.png)
.png)
As businesses explore opportunities in the digital economy, intellectual property (IP) implications become increasingly important—particularly concerning trademark and copyright rights in virtual reality (VR) environments and non-fungible tokens (NFTs). In the Philippines, these rights fall under the jurisdiction of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL), which has already begun handling disputes involving digital assets and online commerce.
The term “Metaverse” combines “meta” (beyond) and “universe”. It refers to a computer-generated, immersive digital world built on the internet. Within this shared virtual environment, users interact through avatars—exploring spaces, playing games, shopping, and even attending concerts.
Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) are unique digital tokens recorded on the blockchain. Unlike cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin, NFTs cannot be exchanged on a one-to-one basis because each token represents a distinct digital asset.
NFTs have gained traction because they introduce digital scarcity, making digital artworks, music, or even virtual real estate ownable and tradable. For example, an NFT representing a digital painting can be resold, and its ownership verified, even if the artwork itself is endlessly replicable.
The Metaverse runs on blockchain technology, and NFTs are one of the most prominent blockchain-based assets. NFTs can represent virtual land, avatars, clothing, or digital art. A user can “live” in the Metaverse, decorate a digital home, and even showcase NFT artworks inside.
Owning an NFT does not mean owning the underlying copyright or trademark. It only grants ownership of the token itself. Unless the creator expressly transfers IP rights, the original IP owner retains copyright, trademark, or design rights.
A Philippine case example: In Kolin Electronics v. Kolin Philippines (G.R. No. 228165, 2019), the Supreme Court emphasized how trademarks protect both brand reputation and consumer trust. Similar reasoning applies in the Metaverse—unauthorized NFT use of a brand’s mark could mislead consumers and damage goodwill.
Copyright protects original literary and artistic works (Sec. 172, R.A. 8293). In NFTs:
For instance, if an artist in Manila discovers their artwork sold as NFTs without consent, they can file a complaint before IPOPHL’s Bureau of Legal Affairs (BLA) for copyright infringement.
Globally, major companies like Nike, Louis Vuitton, and McDonald’s have filed for NFT and Metaverse-related trademarks. In the Philippines, IPOPHL already allows trademark registration in appropriate Nice Classes, such as:
A local example is Jollibee Foods Corporation, which has actively protected its trademarks worldwide, including in online markets. Extending this protection into the Metaverse would ensure that no unauthorized party sells “Jollibee NFTs” without consent.
Trademarks are territorial—valid only in the jurisdiction where they are registered. This raises questions: If the Metaverse evolves into a self-contained digital economy, would it require its own IP registry?
For now, disputes are resolved based on the domicile of the NFT platform, seller, or buyer. In the Philippines, enforcement actions can proceed through:
📌 In summary: The Metaverse and NFTs present both opportunities and risks for IP owners in the Philippines. IPOPHL has the framework to handle disputes, but brand owners must proactively secure rights and enforce them. Philippine jurisprudence, like Kolin Electronics, reinforces the need for vigilant protection in emerging digital marketplaces.
Would you like me to restructure this into a publish-ready legal article (with headings, footnotes, and case citations), so you can use it as a client briefing or blog post for Brealant?
write above matter more like human written :
Got it 👍 Let me rewrite the above into a smooth, natural, and human-like article—less textbook, more like something you’d read on a professional IP blog or business magazine.
As businesses venture deeper into the digital world, intellectual property (IP) questions are coming front and center. This is especially true with the rise of virtual reality platforms—often called the Metaverse—and non-fungible tokens (NFTs). Both are creating new opportunities, but also new risks, for trademark and copyright owners.
Here in the Philippines, the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL) is already seeing disputes that involve online and digital assets. For brand owners, it’s a reminder that IP protection must evolve alongside technology.
Think of the Metaverse as a shared digital universe, where people interact using avatars. It’s immersive, social, and built on the internet. Inside these virtual worlds, you can attend a concert, shop in a branded store, or simply hang out with friends.
For businesses, it’s not just entertainment—it’s a new marketplace.
NFTs, or non-fungible tokens, are unique digital tokens recorded on a blockchain. Unlike cryptocurrencies, each NFT has its own identity, tied to a digital asset such as an artwork, song, video, or even a plot of virtual land.
The appeal? Digital scarcity. Anyone can copy a picture online, but only one person can hold the original NFT linked to it. This has made NFTs attractive for collectors, creators, and brands alike.
Here’s the tricky part: buying an NFT doesn’t mean you own the copyright or trademark attached to it.
The IP Code of the Philippines (R.A. 8293) makes this clear: the original creator retains IP rights unless they are explicitly transferred.
A real-world reminder comes from the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kolin Electronics v. Kolin Philippines (2019). The Court stressed that trademarks exist to protect brand reputation and prevent consumer confusion. The same logic applies online—unauthorized NFTs using another’s brand can easily mislead consumers.
Copyright in the Philippines covers original literary and artistic works—everything from paintings to music and films.
So, if an artist in Manila finds their work sold as NFTs on a foreign platform without consent, they can bring a case before IPOPHL’s Bureau of Legal Affairs. IPOPHL already hears copyright infringement disputes, and digital assets are no exception.
Many global brands—Nike, Louis Vuitton, McDonald’s—have already filed for trademarks covering NFTs and the Metaverse. Filipino companies should take note.
At IPOPHL, the following Nice Classes are relevant:
A practical local example: Jollibee Foods Corporation, known for actively protecting its trademarks globally, would be wise to extend protection into the Metaverse to prevent fake “Jollibee NFTs” from circulating online.
Since trademarks are territorial, rights apply only in the country where they’re registered. This raises interesting questions about jurisdiction in the Metaverse.
For now, disputes are handled based on where the NFT platform, buyer, or seller is based. In the Philippines, enforcement options include:
The Metaverse and NFTs are no longer just buzzwords—they’re real business arenas. For Philippine companies, this means expanding IP strategies beyond the physical world.
IPOPHL has the tools to address disputes, but the responsibility starts with brand owners: secure your rights, monitor digital use, and enforce them when necessary. As the Kolin case shows, Philippine courts take trademark protection seriously—and that principle will matter even more as commerce moves into virtual spaces.