Comparative analysis of trademark protection in the metaverse and registration of virtual goods and NFTs

IF 3.3 3区 社会学 Q1 LAW
WooJung Jon, Sung-Pil Park
{"title":"Comparative analysis of trademark protection in the metaverse and registration of virtual goods and NFTs","authors":"WooJung Jon,&nbsp;Sung-Pil Park","doi":"10.1016/j.clsr.2025.106137","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This study presents a comparative analysis of trademark protection in the metaverse and the registration of virtual goods and non‐fungible tokens (NFTs) across three distinct legal systems: those of the United States, the United Kingdom, and South Korea. Drawing on recent case law and evolving administrative guidelines, this study examines how traditional trademark doctrines—such as the likelihood‐of‐confusion standard in the U.S. under the Lanham Act, source-identifying function under the UK Trade Marks Act 1994, and proactive legislative reforms implemented by the Korean Intellectual Property Office—are being adapted to address the challenges posed by digital and virtual environments. Specifically, this study analyzes landmark cases such as <em>Hermès International v. Rothschild</em> and <em>Yuga Labs, Inc. v. Ripps</em>, which illustrate the extension of trademark protection to NFTs and other digital assets, as well as the interplay between trademark rights and freedom of expression. It also evaluates recent updates to international classification frameworks—including the 2024 Nice Classification and the Madrid Protocol—and discusses their implications for ensuring uniformity and effective enforcement of trademarks in a borderless digital market. The findings reveal that while each jurisdiction applies its own legal traditions to metaverse trademark disputes, all share a common policy objective: to prevent consumer confusion and safeguard brand integrity in an increasingly digital economy. Ultimately, the study advocates for proactive registration of trademarks as virtual goods and NFTs to streamline enforcement and enhance legal certainty, thereby fostering innovation and facilitating global trade in virtual environments.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51516,"journal":{"name":"Computer Law & Security Review","volume":"57 ","pages":"Article 106137"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Computer Law & Security Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212473X25000100","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study presents a comparative analysis of trademark protection in the metaverse and the registration of virtual goods and non‐fungible tokens (NFTs) across three distinct legal systems: those of the United States, the United Kingdom, and South Korea. Drawing on recent case law and evolving administrative guidelines, this study examines how traditional trademark doctrines—such as the likelihood‐of‐confusion standard in the U.S. under the Lanham Act, source-identifying function under the UK Trade Marks Act 1994, and proactive legislative reforms implemented by the Korean Intellectual Property Office—are being adapted to address the challenges posed by digital and virtual environments. Specifically, this study analyzes landmark cases such as Hermès International v. Rothschild and Yuga Labs, Inc. v. Ripps, which illustrate the extension of trademark protection to NFTs and other digital assets, as well as the interplay between trademark rights and freedom of expression. It also evaluates recent updates to international classification frameworks—including the 2024 Nice Classification and the Madrid Protocol—and discusses their implications for ensuring uniformity and effective enforcement of trademarks in a borderless digital market. The findings reveal that while each jurisdiction applies its own legal traditions to metaverse trademark disputes, all share a common policy objective: to prevent consumer confusion and safeguard brand integrity in an increasingly digital economy. Ultimately, the study advocates for proactive registration of trademarks as virtual goods and NFTs to streamline enforcement and enhance legal certainty, thereby fostering innovation and facilitating global trade in virtual environments.
虚拟商品注册与nft注册中虚拟世界商标保护的比较分析
本研究对三个不同的法律体系(美国、英国和韩国)的虚拟商品和不可替代代币(nft)的注册进行了比较分析。根据最近的判例法和不断发展的行政指导方针,本研究考察了传统的商标理论如何适应数字和虚拟环境带来的挑战,例如美国《兰哈姆法案》下的混淆可能性标准,英国《1994年商标法》下的来源识别功能,以及韩国知识产权局实施的积极立法改革。具体而言,本研究分析了herm国际诉罗斯柴尔德案和Yuga实验室诉Ripps案等具有里程碑意义的案例,这些案例说明了商标保护延伸到nft和其他数字资产,以及商标权与言论自由之间的相互作用。报告还评估了国际分类框架的最新更新,包括2024年尼斯分类和马德里议定书,并讨论了它们对在无国界数字市场中确保商标统一和有效执法的影响。调查结果显示,虽然每个司法管辖区都有自己的法律传统来处理跨界商标纠纷,但所有司法管辖区都有一个共同的政策目标:在日益数字化的经济中防止消费者混淆并保护品牌诚信。最后,该研究倡导主动将商标注册为虚拟商品和nft,以简化执法和提高法律确定性,从而促进创新和促进虚拟环境中的全球贸易。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
10.30%
发文量
81
审稿时长
67 days
期刊介绍: CLSR publishes refereed academic and practitioner papers on topics such as Web 2.0, IT security, Identity management, ID cards, RFID, interference with privacy, Internet law, telecoms regulation, online broadcasting, intellectual property, software law, e-commerce, outsourcing, data protection, EU policy, freedom of information, computer security and many other topics. In addition it provides a regular update on European Union developments, national news from more than 20 jurisdictions in both Europe and the Pacific Rim. It is looking for papers within the subject area that display good quality legal analysis and new lines of legal thought or policy development that go beyond mere description of the subject area, however accurate that may be.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信