As noted by GuestKat Becky Knott in her earlier post (here), brand owners have been very active in protecting their brands through attempts to secure trade mark registrations in response to the rise of the Metaverse. In recent months, this Kat has been seeing a lot of discussions on filing strategies (in particular classification and specification drafting), particularly in the US and the EU, and on the oriental side in China and Japan.
The European Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) has recently issued some guidance notes on its approach to classifying items relating to virtual goods and non-fungible tokens (NFTs). In particular, it is noted that:-
- Virtual goods and NFTs fall under Class 9. Services relating to such goods will be classified in line with current practice.
- The EUIPO defines NFTs as “unique digital certificates registered in a blockchain, which authenticate digital items but as distinct from those digital items” (as emphasized by the EUIPO).
- The items “virtual goods” and “non-fungible tokens” are both unacceptable on their own. The phrase “virtual goods” has to be further specified by stating the content to which the virtual goods relate, whereas the type of digital item authenticated by the NFT must be also specified.
The EUIPO’s approach does not come as a surprise as the precision required is necessary to identify the scope of protection sought, and is also in line with the longstanding teachings (now codified in the EU Trade Mark Regulation) of the 2002 decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Sieckmann. All this said, brand owners may find it helpful, as a matter of practice that the EUIPO seeks to come up with a definition of NFT in the midst of many different versions of the same.
With trade mark registrations covering
virtual goods and NFTs possibly secured for the time-being, here comes a more
complicated and controversial issue - enforcement of such rights. If Katfriends are aware of any interesting
case development and insights, this Kat would be delighted to spend some quality
time reading up on these issues.
 |
| The look on this Kat having gone through client's proposed specifications. |
Reviewed by James Kwong
on
Tuesday, July 12, 2022
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn ![[Guest post] Can AI be considered a PHOSITA? Policy debates in the US and the EU](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEggxDO6mW5r4n3-06Af5ckmIaMIhzgPJBoDP8AUsSYXY2zajUQt1ObGVn_GhCgidbG_YDVnybQuJ5XoAjjBG9Ws2xJWDQHNPMrLkn526SWIG371X_Kjt1E8tJmn8Ae_20Phyphenhyphen09JeuUOhhTR3aZE9lMRQlqHGQGcAWGxlo91rrKcLk0AfUjWCvw6RQ/s72-c/Two-cats-eating.jpg)
Posts
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html