On March 7, 2024, the British Intellectual Property Office published a report developed by a team of experts [1] at shedding light on the links between intellectual property and the metaverse (gov.uk, 2024-03-07). The insights from their analysis highlight the complexity of intellectual property rights issues in the metaverse and underline the need for innovative solutions.
This informative report delves into intellectual property rights infringements and dispute resolution among other issues. The authors suggest that these new digital environments could amplify problems related to counterfeiting.
Initially, it’s beneficial (as the authors do) to emphasize the structure of these new digital spaces. In this context, it seems crucial to highlight two realities that pose challenges for intellectual property rights holders. First, there is not a single metaverse but multiple spaces with varying degrees of autonomy and interoperability, leading the authors to refer to “multiverses”. Second, not all these “multiverses” are based on blockchains, and even when they are, they might not all use the same blockchain. This fragmentation, leading to a kind of perplexing decentralization, challenges the centralized governance models that establish and facilitate the exercise of intellectual property rights. According to the authors, these features highlight the complex interaction between the evolving nature of the metaverse and intellectual property, emphasizing the need for adaptable and forward-thinking regulatory and rights enforcement approaches.
Additionally, the issue of resolving disputes arising from unauthorized use of intellectual properties is compounded by the question of jurisdictional competence. Here, the authors believe that the complexity arising from decentralization, the multiplicity of contributors, and the integration of content generated by artificial intelligence could soon render traditional dispute resolution methods obsolete. However, one could consider that the obsolescence of these methods has been acknowledged for years. In terms of domain names, UDRP principles have taken over, and for content, intellectual property rights holders rely on take-down procedures, for lack of a better option. The report’s authors recommend the use of alternative dispute resolution methods, taking UDRP as an example: The global nature of the metaverse, similar to domain names, may necessitate the development of new trademark dispute resolution mechanisms. This could involve modifications to traditional arbitration or the adoption of decentralized justice systems using blockchain technology. In other words, it’s essential to devise dispute resolution methods for intellectual property that are suitable, and ideally uniform, for these new digital spaces.
The report highlights the need for legal innovations that should be pursued through international collaboration. The situation outlined here, in many ways, recalls the circumstances that led to the development of the system for the extrajudicial resolution of domain name disputes. It’s desirable for metaverse stakeholders and intellectual property rights holders to base their actions on a transparent governance framework and effective legal rules that do not harm their respective economic models.
[1] Dr Gaetano Dimita, Dr Yin Harn Lee, Dr Michaela MacDonald, Dr Anthony Michael Catton, Zeynep Kubra Kavcar Penbegullu, and Juan Alberto Pulido Lock.
