Until recently, the question “is my name protected?” referred almost exclusively to the physical world: stores, labels, products on the shelf. Today, the same brand can appear on an object in a video game, on a digital piece of clothing or in a virtual metaverse-type space, and it raises exactly the same legal issues.
What seems like a novelty for many entrepreneurs is, in fact, already a regulated reality. Courts and trademark offices across the European Union have started to treat virtual goods like any other product: with the same rules, the same risks and the same possibilities for protection.
What, concretely, are “virtual products”?
Virtual products are digital goods that exist exclusively in the online environment or in a virtual universe. Some concrete examples:
- Digital clothing — a jacket that your avatar can “wear” in a game or social platform
- Digital artwork — NFT collections, illustrations, or designs sold as one-of-a-kind goods
- Virtual accessories — watches, bags, shoes, or jewelry that only exist on the screen
- Spaces and objects in the metaverse — virtual lands, digital furniture, decorations for 3D environments
All of these can be branded, bought and sold, and generate real revenue — even if the product itself doesn’t have a physical form.
Why does this matter for the protection of a brand?
The European Trademark System classifies goods and services into standardised categories, known as the Nice Classification. When registering a trademark, you must specify exactly which products or services you want protection for.
The problem arises when a brand is registered only for physical products, and then a competitor appears who uses it for the digital version of the same products. Or, vice versa, when the owner of a digital brand discovers that someone else is already exploiting it in the physical world.
The practical conclusion: A trademark registered for “clothing” does not automatically cover “virtual clothing” as well. They are distinct categories, and protection does not extend from one to another without explicit registration.
The “Glashütte” case: when a geographical name becomes even more complicated in the virtual environment
A very relevant example comes from the field of watches. The name “Glashütte” is the name of a city in Germany, known for centuries as the center of the luxury watch industry. Over time, this name has acquired a special meaning: consumers associate it directly with high-quality watches.
The European authorities considered the term “Glashütte” to be descriptive for physical watches – that is, it indicates a geographical origin or a specific quality, without being able to function as an independent brand.
But what about virtual watches? The logic applied by the courts has been consistent: if a term is descriptive for a physical product, it also remains descriptive for its digital version. A virtual clock that mimics or replicates a physical clock is essentially the same product – only it exists on a different stand.
This approach has clear implications: the rules that apply to physical products similarly apply to equivalent virtual products.
What has changed, concretely, the practice of trademark offices?
As of 2022, the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) has clarified how virtual goods are classified. The main clarifications:
- “Virtual goods” are recognised as a distinct category in Class 9 of the Nice Classification (together with software, applications and digital content)
- NFT services — i.e., authentication services for a unique digital asset — are treated separately from the asset itself
- Retail services in virtual environments — online stores, sales platforms in the metaverse — are recognized in Class 35
In other words, if you want to protect your brand in the digital world as well, you must explicitly tick these categories at the time of registration.
The most common mistakes entrepreneurs make:
- Trademark only for physical products If your business has or may have a digital component, the protection must also include equivalent virtual products/services. Otherwise, a competitor can use the same brand in the digital environment without violating your rights.
- I think the NFT “covers” everything An NFT is a certificate of authenticity, not a brand. The fact that you sell a digital product in the form of an NFT does not give you exclusive rights to the name or logo used.
- Ignore the metaverse because it’s “not relevant now” The cost of adding additional categories at the time of registration is low. The cost of correcting the situation later — through oppositions, litigation or new registrations — can be significantly higher.
- They don’t check if their digital brand is already registered by someone else With the growth of the NFT market and metaverse platforms, more and more brands are proactively registered in these categories — including by speculators who don’t use them, but who can block or monetize the conflict.
How should you approach protecting a brand in 2026?
Whether you’re just starting out or already have an established brand, a few principles are essential:
Think long-term. Even if you don’t have virtual products today, if there is a reasonable chance that you will develop them, register protection from the very beginning.
Specify exactly the relevant categories. A vague or incomplete record can leave gaps that others can exploit. The categories for virtual products, NFTs, and services in the metaverse are already well defined — they just need to be included.
Check if your brand is already “busy” in the digital environment. A prior art search must also cover these new categories, not just the traditional ones.
Align protection with your business model. If you’re selling both physically and digitally, the protection needs to be equally comprehensive in both mediums.
If you want to see more trends that are changing the brand landscape right now, we also recommend our article on brand trends in 2026.
Conclusion
The virtual world is not a space free of legal rules. On the contrary, the principles that govern brands in the physical world are also directly applied in the digital environment, sometimes even with greater rigor, because practice is in formation and solutions are not always predictable.
The ‘Glashütte’ case and EUIPO’s clarifications show that courts and trade mark offices do not treat virtual goods as an exotic or exceptional category. It treats them like any other product: with the same distinctiveness requirements, the same limitations for descriptive terms, and the same consequences in the event of a conflict.
The TAS team provides you with advice and representation for trademark registration with OSIM and EUIPO, including for virtual products, NFTs and services in the metaverse.
📧 E-mail: office@agentiatas.ro
📞 Phone: 0745 160 163
