INTRODUCTION
The Internet today facilitates a variety of services, with one of the most formidable being three- dimensional virtual spaces that provide economic and cultural experiences similar to real- world activities. Metaverse, one such formidable shared virtual space, brings together a vast spectrum of innovative technology, merging digital and physical realties and has the potential to reorient the line between the real and virtual world.
Despite the setback of Meta's ambitious metaverse project in 2022, the specialized application of technology such as Virtual reality (VR), Augmented Reality (AR) and the broader ecosystem revolving the concept of Metaverse as whole is still active. One such example is the establishment of “Bharatmeta” India's first ever Business Metaverse Solution, developed by Kiya.AI, aiming at the common adoption of Metaverse technology by real world businesses. This advancement in technology has and will continue to introduce new legal challenges. Virtual assets, emerging as byproducts of the ongoing IT revolution and rapid digital reformations, are increasingly protected, though often indirectly, under various forms of Intellectual Property (IP) rights, including copyright, trademark trade secret and other protections. IP owners can exploit these rights within these digital environments. This article considers the issues, challenges and jurisdictional complexities which Intellectual Property face in Metaverse and solutions which Indian legislation offers for such problems.
UNDERSTANDING METAVERSE AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS INVOLVED THEREIN.
Metaverse is an evolving concept due to which there is no specific definition for the term. Nonetheless, Metaverse could be understood as a generational evolution of Internet where users can access virtual spaces created by the convergence of Virtual Reality (VR) [a computer-generated simulation allowing its user to correspond to 3D environment] and Augmented Reality (AR) [a technology overlaying digital information with user's environment in real time].
While the discussion around Metaverse has diminished significantly after Facebook's unsuccessful attempt to gain the intended traction with its Metaverse initiative, however, to say that the same is dead or will never exist is too premature. Companies are still gradually investing in Metaverse in the form of gaming and social / social media platforms. A prime illustration of this is the introduction of “Bharatmeta” marking a new dawn in the evolution of Metaverse in the nation, establishing India as a significant player in the domain of Metaverse. As the nation's first ever Metaverse platform, Bharatmeta goes beyond the realm of gaming and social interaction and focuses on practical, business driven application of the technology. Bharatmeta focus on the commerce of physical and virtual goods, allowing people to interact through AI- based content and providing practical use for banking, commerce, culture, real estate and other services within the Metaverse.
Technological advancement is likely to eventually lead to a renewed interest in Metaverse becomes integrated with users' daily life. Metaverse, being a decentralized virtual reality environment, raises complex IP challenges due to anonymity of users, blurred reality and machine generated content. Issues relating to accountability, fair use, brand dilution and various rights vested in digital assets under IP law are among the primary concerns which were and will continue to be raised with the development of Metaverse. These concerns were seen during various legal actions such as that of Hermès' January 2022 lawsuit against NFT developer Mason Rothschild for selling “Metabirkins,” - unauthorized digital reproductions of the signature Birkin bag, which allegedly infringed on Hermès' trademark rights.
Another prominent case of trademark infringement was a suit filed by Nike against StockX, for unauthorized sale of Nike- branded virtual sneaker NFTs. These complexities underscore the need for robust IP protection in constrained but rapidly evolving virtual environments. Metaverse transforms digital economy in a user-driven space, allowing goods, services and revenue to thrive. This transformation precipitates legal complexities to surface around the blurring conception of reality and Metaverse.
ESTABLISHING JURISDICTION IN METAVERSE
To start off, there exists a contractual relationship between the host of the Metaverse platform and its users. Metaverse, although a virtual reality platform, is no different from any other social media platform and allows its users to log into a provider-controlled environment. These Terms of Service and User Agreements provide in-depth perspective about the liberty and liability possessed by users when entering the virtual world.
However, some Metaverse platforms allow the individuals to operate anonymously or pseudonymously via an avatar. This enables the infringer to continue committing unlawful act behind their concealed identities, proving to be the first challenge faced by the genuine owner of a work. Even if an individual / entity files any complaint with the appropriate authorities most of the Metaverse platforms have little to no user identification requirements, compelling the aggrieved person / entity to initiate proceedings against John Doe.
Fortunately, Indian jurisdiction permits claim and suit against unknown persons or entities. The Delhi High Court decision in Neetu Singh & Ors. v. Telegram FZ LLC & Ors1 where anonymous unauthorized dissemination of copyrighted course material was done on various Telegram channels the Plaintiff was allowed to identify new infringing channels, IP addresses, email IDs, phone numbers etc. being used to upload infringing content. In another recent case of Ankur Warikoo v. John Doe2 the Delhi High Court passed a John Doe injunction in favour of the claimant against AI & Deepfake misuse of his trademark ‘Warikoo' and his personality rights on social media platforms such as Instagram, Facebook and WhatsApp. Although these matters did not arise in the context of Metaverse platforms, they illustrate how Indian courts have extended relief in situations involving anonymity and technological misuse—an analogy that may well be drawn in future Metaverse-related disputes.
Another challenge which the IP right holders face while dealing with Metaverse is the service of summons to anonymous infringers. The Indian judicial system is constantly facing the challenges of procedural delays, primarily caused by lack of timely service of summons. To address this, Indian Courts have permitted service of summons to anonymous users via unconventional digital means. In the case of Tata Sons Ltd. v. John Doe3 Delhi High Court allowed service of summons via electronic channels linked to the infringer such as anonymous email Ids, phone numbers or even other social media platforms and have mandated the service provider to disclose all available information.
A further challenge faced by users is the question of applicable governing law. The main question which arises is “when an IP is infringed in Metaverse which jurisdiction /territory does its claim corresponds to”. The TRIPS Agreement, when concluded in the year 1995, mandated each member state to provide minimum standards of IP protection. However, each jurisdiction / territory retained the discretion to adopt a sui generis system for IP protection, tailored to its economic and cultural priorities and national requirements. Thus, leading to the concern that if IP is infringed in Metaverse where should the aggrieved seek relief.
The Information Technology Act 2000 (“IT Act”) is the primary governing law which provides for the jurisdiction of Indian Courts in cyber related cases. Sections 1 and 75 of the IT Act provide for extraterritorial application of Indian jurisdiction for crimes committed outside the nation. As per these Sections, Indian Courts have the jurisdiction to adjudicate cases where the offence, although committed outside its national boundaries, affect Indian nationals or organizations.
Furthermore, Section 62 of the Copyright Act 1957 and Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 provides for the plaintiff to initiate litigation in the District Court of the jurisdiction where he/she/it resides, has a place of business, or personally works for gain. Similarly, in the case of Neetu Singh v Telegram while answering the question of jurisdiction, the Delhi High Court observed that, “the provisions of the IT Act and the Rules made thereunder, when read harmoniously with the rights and remedies provided to the copyright owners under the Copyright Act provides competence to Indian Courts to decide issues pertaining to infringement where the Plaintiff is residing and carrying on business in India”. The Court's jurisdiction cannot be ousted merely because the platform server was located abroad.
CONCLUSION
The emergence of Bharatmeta marks a significant evolution in India's technological journey, signalling that the Metaverse is no longer a distant concept but a fast-evolving platform with realistic business application. On date, although global enthusiasm seems to be fluctuating, Metaverse still holds the potential to redefine digital interaction, taking e-commerce to a pinnacle. However, as Bharatmeta and similar platforms gain more traction, challenges of enforcing Intellectual Property rights would intensify. As the digital terrain expands globally, virtual and decentralised — especially with the advent of Metaverse — the question of jurisdiction in IP disputes would become increasingly thorny - unless concrete guidelines / provisions are brought to light.
Current Indian legislation such as the IT Act, judicial precedents such as John Doe injunctions and electronic service of summons, though demonstrate some readiness to attend to these complexities, there is still a need for effective enforcement and regulatory guidelines to be formulated for continued adoption of new technology at par with the international levels. Indian law requires the formulation of new guidelines to address the emergence of the metaverse, including a comprehensive regulatory framework similar to the EU's metaverse guidelines. On the international front - dedicated guidelines are required to create a clear and harmonized legal framework, with the establishment of a specialized international legal authority to address crimes committed across national jurisdictions within the Metaverse, along with associated civil rights issues arising in its distinct virtual spaces. Furthermore, discussions on developing common multilateral treaties to unify global jurisdiction principles, defining “digital presence” and “virtual domicile” are necessary to consistently protect various IP and other rights.
The advent of new technologies and virtual interactions necessitate a rethinking of jurisdiction, enforcement, and adjudication apparatuses. Only by pursuing this course can we deliver just, accessible and enforceable IP protection in the global digital age.
Footnotes
1. Neetu Singh v. Telegram FZ LLC, CS (Comm) 282 of 2020
2. Ankur Warikoo v. John Doe, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 3727
3. Tata Sons Limited & anr v John Doe & ors.; before the Delhi High Court; Order dated 27.04.2017
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
