer handbag in a game can be cloned or counterfeited by anyone. Who polices those infringements? The short answer is: existing IP law – bolstered by new regulations – still applies, but brand owners must act proactively. This article surveys recent EU and international developments (cases, guidelines and laws) to help companies protect their marks in virtual spaces.

1. Trademark Law in Virtual Worlds

Importantly, virtual goods and NFTs are treated like ordinary goods for trademark purposes. For example, the 2023 update to the Nice Classification officially placed non-fungible tokens under Class 9, as “downloadable digital files authenticated by NFTs”. Likewise, EUIPO guidance makes clear that “virtual” products (e.g. clothing for avatars) fall in Class 9, not in the classes for physical goods[1]. In practice, that means brands should specify their virtual offerings when filing marks (e.g. “virtual handbags” vs. generic “virtual goods”) so examiners know exactly what digital item the mark will cover. Briefly, trademarks can and should be registered for metaverse goods/services just as for real-world ones. Filing early is vital, as WIPO experts note: companies like Nike and Converse have already filed broad trademark applications covering virtual products and NFTs, while others have preemptively filed “bad faith” applications to hijack famous marks.

NFT-linked goods have spurred trademark litigation. In the U.S., for instance, Hermès sued artist Mason Rothschild over “MetaBirkin” NFTs. In early 2023 a New York jury agreed that the fuzzy Birkin bag images in those NFTs infringed Hermès’s “Birkin” mark. The court even applied a First Amendment “artistic relevance” test, but still let the jury assess whether consumers were misled by the use of Hermès’s mark. The case suggests a key point: selling NFTs of a trademarked design is likely use of the mark on goods, not just protected art – especially if consumers believe the brand is associated with it. Likewise, Nike’s recent lawsuit against StockX involved NFTs tied to Nike sneakers. Nike alleged StockX’s “Vault” tokens (NFTs linked to real shoes) infringed its famous shoe marks. By March 2025 a judge found StockX liable for selling counterfeit physical sneakers through the platform, and the parties promptly settled. Commentators observe this outcome as a signal that NFTs functioning as “receipts” for physical goods are likely lawful, but NFTs drifting into standalone collectibles without brand authorization face serious legal risk.[2]

On the EU side, the law is catching up through guidelines rather than many court decisions so far. The EUIPO has published extensive classification rules for the “metaverse”: e.g. it requires that NFTs be linked to specific content. As the EUIPO explains, “Terms referring to NFTs will be classified according to what the NFT is linked to. This means that digital works of art authenticated by NFTs will belong to Class 9. Likewise, virtual handbags authenticated by NFTs will belong to Class 9”[3]. In other words, the NFT is only a certificate – the actual virtual good goes in Class 9, not the physical class (a real handbag is Class 18). The EUIPO press materials likewise emphasize that applicants should specify the virtual product (e.g. “downloadable virtual clothing” rather than vague “virtual goods”)[4]. This trend – formally accepting virtual items in trademark registrations – recognizes that brands must stake claims in the metaverse. WIPO and other authorities urge trademark owners to file for metaverse uses immediately, since once registered the rights can block virtual infringers (via traditional infringement and dilution claims) just as in the real world.

2. Keyword Advertising and Consumer Targeting

Even in the metaverse, brands advertise – and keyword-based ads can trigger trademark issues. European courts have refined the rules on online ads and jurisdiction. In a 2023 ruling, the CJEU held that buying search ads on a country-specific domain can itself be a “use” of a trademark in that country. In Lännen v. Berky (C-104/22), the defendant purchased Google Ads for the mark WATERMASTER on google.fi, targeting Finnish users. The Court found that was a sufficient connecting factor to commit infringement in Finland, even if the seller never listed Finland as a shipping destination. By contrast, merely using a trademark in a meta-tag on an international site (e.g. flickr.com) was not enough to establish jurisdiction. The practical takeaway: trademark owners must watch where and how their marks are used in online advertising and search-engine keywords. If a metaverse platform or game has a search function (e.g. searching virtual shops), analogous rules could apply – using your brand name to sell a knockoff token in your home market might violate your rights there. In any event, longstanding EU cases (e.g. Interflora v. M&S) make clear that sponsored links which confuse consumers can infringe a mark, and Google France (2009) limits Google’s own liability but leaves advertisers on the hook.

3. Online Marketplaces and Platform Liability

A major battleground is “storefronts” in virtual spaces or traditional e-commerce sites. Mark owners have long battled counterfeit sales on Amazon, eBay or Alibaba; now similar issues appear in NFT marketplaces like OpenSea or in-game stores. Under EU law, the framework has tightened. Landmark CJEU decisions (notably L’Oréal v. eBay in 2011) held that a marketplace cannot hide behind the old e‑Commerce Directive safe-harbor if it takes an active role. For example, L’Oréal v. eBay concluded that if a platform “optimises the presentation of the offers” or promotes listings, it loses liability protection, and must remove known infringements. In practice this means platforms today often cooperate with rights-holders to police content.

Moreover, the new EU Digital Services Act (DSA) (effective 2024) significantly enhances brand enforcement online. The DSA requires large platforms to implement uniform notice-and-takedown procedures: trademark owners may submit standardized takedown forms, and the platform must respond “expeditiously”. Online marketplaces must now verify sellers’ identities (know-your-customer) and swiftly suspend repeat infringers. Platforms are also required to log each takedown in an EU database, giving brands unprecedented transparency into how quickly and effectively listings are removed. Early reports indicate that major marketplaces (and presumably large NFT exchanges) are adapting: they have set up dedicated IP portals and flagged known counterfeit listings to comply with DSA rules. In sum, brand owners in the EU have a powerful new toolbox to pressure platforms to remove clones and counterfeits quickly.

In the U.S. and other jurisdictions, there is no exact DSA equivalent, but rights-holders still have remedies. U.S. platforms may be subject to anti-counterfeiting provisions in the Lanham Act and, in some cases, to general laws on consumer fraud. For example, Nike invoked the Lanham Act against StockX, and got a summary judgment on counterfeits. In practice, brands often use a combination of cease-and-desist letters, takedown notices (including under section 512 of the DMCA for copyrighted designs if applicable), and litigation. Domain name tools (UDRP or UDRP-like arbitration) may also help reclaim names like MetaBirkin.com. Globally, WIPO and national IP offices are discussing standardized ways to handle online infringements, but so far brand owners must be their own first line of defense in virtual spaces.

4. Strategies and Challenges for Brand Owners

What should corporate IP teams and startups do to guard their brands in virtual worlds? First, update your trademark portfolio. File applications that explicitly cover metaverse and NFT goods/services (e.g. virtual apparel, downloadable game assets, online virtual events). In the EU, this may mean specifying “downloadable wearable virtual clothing (Class 9), retail store services featuring virtual goods (Class 35), online NFT marketplace services (Class 35/42)”, etc., following EUIPO’s guidance. In most jurisdictions “first to file” still wins, so it is wise to stake a claim even if you have no immediate metaverse plans.

Secondly, monitor vigorously. The metaverse is global and (in many cases) decentralized. There is no single “metaverse police”. Companies should invest in brand-monitoring services that crawl NFT marketplaces and virtual platforms for unauthorized uses of their marks or design elements. Engage with platforms: open channels with big metaverse hosts (e.g. Decentraland, Sandbox, OpenSea, etc.) so infringing content can be reported and removed. New AI tools and “watchers” are emerging to scan these worlds, but human oversight (alert fans, influencers) is crucial.

Thirdly, use the law creatively. Existing IP rights can still bite metaverse imposters. If someone mints NFTs using your logo, that’s likely trademark use on goods (the NFTs or associated virtual items). Traditional claims – infringement, dilution (especially for famous marks), cybersquatting (for domain names) – are all available. As the Hermès case shows, artists’ “free speech” defenses (like the Rogers test) will be weighed, but not at the expense of clear brand infringement. Brands may even consider asserting ancillary claims: for instance, false advertising or passing off, if a virtual fake implies endorsement. Keep in mind that legal doctrines like exhaustion of rights (which allow reselling a physical product) are unsettled for virtual goods; for now, selling a virtual Gucci bag likely still infringes Gucci’s mark, because the “sale” is not really a transfer of physical property.

Finally, stay informed of global developments. The world IP community is beginning to address these questions. WIPO has published articles and held meetings on NFTs and metaverse IP. In the EU, national and EUIP offices have issued metaverse-specific guidelines and best practices (as noted above), and courts are starting to consider jurisdiction rules for online infringements. Watch also for updated regulations: in addition to the DSA, proposals like the EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA) and even anti-counterfeiting trade bills may impact online brand enforcement.

5. Practical Recommendations

In the end, there is no single “metaverse trademark authority.” Your brand’s protection in virtual worlds depends on a mixture of foresight and enforcement:

• Expand Your Registrations: file trademarks covering virtual goods/services (classes 9, 35, 41, 42, etc.) with clear descriptions (e.g. “virtual sneakers,” “digital avatars’ clothing”). Include NFTs and blockchain-based services where relevant. Update and renew marks as your virtual products evolve.
• Act Quickly Against Copycats: if you discover an infringing avatar item or NFT using your mark, issue cease-and-desist letters and use platform takedown mechanisms immediately. In the EU, take advantage of the DSA’s unified notice forms and consider escalating via the Transparency Database if needed. In the US or elsewhere, use available statutory takedowns or legal actions.
• Collaborate with Platforms: build relationships with major metaverse and marketplace operators. Encourage them to add your brand to their trusted-flagger lists or monitoring programs. Platforms that host NFTs or virtual goods are increasingly proactive about IP complaints, especially under laws like the DSA and standard enforcement policies.
• Educate Consumers: make it clear where your official virtual products can be found (e.g. links to your metaverse store, official NFT collections). As with counterfeits of physical goods, an informed customer is less likely to fall for a fake. Use social media, virtual events, and your own channels to warn users about clones and encourage them to buy only from authorized sources.
• Budget for Vigilance: as law firms warn, protecting brands in the metaverse can be expensive and complex. Allocate resources for ongoing monitoring, legal action, and perhaps even lobbying for better regulations.

In short, living in the metaverse means your brand lives on the internet – and all the old rules of trademark protection still apply, albeit in new form. Courts and IP offices worldwide are already applying and adapting trademark law to cover NFTs, virtual goods, keyword ads, and online marketplaces. By staying up-to-date with cases and guidelines , and by taking a proactive, multi-front approach (registration, policing, platform partnerships), brand owners can ensure their virtual identity is as well-protected as their real-world one.

[1]https://guidelines.euipo.europa.eu/binary/2214311/2000140000#:~:text=match%20at%20L1631%20Terms%20referring,Likewise

[2] https://decrypt.co/337472/nike-stockx-end-trademark-clash-nfts-fake-shoes

[3]https://guidelines.euipo.europa.eu/binary/2214311/2000140000#:~:text=match%20at%20L1631%20Terms%20referring,Likewise

[4] Idem.