IPR And Metaverse

Introduction

When we talk about metaverse in simple words it simply means the way the internet will operate in the next generation. It is simply a vision of the internet in the upcoming generations. Metaverse is a virtual world which exists online. It gives a virtual platform to the people to interact with each other to share and create content. It also enables the users to conduct events, attend online music concerts, own real estate, and carry out business activity.

Whether its virtual or real world both requires rules and regulations for proper functioning. It includes protection of novelty, creativity, and uniqueness of each person and for it we require Intellectual Property Rights, to protect the creations of these ideas of people. It will enable the metaverse to run smoothly without any brand abusing and illegal copying of the existing IP owners.

[Image Sources : Shutterstock]

The Sensorama Machine, invented by Morton Heilig in 1962, created a simulation of riding a motorcycle where the user could experience the vibrations of the bike, sounds, and scents associated with the ride while immersed in a 3D video environment. This was the first instance of the pre-metaverse virtual world.

As the number of companies are increasing in the domestic and international markets the importance of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) is also increasing.

Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) enables these companies to protect their innovations and ideas which is USP (Unique Selling Proposition) of any brand and it is the most important factor for a company to succeed in metaverse.

IPR and Metaverse

Although controlled by actual people within a metaverse, the law regarding the legitimacy of activities taken by virtual characters is still in its infancy and has not yet fully developed.

Even though the metaverse feeling is real it is the base on which the real-world laws to be applicable.

This also creates a big question and ambiguity as to which rights of the people will be given preference within the Metaverse. For example, assault which happens when there is a bodily harm but here in metaverse there is no actual bodily harm to any person, also when it comes to sexual harassment there must be physical touch that has to take place but in metaverse there is no actual physical touch, therefore it leaves a big question mark as how this ambiguity will be fulfilled.

Recently a British women named Nina Jane Patel accused a group of men and alleged that she was sexually harassed by them in Horizon Venues of Meta. She also claimed that these male avatars inappropriately touched her and took screenshot multiple times.

Types of IPR

Basically, there are four types of IPR

1. Patent
2. Trademarks
3. Copyrights

Trademark and Metaverse

Trademark is the visual symbol that differentiate between trademarked goods and services from each other. A symbol that is legally protected in the actual world should have a similar status in the metaverse. Metaverse is essentially a blessing for businesses that own trademarks because it offers a fruitful environment for inexpensively promoting and marketing trademarks. Allegations of trademark infringement have already been made in several instances in Metaverse.

In the well-known 2008 case of E.S.S Entertainment 2000, Inc. v. Rockstar Videos, Inc, et al., the court ruled that the fictional depiction of the real-life strip club trademark logo within the game of GTA, one of the first metaverses, will not amount to trademark infringement because it is an exercise of creative freedom protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Other times, though, the improper use of trademarks in the Metaverse is hotly contested. The main point of argument relates to the nature of unauthorized trademark usage, namely whether it is de minimis, incapable of producing confusion among the public, or not intended to generate revenue.

Patent and Metaverse

Over the past ten years, there have been an increasing number of metaverse-related patent filings. Within Metaverse, patents must be handled in accordance with three verticals: First, patents for the Metaverse technology itself, which may be further broken down into the hardware and software technologies required to create a distinctive and customized Metaverse.

Different patent applications are being submitted for augmented reality and virtual reality technology, software applications, etc. because it is not possible to patent the Metaverse as a whole. Second, what is known as “virtualization of patents”—the usage of already-patentable technologies or devices within Metaverse—could result in their violation. The third vertical, which discusses the patents developed by avatars within the Metaverse, is particularly interesting. Bhargav Sri Prakash, an Indian entrepreneur,

Copyrights and Metaverse

The software tools used to build the Metaverse are the ones with the most copyrights in relation to it. Copyright claims are also raised individually as such since such virtual worlds are a type of “combinatorial innovations,” which include diverse musical, artistic, literary, sound, and dramatic works. Copyright claims are particularly interesting because there is no limit to the amount of works that can be made in the Metaverse.

In the legal dispute between Amarreto Ranch Breedables, LLC and Ozimals, Inc. , in which Ozimals generated “breedable animals” in the “Second Life” Metaverse, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants had violated their copyright by creating “virtual bunnies” Because NFTs are effectively non-fungible tokens, they present both an intriguing means of copyright protection and a potential point of infringement.

Conclusion

54 billion dollars are being spent on virtual goods, according to a recent J.P. Morgan report, which opens up a huge possibility for IPR filings and infringement lawsuits. It is difficult to defend intellectual property rights in a world where creativity is unbounded. It will largely depend on the one hand, on governments’ willingness to take the initiative to include pertinent provisions in their IPR laws, such as amending the classes of trademarks and the NICE Agreement, 1957 by WIPO to include specific provisions related to the topic, as opposed to relying solely on a single country’s guidelines. On the other hand, efficient supervision systems, such as but not limited to a virtual NFT database, a futureproofing of current IPRs, a virtual investigator of IPR violation.

Author: Rohit Soni, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us at support@ipandlegalfilings.com or   IP & Legal Filing.

References 

1. Singh R. Vol. 1. New Delhi: Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd; 2004. Law relating to intellectual property (A complete comprehensive material on intellectual property covering acts, rules, conventions, treaties, agreements, case-Law and much more) [Google Scholar]
2. New Delhi: Department of Science and Technology (DST), Government of India; 2002. Anonymous. Research and development statistics. [Google Scholar]
3. New Delhi: Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, Government of India; 2002. Anonymous. Research and development in industry: An overview. [Google Scholar]
4. Bainbridge DI. New York: Longman; 2002. Intellectual property. [Google Scholar]
5. New Delhi: Universal Law Publishing Co. Ltd; 2004. Anonymous. The Design Act. 2000 along with Design Rules 2001. [Google Scholar]
6. New Delhi: Commercial Law Publisher (India) Pvt. Ltd; 2004. Anonymous. The Trademarks Act 1999 along with trade Marks Rules 2002. [Google Scholar]
7. New Delhi: Commercial Law Publisher (India) Pvt. Ltd; 2005. Anonymous. The Copyright Act 1957 as amended up to 1999 along with Copyright Rules 1958 and International Copyright Order 1999. [Google Scholar]