EUIPO’s Current Guidelines Tighten Virtual Goods, NFT and Metaverse Trade Mark Practice: ‘Virtual Goods’ Is No Longer Enough

The EUIPO’s current Trade Mark Guidelines have made the treatment of virtual goods, NFTs and metaverse-related trade mark issues much more specific. According to the Office’s public guidance pages, the version currently in force was adopted by the Executive Director on 30 April 2025 and took effect on 1 May 2025. For applicants, the important point is not the date alone. It is that examination has shifted from asking whether these filings are possible at all to asking whether they are drafted with enough precision.

This is not a cosmetic update driven by buzzwords. It is a meaningful tightening of filing boundaries. In practice, “virtual goods” on its own will often no longer be enough, and “NFTs” cannot simply be dropped into a specification as if they were a self-contained product category. What the EUIPO now wants to see is much clearer: what digital object is actually being claimed, what real-world counterpart it relates to, and whether use in metaverse settings may create a more concrete source-confusion issue with real-world goods, virtual goods or related services.

1. The real tightening is in specification drafting, not just in category labels

For a while, many applicants treated “virtual goods” and “NFTs” as convenient gateway terms. The thinking was simple: secure a broad placeholder now and work out the business model later. The current Guidelines clearly move away from that approach. The EUIPO’s position is that a trade mark filing is not a declaration of interest in a trend. It is a request for protection that must have boundaries clear enough to be examined, searched and enforced. That is why “virtual goods” will often be considered too broad unless the specification goes on to identify the actual content, such as downloadable virtual clothing, downloadable virtual footwear, or downloadable digital artwork authenticated by NFTs.

The logic is practical rather than theoretical. Even if virtual objects have no physical form, they increasingly function in trade, consumer perception and brand use like identifiable goods. Once that is true, the Office is less willing to accept a vague basket term that leaves the real scope of protection unclear. The broader the wording, the harder it becomes to assess conflicts with earlier rights, to compare goods and services properly, and to evaluate risk in later opposition or infringement disputes.

2. Why “virtual goods” and “NFTs” cannot stand on their own

Under the current framework, downloadable virtual goods will generally sit in Class 9. That part is now familiar to most practitioners. But Class 9 is not a catch-all for everything linked to the metaverse. What the EUIPO is prepared to accept is not a broad digital-era slogan, but a concrete digital object. Saying “downloadable virtual goods” is still too loose if it does not also explain whether the filing covers virtual clothing, virtual handbags, virtual artworks or some other downloadable digital item.

NFTs are treated in a similarly disciplined way. In practice, an NFT is closer to an authentication mechanism than to a stand-alone product label. A specification that merely says “non-fungible tokens” will often fail to define the object of protection with enough precision. Applicants are expected to identify the digital item authenticated by the NFT. For brand teams, this matters immediately. It affects specification strategy, budgeting, sequencing and whether a filing is likely to clear formality review without avoidable objections.

Another point is easy to miss. Services connected with virtual environments do not automatically change class simply because they are provided in a metaverse setting. Many of them will still be classified according to the nature of the service itself. That means businesses trying to protect a digital brand rollout often need more than a Class 9 filing. They may also need to consider retail, entertainment, platform, software, certification or technical-service classes depending on how the business is actually being built.

3. Metaverse confusion analysis is moving closer to real-world product relationships

The more important development may lie beyond classification. In distinctiveness analysis and in the comparison of goods, the current Guidelines increasingly place virtual goods and their real-world counterparts into the same analytical frame. The EUIPO has not said that real-world goods and virtual goods are automatically identical. It has, however, made clear that they may be similar, and that the assessment can turn on familiar commercial factors: function, intended purpose, usual producers, marketing channels, and whether the market has become accustomed to the same brand offering both physical and virtual versions.

That matters because it changes the risk map for metaverse-related branding. A sign that is non-distinctive for real-world goods may not suddenly become distinctive merely because it is used for a virtual equivalent. On the other side, where a brand already extends clothing, footwear, cosmetics or consumer electronics into digital versions, the distance between the physical product and its virtual counterpart may be much smaller than applicants once assumed in opposition, invalidity or infringement disputes.

Put differently, metaverse practice is not moving away from real-world trade mark logic. It is forcing applicants to explain more carefully whether the virtual product is a natural extension of the physical one, and whether consumers are likely to perceive both as coming from the same commercial source across different formats. For businesses expanding internationally, this is a practical point, not a theoretical one. If physical products are likely to move into games, immersive platforms or other digital environments, trade mark strategy should ideally be designed around the physical good, its virtual counterpart and the relevant supporting services together, rather than patched up after launch.

4. Four practical moves for applicants now

• Rewrite the goods specification first. Do not use “virtual goods” as a placeholder. Identify the actual digital object and decide whether it is properly framed as a downloadable item.
• Treat NFTs as an authentication concept. The key is not to insert the letters “NFT”, but to specify what digital item is being authenticated.
• Search physical and virtual brand extensions together. A Class 9 review should not stop at digital goods alone. It should also test whether owners of real-world goods already have a credible virtual extension story.
• Build classes around business use, not around hype. Class 9 may be necessary, but retail, software, platform, entertainment or technical-service classes may also be needed depending on the actual rollout.

The most useful message from the current Guidelines is a simple one: metaverse-related trade mark filings are no longer a space where broad wording can do the strategic work for you. The EUIPO now wants to know what digital object is being protected, how it relates to real-world goods, and whether consumers may see use across different formats as coming from the same source. The applicants who define that clearly, file it clearly and search it clearly will be in a much stronger position later.