.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.