Indian clients are already asking very practical questions about the metaverse: “If someone sells a virtual Tshirt with my logo in a game, can I stop them?” or “If my avatar’s look is copied in AR, is that infringement?” These are no longer science-fiction problems; they are day-to-day IP questions, just in a new environment. 

What is the metaverse from an IP lens?

From an IP practitioner’s point of view, the metaverse is simply a cluster of AR/VRenabled, persistent, shared digital spaces where users interact through avatars, own or trade virtual goods, and increasingly attend concerts, meetings and even cour/t hearings.

For Indian law, this raises a basic but important point:

  • The “world” may be virtual, but the rights are very real. Copyright, trademarks, designs, and personality rights all extend into these spaces because the underlying assets – brands, artwork, character designs, celebrity personas – remain the same.
  • Virtual goods (skins, NFTs, in-game items) are not yet recognised as a new legal category. Still, they are treated as combinations of existing rights: digital files plus contractual licences plus, sometimes, IP rights embedded within them.

Virtual goods and trademark protection

The most visible metaverse disputes globally have been trademark cases – such as Hermès vs “MetaBirkins” NFTs and Nike vs StockX’s sneaker NFTs – where courts treated NFTs and other digital assets as “goods” capable of infringing trademarks.

Indian law has not yet seen a fullblown “MetaBirkins”style trial, but the direction of travel is quite clear. The Trade Marks Act, 1999 protects marks used in relation to “goods” and “services”. There is nothing in the definition that insists the goods must be tangible. Indian commentary and practice already talk of registering marks for “downloadable digital goods”, “virtual clothing” and “NFTauthenticated items” in Classes 9, 35, 41, etc., mirroring moves at the USPTO and EUIPO. The core test – likelihood of confusion and misrepresentation of origin – works just as well in a VR shopping mall as in a physical one. If a user reasonably thinks a virtual shoe or handbag comes from Nike or Hermès because of the visible mark, trade mark law is engaged.

Several Indian brands and multinationals operating here have already filed metaverse-oriented applications, often specifying “downloadable virtual goods; digital tokens; NFTs; online virtual environments” in their specifications. While there are no detailed Registry guidelines yet, examiners are processing these under existing classes, which means the system is informally recognising virtual goods as protectable touchpoints.

How Indian IP law maps onto AR/VR and virtual assets

In practice, metaverse and virtual assets pull multiple IP regimes together:

Copyright

3D models of avatars, virtual buildings, artworks and immersive environments qualify as artistic works and sometimes as cinematographic films or computer programs. Unauthorised copying or porting of a virtual environment from one platform to another can amount to reproduction and adaptation, much like lifting an entire game map or film set.

Designs

The Designs Act protects aesthetic features applied to articles. Indian scholarship has argued that virtual replicas of protected designs (for example, a registered furniture or fashion design reproduced as an in game asset) can still amount to design piracy if used commercially.Courts have not yet ruled directly on this, but commentary urges treating “virtual designs” as infringing when they reproduce the protected form for commercial advantage in NFTs or avatar items.

Trademarks and trade dress

Branded stores, product packaging, and even the “look and feel” of a real-world retail space recreated in the metaverse can raise trademark and passing-off issues if done without consent. Indian practice on trade dress (shape, colour schemes, store layouts) provides a readymade tool to tackle copycat virtual storefronts that mimic famous brands.

Personality rights

Celebrity avatars, deepfake voice skins and AR filters that reproduce famous faces sit squarely in the territory already explored in recent Indian personality rights cases (Amitabh Bachchan, Anil Kapoor, Asha Bhosle, etc.). Courts have granted wide omnibus injunctions against unauthorised use of celebrity persona across media, including AI-generated and virtual formats, which naturally extends to metaverse and VR uses.

Latest Indian developments that matter for virtual assets

Even though there is no “Metaverse Act” in India, some recent decisions and policy moves are shaping the landscape:

Location of virtual/intangible assets

In a tax/currency context, the Delhi High Court has observed that the situs of an intangible asset can be the residence of its owner. By analogy, many Indian authors suggest that NFTs and other virtual assets could be treated as “located” where their owners are, which affects jurisdiction and taxation.

Virtual Digital Assets (VDA) under tax law

The Finance Act 2022 introduced “Virtual Digital Assets” in the Income Tax Act, expressly including certain NFTs. While this is a tax concept, it is an important signal: the government sees NFTs and similar virtual tokens as a recognised asset class that will eventually interact with IP valuation, licensing, and transfer pricing.

Personality rights & AI/virtual exploitation

Recent Bombay and Delhi matters on personality rights (for instance, involving Asha Bhosle and other celebrities) have explicitly mentioned AI voice cloning, deepfakes and digital avatars as prohibited uses without consent. These orders will likely be cited in future metaverse disputes involving the use of celebrity likenesses in games or virtual concerts without licences.

Metaverse-focused trademark commentary.

Multiple Indian IP groups and academics have published detailed analyses of “metaverse trademarks”, urging the Registry to issue specific guidelines and even proposing a new Nice Class for digital assets. While not binding, this scholarship is already influencing how practitioners draft specifications and how tribunals may read them.

Enforcement headaches: decentralisation and jurisdiction

The metaverse appears seamless to users, but from a litigator’s perspective, it is messy: platforms, servers, and corporate entities are often offshore. NFTs and virtual goods may be traded on decentralised marketplaces with anonymous users.Infringing content can be mirrored, reskinned or reminted in minutes.

Indian courts are not unfamiliar with crossborder IP issues. They have used John Doe/Ashok Kumar orders to tackle unknown infringers and dynamic injunctions requiring intermediaries to block new URLs pointing to the same infringing content.

These tools are likely to be adapted to metaverse settings as well: orders against “John Doe avatars” or “unknown wallet holders”, directed at the platform operator and marketplaces to delist infringing items, block handles, and share KYC where available.

The key jurisdictional question will be “targeting”: if a virtual experience targets Indian consumers (rupee pricing, Hindi UI, India-specific promotions), courts can comfortably assert jurisdiction even if the code and servers sit abroad.

Practical guidance for Indian brands and creators

For Indian rightsholders looking at metaverse plays, three practical steps help futureproof IP:

1. File with the virtual in mind

Update trade mark filing strategy to cover “downloadable virtual goods; digital collectables; NFTs; virtual reality experiences” in relevant classes. For fashion, design-driven products, and character-heavy franchises, consider a mix of designs, copyright, and trade dress to cover both physical and virtual manifestations.

2. Draft licences and collaborations carefully

Metaverse collaborations (virtual stores, branded games, AR filters) should clearly allocate ownership of 3D assets, in game branding and UI, and user-generated derivatives (mods, skins, remixes). Reserve rights for future platforms; avoid wording that limits the licence to “television, cinema and internet” without mentioning virtual and immersive environments.

3. Plan enforcement pathways

Identify key platforms where your marks or designs are likely to be misused and understand their takedown tools and brand protection programmes. For NFTs, monitor major marketplaces for unauthorised content minting and be ready with infringement, passing-off, and unjust enrichment theories.

A balanced way forward 

The metaverse offers Indian businesses and creators a genuine chance to experiment – from virtual fashion shows to AR try-ons in local languages. At the same time, it opens the door to digital counterfeiting of brands, unauthorised virtualisation of designs, and exploitation of celebrity personas in immersive environments.

Indian IP law, even without a special metaverse statute, is flexible enough to respond by applying existing copyright, trade marks, designs and personality rights doctrine to virtual settings.

The challenge, and opportunity, for practitioners is to translate familiar principles into this new context: helping clients identify what counts as a “virtual good”, where their rights begin and end in AR/VR, and how to enforce them without killing the creativity that makes the metaverse attractive in the first place.

Author: Akshi Seem, Associate Partner