Write short notes on all the topics given below.

1. Legal concept of property

2. Emergence of intangible property
3. Labour theory of property
4. Economic reward theory of Intellectual Property
5. Austinian definition of Ownership
6. Title in the context of IPRs
7. Power of eminent domain
8. Doctrines of bona vacantia and escheat
9. Industrial property
10. WIPO definition of Industrial Property
11. Intellectual Property Rights and Public Interest
12. Intellectual Property Rights in virtual world
13. Digital copyright
14. Well known trademarks
15. Non conventional trademarks
16. Creative commerce license
17. GRTK (Genetic Resources and Traditional Knowledge)
18. Patenting computer related inventions
19. Intellectual Property in traditional, cultural expressions(TCEs)
20. Bioprospecting of Intellectual Property under the Biological Diversity Act.

Legal concept of property

Property is a legal concept that refers to the rights and interests that individuals or
entities have over tangible or intangible assets. It encompasses the ownership,
possession, and control of such assets, as well as the ability to use, transfer, or dispose
of them as per one's will.
Jurisprudentially speaking, “what we call the law of property is, in its first place, the
systematic expression of the degrees and forms of control, use and enjoyment, that are
recognised and protected by law.”
Roscoe Pound dissects the right of ownership into 6 sub rights –
1. Right to possess
2. Right to use
3. Right to enjoy the fruits
4. Right to enjoy incidental benefits
5. Right to dispose
6. Right to prohibit others
The concept of property also involves the idea of exclusivity, meaning the owner has the
right to exclude others from using or enjoying the property. However, these rights are
not absolute and are subject to limitations imposed by law, such as zoning laws or
intellectual property laws.

Another answer for ‘Legal concept of property’

Property is a legal concept that refers to the rights and interests that individuals or
entities have over tangible or intangible assets. It encompasses the ownership,
possession, and control of such assets, as well as the ability to use, transfer, or dispose
of them as per one's will. It has been said that "property and law were born and die
together. Before laws were made there was no property. Take away laws and property
ceases." Before laws were written and enforced, property had no relevance.
 Jurisprudentially speaking, “what we call the law of property is, in its first place, the
systematic expression of the degrees and forms of control, use and enjoyment, that are
recognised and protected by law.”
The legal concept of property refers to the rights and obligations that individuals or
entities have in relation to things that can be owned. It is a complex and multifaceted
concept that has evolved over time and varies across different legal systems. Here are
some key points to consider:
1. Types of Property: Property can be classified into different categories, such as real
property (land and buildings) and personal property (everything else, such as cars,
jewellery) and intangible assets like patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, and
brand names..
2. Ownership: Ownership is the most comprehensive form of property right, which gives
the owner the exclusive right to possess, use, and dispose of the property as they see fit,
subject to certain limitations imposed by law.
3. Possession: Possession is the physical control of property, which may or may not be
accompanied by ownership. In some cases, possession can give rise to certain legal
rights, such as the right to recover property that has been wrongfully taken.
4. Property Rights: Property rights are the legal protections that govern how property can
be used, transferred, and enjoyed. These rights can vary depending on the type of
property and the legal system in question.
5. Limitations on Property Rights: While property rights are generally protected by law,
there are certain limitations that may be imposed in the interest of public policy or social
welfare. For example, zoning laws may restrict how land can be used, and taxes may be
imposed on property ownership.

Emergence of intangible property

From the time immemorial, the human beings have developed a fascination for
the property. There have been many instances in the history, when countless
number of people were killed for a piece of land or a chunk of gold. In the good
old days, it was commonly thought that property denotes either immovable
property like land and buildings, or movable property like gold and other chattels.
Over a period of time, this notion underwent a major change resulting in
recognition of certain other forms of property with unique characteristics. One of
these newly recognized forms of property is the Intellectual Property. In modern
economies, a large share of corporate value and economic activity is based on
intangible assets. For example, tech companies derive most of their value from
intellectual property rather than physical assets.
With the advent of the information revolution or the third industrial revolution ,
skills and knowledge have become the only source of sustainable long-term
competitive advantage. Intellectual property lies at the center of the modern
company’s economic success or failure. Bill Gates, an American businessman,
investor, philanthropist, and writer best known for co-founding the software
giant Microsoft, along with his childhood friend Paul Allen is the perfect symbol
of the new centrality of intellectual property. For more than a century, the world’s
wealthiest human being has been associated with oil—starting with John D.
Rockefeller in the late nineteenth century and ending with the Sultan of Brunei in
the late twentieth century. But today, for the first time in history, the world’s
wealthiest person is a knowledge worker. With the emergence of the knowledge
industries, the commercial exploitation of IPRs has acquired a centrality.
Intangible property refers to non-physical assets like patents, copyrights,
trademarks, trade secrets, and brand names. These types of assets have
increased in importance with the rise of technology and knowledge-based
industries.
Stronger intellectual property laws and regulations have helped turn ideas,
creations, and business know-how into legally recognized and marketable
property. Things like software codes, drug formulas, artistic works etc. can now
be owned and licensed as intangible property.
Digital Revolution: With the advent of the digital age and the internet, intangible digital
goods such as software, digital media, domain names, and databases have become
increasingly important. The digitalization of content has led to new forms of intangible
property that are easy to distribute but also susceptible to unauthorized replication and
distribution.
Globalization and digitalization have boosted the value of brands, designs,
proprietary data and other knowledge-based assets which can now be exploited
worldwide through online platforms. Their value doesn't depreciate with physical
distance.
Economic Importance: Intangible assets have grown to represent a substantial
portion of the value of modern businesses. For many companies, especially in
the technology and service sectors, intangible assets are more valuable than
their physical assets. This shift has profound implications for how businesses
are valued and how they operate.
Globalization and Trade: The international trade of intangible assets has become
a crucial component of the global economy. Cross-border transactions involving
licensing, franchising, and technical services have increased, highlighting the
importance of harmonizing IP laws and protecting intangible property rights
across different jurisdictions.
Challenges in valuation and protection: Valuing and accounting of intangible
assets poses unique challenges given their non-physical nature. But methods
like discounted cash flow analysis are now commonly used to determine their
worth for corporate acquisitions, taxation purposes etc.
Protection of intangible property through patents, copyrights etc. is now seen as
important for incentivizing innovation in knowledge industries and digital
technologies which drive modern economies.
Knowledge Economy: The rise of the knowledge economy, where knowledge is a
key economic resource, has further propelled the significance of intangible
assets. Companies invest heavily in research and development, branding, and
information technology to gain competitive advantages.

Labor theory of property (also known as The Natural Rights Theory)

The main justification behind this theory is that everyone has a right to consider his/ her
ideas as natural property right by the reason that the creation originates from the effort,
originality and inventiveness of the creator. The backbone of this theory is based on
famous philosopher John Locke’s idea that an author has a natural right over his
creation applying his intellectual labour. In this sense there is no difference between
intellectual property and the traditional tangible property and there is no difference
between the rights of the owners of these two kinds of properties, such as right to enjoy
the property, to restrict others from using the property and the right to transfer the
ownership. John Locke (1632-1704), English Philosopher was among the most famous
philosophers and political theorists of the 17th century and is best known as a proponent
of limited government. He is the propounder of Labor Theory of Property. He argued that
either by natural reason or religious precepts issued out of revelation, one has to come
to the conclusion that every man born in this world has got the right to live. In order to
live, he has the right to have things necessary for his sustenance which nature gives.
Everyone is entitled for the full produce of his labour. Others have no right on that.
Hence, God has given all things for man to enjoy. His famous theory of labour argues
that by mixing work with nature, the resulting goods will necessarily belong to the
worker. Anyone who adds labour to it makes the things his own property. When a
person works, that labour enters into the object. Thus, the object becomes the property
of that person.

The essence of this theory is John Locke’s theory of natural ownership, which holds that an
owner has a natural right to all things he creates through his hard work and effort. Consequently,
ownership is based on the invention and innovation of the creator. Locke believed that
individuals should have control over the results of their labour. According to him, by adding
one’s labour to planting crops or creating a new invention, a person has “naturally acquired
property rights”. Therefore, in a similar vein, the natural rights theory of intellectual property
asserts that an individual automatically acquires ownership of his work simply by putting forth
his intellectual efforts.

Locke’s theory holds that when work is invested in an unowned object, that work becomes
entangled with the new object, which cannot be separated without damaging the new creation.
Therefore, the creator has acquired the natural right to own the work he has contributed to.
Property rights ensure that an individual’s original creation cannot be used, transferred, or
manipulated by others. Intellectual property rights belonging to the creator or owner of work
are protected by law.

Economic theory of Intellectual Property

The argument of Julius Stone, the profounder of economic theory is that the maximum
production of goods and services is the aim of the society. It can be achieved by means
of maximum productivity. On scrutiny, it can be found that the quality, quantity and
nature of production is correlated and geared to increase the individual profits. The
desire for individual profits which is paramount, subordinates all other ends, useful to
society. Secondly, private property by itself does not result in the increase of certain
things. It is proved by experiments that land yielded more fruits under government care
than under private ownership. The economic reason for creating such a property right is
also obvious. It is argued that unless the inventor is given the monopoly right to exploit
his invention or innovation, the inventor will neither have impetus to invent things nor
invest huge amounts of money that the research and development requires for inventing
new ideas and newer technologies. This would adversely affect the progress of every
 nation. Economic theory of Intellectual property rights is directly related to its value in
market economy. For intellectual property, an incentive must be created to overcome the
losses and market failure because every time the innovators lose a huge amount of
money due to high initial creation costs and marginal distribution costs of intellectual
products.

Austinian definition of Ownership

Austin says ownership refers to “a right indefinite in point of user, unrestricted in point
of disposition and unlimited in point of duration”. It is a right in rem which is available
against the whole world.
 Indefinite in point of user because the thing owned may be used by the owner in
very many ways. The owner of land may build a house on it or use it for cultivation
or convert it into a garden. He may make any use of it he pleases. However,
restrictions may be imposed on the use of the thing by means of an agreement or
by the operation of law. The owner may mortgage the land to somebody for a
specific period and also hand over the possession of the same. He may lease the
land to somebody for a specified number of years. He may create an easement in
favour of another person. The owner of the land cannot be allowed to use the
same in a way which is injurious to others. In the case of Crowhurst v Amersham
Burial Board, the Burial Board was held responsible for damages to the extent of
the price of the horse which died on account of eating a portion of a yew tree
planted by the Burial Board on its own land and about four feet from its boundary
railings.
 Unrestricted in point of disposition is a right of transfer or disposition without any
restriction. However, experience shows that in all advanced legal systems,
certain restrictions are imposed on the right of disposal of the owner. The
transfer of property is not allowed if its object is merely to defeat or delay the
creditors.
 Unlimited duration or the permanence of the right of ownership exists as long as
the thing exists. The right is extinguished with the destruction of the thing.
Destruction meaning transfer of property or foregoing of property. Ownership is
then inherited by his successor.
Criticism against Austinian definition of Ownership: It is fallacious to think that
ownership is a single right, in fact it is a bundle of rights including right of user and
enjoyment. Secondly, that the owner has an unrestricted right of disposition is not
correct. The right of ownership can be curtailed by the state, subject to injurious to
public health/ or for public use as per constitution of India Art 300A, any property can be
taken by the state for public use.

Title in the context of IPRs

Title, in the context of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), refers to the legal right to own,
use, and dispose of a piece of intellectual property. It indicates who has legal ownership
and control over the property, which can include inventions, literary and artistic works,
designs, symbols, names, and images used in commerce.
There are several types of IPR titles, including:
1. Patents: These grant the inventor exclusive rights to their invention for a certain period.
2. Trademarks: These are signs that distinguish goods and services of one business from
those of others.
3. Copyrights: These protect original works of authorship, such as literary, artistic, and
musical works.
4. Trade Secrets: These are confidential business information which provides an enterprise
a competitive edge.
Having a title to an intellectual property right allows the owner to prevent others from
using, making, selling, or importing their creation without permission. It also allows them
to legally enforce their rights if infringement occurs.

Power of eminent domain

 Eminent domain is the power of the government to take private property and put it
to public use, following the payment of just compensation.
 Everything from airspace, land, and contract rights to intellectual property is
subject to eminent domain if a case can be made for its public use.
 Unfair invoking of eminent domain, such as when property owners are not fairly
compensated, is called inverse condemnation.
 Both an entire property and a partial property can be seized, as well as the
potential for a temporary seizure.
 There have been some instances where a private party has used eminent domain
seizures under the guise of public improvements.
 Like the moveable and immovable property above are subject to acquisition and
requisition by the government for a public purpose under the sovereign doctrine
of eminent domain, even the intellectual property is also subject to similar
restriction. Hence, the government can interfere with the monopoly rights of the
Intellectual Property owners by issuing compulsory licenses, granting licenses of
right and imposing restrictions on the ground of public health and morality.
The Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property (Amendment) Bill, 2017 was
introduced in Lok Sabha on July 18, 2017. The Bill amends the Requisitioning and
Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952.
1952 Act: The Act provides for the central government to requisition immovable property
(or land) for any public purpose. Such public purpose must be a purpose of the central
government (such as defence, central government offices and residences). Once the
purpose for which the property was requisitioned is over, it must be returned back to the
owner in as good a condition as when the possession was taken.
The central government may acquire such requisitioned property in two cases which are:
(i) if the central government has constructed any work at such property, and the right to
use such work must be with the government; or (ii) if the cost of restoring the property to
the original condition would be excessive, and the owner refuses to accept the property
without being compensated for restoring the property.

Doctrines of bona vacantia and escheat

The doctrines of bona vacantia and escheat are legal principles related to the
ownership of property that has no apparent owner or heir.
Bona vacantia is a Latin term that means "ownerless goods." It refers to property that
has no owner because the original owner has died without leaving a will or heirs, or
because the property has been abandoned. When property becomes bona vacantia, it
becomes the property of the state or crown.
Escheat is a similar principle that refers to the reversion of property to the state or
crown when there is no lawful heir to inherit it. This can occur when a person dies
 without a will and has no surviving relatives, or when a corporation is dissolved and
there are no remaining shareholders or heirs.
Both bona vacantia and escheat are based on the idea that property should not be
allowed to remain ownerless indefinitely, as this can lead to confusion and disputes
over ownership. By transferring ownership to the state or crown, these doctrines
ensure that the property is managed and disposed of in a fair and orderly manner.
In practice, the application of bona vacantia and escheat varies by jurisdiction. In some
places, these doctrines are used primarily for personal property, while in others they
may also apply to real estate.
Additionally, the specific rules and procedures for handling bona vacantia and escheat
may differ depending on the jurisdiction.
It's worth noting that the doctrines of bona vacantia and escheat are relatively
uncommon in modern times, due to the widespread use of wills and other estate
planning tools. However, they still play an important role in resolving disputes over
ownership and ensuring that property is not left in limbo indefinitely.

Alternate answer
The Doctrine of Bona Vacantia and the Doctrine of Escheat are both legal principles
that deal with the ownership of property when there is no rightful heir or owner.
However, there are some key differences between the two doctrines:
1. Jurisdiction: The Doctrine of Bona Vacantia primarily applies in England and Wales,
while the Doctrine of Escheat is a more universal concept that applies in various
jurisdictions around the world, including the United States, Canada, and other
common law countries.
2. Source of the Doctrine: The Doctrine of Bona Vacantia is derived from English common
law, specifically from the principle that property that is "ownerless" (bona vacantia)
reverts to the Crown. The Doctrine of Escheat, on the other hand, has its roots in
feudal law, which dictated that property should revert to the ruling monarch or lord if
there were no heirs.
3. Application: The Doctrine of Bona Vacantia typically applies to property that was
owned by a deceased person who died intestate (without a valid will) or where the
estate is insolvent. In such cases, the property is considered "ownerless" and vests in the
Crown as bona vacantia. The Doctrine of Escheat, on the other hand, applies more
broadly to various types of property, such as land, real estate, or other assets, that
 revert to the government or ruling authority when there are no heirs or when specific
conditions are met, such as the owner's treason or bankruptcy.
4. Administration: In England and Wales, the Treasury Solicitor's Department is
responsible for administering bona vacantia properties, while in the United States,
escheat properties are typically managed by individual state governments, with each
state having its own escheat laws and procedures.
5. Modern Application: In modern times, the Doctrine of Bona Vacantia is less commonly
invoked due to the widespread use of wills and the existence of intestacy laws.
However, escheat laws continue to be relevant in many jurisdictions, particularly in
cases of unclaimed property or when heirs cannot be located.

In summary, the Doctrine of Bona Vacantia and the Doctrine of Escheat are both legal
principles that deal with the ownership of property when there is no rightful heir or
owner. They differ in their jurisdictional application, historical origins, and the types of
property they apply to.

Industrial Property
The two branches of Intellectual Property are Copyright and Industrial Property.

Copyright relates to literary and artistic creations, such as books, music, paintings and
sculptures, films and technology-based works (such as computer programs and
electronic databases). In certain languages, copyright is referred to as authors’ rights.

“Industrial property shall be understood in the broadest sense and shall apply not only
to industry and commerce proper, but likewise to agricultural and extractive industries
and to all manufactured or natural products, for example, wines, grain, tobacco leaf, fruit,
cattle, minerals, mineral waters, beer, flowers, and flour.”
The broad application of the term “industrial property” is set out in the Paris Convention.
Industrial property takes a range of forms, the main types of which are outlined here.
These include patents for inventions, industrial designs (aesthetic creations related to
the appearance of industrial products), trademarks, service marks, layout-designs of
integrated circuits, commercial names and designations, geographical indications and
protection against unfair competition. In some cases, aspects of an intellectual creation,
although present, are less clearly defined. What counts then is that the object of
industrial property consists of signs conveying information, in particular to consumers,
regarding products and services offered on the market. Protection is directed against
unauthorized use of such signs that could mislead consumers, and against misleading
practices in general.

WIPO definition of Industrial Property

Intellectual Property Industrial property legislation is part of the wider body of law known
as intellectual property (IP) which refers broadly to the creations of the human mind. IP
rights protect the interests of innovators and creators by giving them rights over their
creations. The Convention Establishing the World Intellectual Property Organization
(1967) does not seek to define IP, but lists the following as protected by IP rights:
• literary, artistic and scientific works;
• performances of performing artists, phonograms and broadcasts;
• inventions in all fields of human endeavor;
• scientific discoveries;
• industrial designs;
• trademarks, service marks, and commercial names and designations;
• protection against unfair competition; and
• “all other rights resulting from intellectual activity in the industrial, scientific, literary or
artistic fields”.
The importance of protecting IP was first recognized in the Paris Convention for the
Protection of Industrial Property (1883) (Paris Convention) and the Berne Convention for
the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (1886) (Berne Convention). Both treaties are
administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Countries generally
have laws to protect IP for two main reasons:
• to give statutory expression to the rights of creators and innovators in their creations
and innovations, balanced against the public interest in accessing creations and
innovations;
• to promote creativity and innovation, so contributing to economic and social
development

Intellectual Property Rights and Public Interest

The Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement of the World Trade
Organization (WTO) established minimum standards of protection that each government has to give to the
intellectual property of fellow WTO Members. Each of the main elements of protection is defined, namely the
subject matter to be protected, the rights to be conferred and permissible exceptions to those rights, and the
minimum duration of protection. WTO Members have the flexibility to design their national intellectual
property (IP) systems within the minimum standards set by the TRIPS Agreement, in cognizance of a
country’s economic, developmental and other objectives, including public health. Intellectual property
systems should balance the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights with public interest
considerations. Article 7 of the TRIPS Agreement recognizes this balance, providing that "the protection and
enforcement of intellectual property rights should contribute to the promotion of technological innovation and
to the transfer and dissemination of technology, to the mutual advantage of producers and users of
technological knowledge and in a manner conducive to social and economic welfare, and to a balance of rights
and obligations".
Article 8 allows members to adopt measures necessary to promote the public interest, including to protect
public health – so long as those measures are consistent with the TRIPS Agreement.
Safeguards and flexibilities built into the TRIPS Agreement provide avenues for WTO members to pursue
public interest objectives within the TRIPS legal framework. Since 2017, members have discussed the
relationship between intellectual property and the public interest in the WTO TRIPS Council. These
discussions have been initiated by certain members. Topics covered under ad hoc agenda items include the
promotion of public health through compulsory licensing, regulatory review exceptions and competition law
and policy, research and development (R&D) costs and pricing of health technologies as well as the "three-step
test" in the context of limitations and exceptions to copyright.
From the e-TRIPS gateway, you can access the TRIPS Council’s meeting records on intellectual property and
the public interest.
Specific issues address by the TRIPS Council under this ad hoc agenda item include:
 Compulsory licensing
 Follow-up discussion on compulsory licensing
 Regulatory review exception
 Promoting public health through competition law and policy
  R&D costs and pricing of medicines and health technologies
 Intellectual property and the public interest: The WTO TRIPS Agreement and the copyright three-
step test
 Intellectual property and the public interest: Beyond access to medicines and medical technologies
toward a more holistic approach to TRIPS flexibilities

Intellectual Property Rights in virtual world

The metaverse is a digital realm where individuals and businesses can interact with one another in a virtual
three-dimensional space. As more people enter this space, the question of who owns intellectual property (IP)
rights to virtual assets and creations becomes increasingly complex. In this article, we will explore the
challenges and opportunities that IP presents in the metaverse and how to protect it, including relevant case
laws, including Indian case laws.
Various types of IPs apply in the metaverse. Copyright law covers virtual objects like avatars, buildings, and
landscapes created by users. Trademark law protects logos and other branding materials used within the virtual
world, while Patent law applies to technological advancements that arise during the development of the
metaverse.
To receive protection under patent laws, a technology must fulfil certain criteria, including novelty, inventive
step, and industrial application. Therefore, determining whether a specific metaverse patent has been infringed
upon by other technologies will likely remain a contentious issue, particularly due to the rapid evolution of the
technology. It will be challenging to distinguish between a truly “novel” invention and a mere modification of
an existing one. In the case of Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International (2014), the Supreme Court of the United
States ruled that offshore application software was not eligible for a patent because it was merely
implementing an “abstract idea.” This ruling adds to the challenges of obtaining patents for metaverse
technologies. If accused of infringing on a metaverse patent, the defendant will likely argue that the patented
invention is based on an “abstract notion,” which typically cannot be patented.
The metaverse poses a challenge to intellectual property (IP) ownership, as users can create virtual
representations of real-world objects, including copyrighted works or trademarks, that they do not own. Just
like in the physical world, it is crucial for builders of the metaverse to respect the IP rights of designers,
inventors, and owners of distinctive signs, as IP laws protect the intangible elements of an object, whether
physical or virtual. As a result, holders of IP rights have the legal right to protect their rights in the metaverse
and prosecute any exploitation of those rights, such as the use of a virtual purse or jacket that infringes upon
their IP rights. However, determining the scope of IP protection in the metaverse requires careful
consideration, as the use of real-world objects in the virtual space may infringe on the IP rights of the real-
world owner. Therefore, there is a need for a clear legal framework that can protect both the rights of the IP
owners and the freedom of users to create and interact with virtual objects in the metaverse.
The legal framework for protecting intellectual property (IP) in the metaverse is based on various international
agreements, such as the Berne Convention, which establishes the minimum standards for copyright protection
in most countries around the world. Additional agreements have been adopted to adapt to the digital
environment, including the WIPO Copyright Treaty, adopted in 1996. The Agreed Statement concerning
Article 1(4) of the WIPO Copyright Treaty clarifies that storing a protected work in digital form in an
electronic medium, such as an NFT or a file displayed in the metaverse, constitutes a reproduction that requires
prior approval from the copyright holder. Therefore, it is crucial to obtain permission from the copyright
holder before creating and displaying any virtual assets based on protected works.
To protect your IP in the metaverse, there are several steps you can take. First, you should register your
copyright, trademark, or patent with the relevant authorities in the jurisdiction of your interest. This provides
you with legal protection and the ability to take legal action against infringers.
Second, you should monitor the metaverse for instances of infringement. You can do this manually or through
automated tools that search for instances of infringement. If you find any instances of infringement, you should
take legal action to protect your rights.
Third, you should consider licensing your IP to others in the metaverse. This provides you with additional
income streams and helps ensure that your IP is used in a manner consistent with your wishes.
Case laws highlight the need for careful consideration of IP ownership in the metaverse.
In a recent landmark judgement, the Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction in favor of NODWIN
Gaming, a game developer, against two entities that had infringed on its copyright by using the company’s
logo and branding in a mobile game without permission. The court held that the defendants had deliberately
copied NODWIN’s logo and branding, which constituted an infringement of NODWIN’s copyright.
Similarly, in the case of MDY Industries, LLC v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc., the US District Court for the
District of Arizona found that a software program that allowed users to automatically play World of Warcraft,
a popular online game, infringed on Blizzard’s copyright.
In the case of Exphar SA v. Eupharma Laboratories Ltd., the Delhi High Court held that the use of a trademark
that was similar to the plaintiff’s trademark in a virtual world constituted trademark infringement. The court
noted that the defendant’s use of a similar trademark was likely to cause confusion among consumers.
Fourth, you should consider creating a terms of service agreement that governs the use of your IP in the
metaverse. This agreement outlines the conditions under wshich others can use your IP and provides you with
legal recourse if those conditions are violated.
In the case of Bragg v. Linden Research, Inc., the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
held that a user who created virtual objects within the virtual world Second Life did not own the copyright to
those objects because the terms of service agreement governing the use of Second Life specified that Linden
Lab, the company behind Second Life, owned all intellectual property created within the virtual world.
Despite the challenges of IP ownership in the metaverse, there are significant opportunities. The metaverse
offers a vast market for digital goods and services, and IP owners can potentially monetize their creations
through licensing and sales. Additionally, the metaverse provides a platform for creators to showcase their
work and build their brands, potentially leading to opportunities for collaboration and new business ventures.
In conclusion, the metaverse presents both challenges and opportunities for IP law. Protecting your IP in the
metaverse requires careful consideration and a willingness to adapt. By taking steps to register your IP,
monitor for infringement, license your IP, and create terms of service agreement, you can help ensure that your
rights are protected in this exciting new world.

Digital copyright

Well known trademarks

Non conventional trademarks

Creative commerce license

GRTK (Genetic Resources and Traditional Knowledge)
Patenting computer related inventions
Intellectual Property in traditional, cultural expressions(TCEs)
Bioprospecting of Intellectual Property under the Biological Diversity Act.