.png?width=500&height=250&name=%E7%9F%A5%E7%9A%84%E8%B2%A1%E7%94%A3%E4%BA%8B%E5%8B%99%E6%89%80%E3%82%A8%E3%83%9C%E3%83%AA%E3%82%AF%E3%82%B9%20(500%20%C3%97%20250%20px).png)
.jpg?height=200&name=unnamed%20(1).jpg)
Introduction "The design of a new product you worked so hard to develop. What would you do if it...
The Metaverse market is rapidly expanding. According to estimates by Bloomberg, the Metaverse-related market is expected to reach approximately $2.5 trillion in 2030, up from approximately $800 billion in 2024. Avatar clothing and accessories, virtual architecture, andvehicle designs are now routinely traded on platforms such as VRChat, Roblox, and Fortnite.
However, behind this rapid growth, serious problems are emerging. Pirated copies and imitations of digital designs on the Metaverse are rampant. Particularly in the field of vehicle design, there are many cases in which iconic designs developed by car manufacturers over many years are turned into 3D models without permission and sold on the Metaverse.
In order to respond to this situation, the Japanese government has decided to amend the Design Law in 2026. This amendment is a groundbreaking amendment that aims to directly protect digital assets, including vehicle designs, in the Metaverse within the framework of design law. In this article, from the perspective of a patent attorney, we will thoroughly explain the core of this amendment and the IP strategies that companies should take immediately.
Table of Contents
1. Why couldn't the Metaverse vehicle design be protected
Now that high-definition vehicle designs are being traded on the Metaverse, many automakers and design studios are facing the dilemma of being unable to legally stop their designs from being used without permission. We will unravel the structural problems of why current laws do not provide protection.
1-1. Limits of image protection - The narrow world of manipulated images and displayed images
Under the current Design Law, there is a system of "image design" as a mechanism to protect designs in digital space. Due to the 2020 legal revision, protection now includes not only images displayed on goods, but also images stored in the cloud and images on websites. However, the term "image" used here has clear limitations.
Two types of images under the current law
1. Operation image: Interface screen used by the user to operate the device (e.g. smartphone icon arrangement, car navigation system operation screen)
2. Display image: Screen on which the device displays information (e.g. measurement results display in a healthcare app, weather forecast widget)
The premise of both is that the images are intended to perform some kind of function. Like vehicle designs on the Metaverse, 3D models that are purely for the enjoyment of the beauty and form of the design do not fit into this framework.
For example, consider the design of a virtual sports car being sold on a Metaverse platform. This sports car is a 3D model that is displayed as the user drives through virtual space. This model is neither an "operation image" nor a "display image". It is an "object that exists in a virtual world" and falls outside the definition of image design under current law.
An even more important issue is that current image designs basically assume two-dimensional, flat images. Vehicle designs on the Metaverse are 3D objects that can be viewed and manipulated from all 360-degree angles. This difference in dimension overturns the assumptions of system design in the first place, and there are limits to how it can be addressed through interpretation.
1-2. Real and virtual walls - dissimilar walls
Even if we were able to overcome the problem of image design, another big hurdle would still stand in our way. That is the``dissimilarity of goods'' problem.
The effect of a design right extends to "identical or similar designs," and this determination of similarity takes into account both "similarity of articles" and "similarity of form." Under current law, real cars and virtual cars on the metaverse are not considered to be the same or similar as goods.
Dissimilarity problem - Why is it not protected?
Even if the forms are exactly the same, a ``real car'' and a ``virtual vehicle model on the Metaverse'' are different product categories, so design rights do not apply to them. This means that even if the design of a real-world luxury car is made into a 3D model on the Metaverse and sold, it will not infringe on design rights under current law. This is the reason why "dead copies" of designs are rampant.
This problem is not limited to the real-to-virtual direction. It is conceivable that original vehicle designs originating from the Metaverse may become popular and be manufactured and sold as real cars or minicars without permission. However, even if a design is registered as a design for virtual space, the rights cannot be enforced against products in the real world.
Summary of protection gaps in current design law
| Problem | Specific content | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Image design definition | Limited to operation images and display images, 3D objects in virtual space are not applicable | Vehicle models on the metaverse cannot be protected as image designs |
| Dimension mismatch | Image design assumes a 2D plane, metaverse is a 3D object | The system cannot protect designs that can be viewed 360 degrees |
| Dissimilarity of goods | Real cars and virtual vehicles have different product categories | Design rights do not apply even if the shapes are the same |
| Cross reality not supported | There is no provision for exercising rights against reality → virtual, virtual → imitation of reality | Dead copy becomes a legally acceptable result |
2. Limitations of unfair competition prevention law/copyright law and benefits of design rights
Regarding the protection of vehicle designs on the Metaverse, approaches other than design law have been considered, such as the Unfair Competition Prevention Law (non-competition law) and copyright law. However, both have definite limitations. Here, we will compare the protection capabilities and limitations of each law and clarify the essential advantages of design rights.
2-1. Revised Unfair Competition Prevention Act - Short protection period and "product labeling" requirements
With the revision of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act in 2024, designs in the digital space will now be protected to a certain extent. Specifically, the provision of "imitation of product form" in Article 2, Paragraph 1, Item 3 of the Non-Competition Act opens the possibility of being applied to product forms in the digital space.
However, this protection has a fatal weakness.
Non-compete law protection period is only 3 years
The period of protection for a product form under Article 2, Paragraph 1, Item 3 of the Non-Competition Act is limited to 3 years from the date of first sale. In a market like Metaverse, where products have long life cycles and continue to be distributed as digital assets semi-permanently, three years of protection is simply not enough. Compared to the maximum 25 years for design rights, the difference is clear.
Furthermore, in order to receive protection as a "mark of goods, etc." under Article 2, Paragraph 1, Items 1 and 2 of the Non-Competition Act, the design must be widely recognized (well-known) among consumers. It is usually unlikely that a newly released vehicle design in the Metaverse will gain publicity immediately after its release, creating a gap in the timing of protection.
Furthermore, since protection under non-competition laws is limited to cases where the counterfeiter's "business interests" are infringed upon, there is also the problem that it is difficult to enforce rights against counterfeiting for non-commercial purposes (such as use in fan art or open source projects).
2-2. Copyright protection as applied art - the wall of dependence
Protection under copyright law is also theoretically possible. If a vehicle design is recognized as a copyrighted property as "applied art," protection occurs at the same time as creation, and there is no need for registration procedures. However, the reality is that the practical hurdles are extremely high.
First, in Japanese court practice, the standards for recognizing copyrighted property in industrial product designs are extremely strict. Because "aesthetic creativity to a degree that can be equated with pure art" is required, the possibility that vehicle designs with functional aspects can be protected as copyrighted works is limited.
Proving reliance - the biggest weakness of copyright law
To claim copyright infringement, you must prove that the other party "relyed" on and copied your design. However, it is extremely difficult to prove how an anonymous user on the Metaverse created a design. In many cases, it is virtually impossible to disprove something if it is claimed that it was an original creation. Design rights do not require proof of this "reliance."
Copyright law also protects expressions, not ideas. The basic form and styling direction of a vehicle design is likely to be classified as an "idea," and only extremely specific expressions are protected. Copyright law cannot protect against imitations of ``Inspired'' products that subtly change the essence of the design.
2-3. Strengths of design rights - The destructive power of absolute monopoly rights
In contrast to the limitations of non-competition laws and copyright laws, design rights take a fundamentally different approach to protecting designs. Its greatest feature is'absolute exclusivity'.
What is the absolute exclusive right of design rights
Design rights can be exercised over designs that are the same or similar to a registered design, regardless of whether the other party was aware of the existence of the design. In other words, unlike copyright, there is no need to prove "reliance." Even if the other party claims that the design was "independently created," infringement will still occur if the design is similar to the registered design. This nature of "absolute exclusivity" is the most powerful weapon in the metaverse, where anonymity is high and imitation routes are difficult to prove.
In addition, the duration of a design right isup to 25 years from the filing date. Compared to the three years under the non-competition law and 70 years after the death of the copyright author (or 70 years after publication for corporate works), this is an excellent balance for industrial property rights. A period of 25 years is sufficient to cover the period during which designs on the Metaverse will be commercially utilized.
In addition, because design rights arerights that are registered after being examined by the Patent Office, there is a high degree of confidence in the validity of the rights, and they have strong persuasive power in license negotiations and litigation.
Comparison of three methods of metaverse design protection
| Comparison item | Unfair Competition Prevention Act | Copyright law | Design rights |
|---|---|---|---|
| Protection period | 3 years after sale | 70 years after the author's death | Up to 25 years from application |
| Registration required | Not required | Not required (automatically generated) | Required (subject to review) |
| Proof of dependence | No.3 is unnecessary / No.1 and 2 need to be well known | Required (biggest weakness) | Not required (absolute exclusivity) |
| Protection scope | Dead copy of product form | Specific expression only | Same + similar design |
| Exercise your rights to anonymous people | Possible but requires proof | Extremely difficult to prove reliance | Similarity with the registered design is sufficient |
| Cross-reality protection | Possible to interpret, but unstable | Theoretically possible, but limited | Clarified in 2026 revision |
3. The core of the 2026 Design Law Amendment
The 2026 Design Law Amendment is a paradigm shift that will fundamentally change the way designs are protected in the digital age. Especially for vehicle designs on the Metaverse, this is a groundbreaking reform that will eliminate long-standing protection gaps all at once.
3-1. Virtual goods become objects of protection - Expansion of the concept of "goods"
The most important point of this revision is that the concept of "article" under the Design Act will be significantly expanded. Until now, the objects of design law protection were limited to "articles" as physically existing tangible objects, as well as "images," "buildings," and "interiors" that met certain conditions.
Paradigm shift - The design of virtual space becomes "design"
With the 2026 revision, Digital objects (virtual goods) used in the metaverse and virtual spaces will become subject to protection under the Design Act. This means that digital assets, such as vehicles, furniture, clothing, and buildings in virtual space, which until now had no legal protection, will now be officially recognized as subject to design rights.
Specifically, the exterior design of virtual cars used on the Metaverse, the form of virtual bikes, and the design of custom vehicle parts in racing games are all subject to design registration applications. This is not just a minor amendment to the system, but a historical turning point in which the scope of protection for industrial design expands from the physical realm to the digital realm.
This amendment will allow designers and manufacturers to register designs in virtual spaces using the same process as for real-world products. At the time of application, the external design of the digital asset can be secured as a right by expressing the design of the virtual item using a six-sided diagram, CG rendering image, etc., and writing a statement such as "virtual car in the Metaverse" as a description of the item to which the design pertains.
What is also noteworthy is that this amendment clearly distinguishes between "images" and "virtual goods." Conventional image designs were limited to operation images and display images, but virtual objects are positioned as ``three-dimensional objects that exist in virtual space'' and are not subject to the restrictions of image designs. This means a new protection framework is in place that is ideal for 3D objects like vehicle designs in the Metaverse.
3-2. Crossover imitation prevention - protection that transcends the boundaries between reality and virtuality
Another groundbreaking point of this amendment is that protection against crossover imitation that straddles the real world and the virtual world will be clearly stated. This fundamentally solves the "dissimilarity of goods" problem explained in Chapter 1.
The revised law clarifies that if the design form of a real product and a virtual product is the same or similar, the effect of design rights will extend beyond the difference in product category. As a result, all three of the following patterns can be protected by design rights.
3 patterns of cross-reality imitation and protection
| Imitation pattern | Specific example | Current law | Amendment law |
|---|---|---|---|
| Real → Virtual | The actual design of a luxury car is made into a 3D model on the Metaverse and sold without permission | Unprotectable | Protectable |
| Virtual → Virtual | Copy sale of original vehicle design on Metaverse on another platform | Unprotectable | Protectable |
| Virtual → Real | Manufacturing and selling popular vehicle designs from the Metaverse as miniature cars and actual cars without permission | Unprotectable | Protectable |
Of particular note is the pattern of ``real → virtual''. Until now, even if automakers had obtained design rights for the designs of actual vehicles, they could not stop dead copies from being made on the Metaverse. After the amendment, it will be possible to request an injunction and claim compensation for similar designs on the Metaverse based on the design rights of the actual vehicle.
The pattern of "virtual → reality" will also become increasingly important in the future. It is expected that there will be an increase in the number of cases in which metaverse-native design studios first announce their designs in virtual space, and after the designs gain popularity, they are commercialized into real products. In this case, by registering the design as a virtual product, you can claim rights against unauthorized commercialization in the real world.
The importance of first-to-file policy - a first-come, first-served world
The Design Act adopts thefirst-to-file principle. If there are multiple applications for the same or similar design, only the person who filed first can obtain the rights. Now that it has been decided that virtual goods will be added to the scope of protection under the 2026 revision, it may be too late to wait for the revised law to come into effect before filing an application. It is critical that you start developing your filing strategy now, before your competitors and meta creators get ahead of you.
4. Summary of intellectual property strategies that companies should take now
In anticipation of the 2026 revision of the Design Law, we will organize the intellectual property strategies that companies that develop vehicle design in the metaverse space (or those that plan to develop in the future) should start now based on three pillars.
Strategy 1: Digital asset inventory and design application roadmap formulation
The first thing you should do is take a complete inventory of all the digital assets your company owns (or plans to create in the future). List all digital design assets, including 3D models created for the Metaverse, design data for VR/AR applications, in-game assets, and digital art sold as NFTs.
We then evaluate each design's commercial value and risk of counterfeiting and develop aprioritized design application roadmap. In particular, the following categories are considered to be of high priority:
1. Metaverse vehicle design (brand icon model) that corresponds to real-world products
2. Metaverse original concept car design (with potential for future commercialization)
3. Design of custom parts and accessories (aero parts, wheels, etc.)
4. Vehicle interior design (interior design of dashboard, seats, etc.)
Strategy 2: Mixing intellectual property with trademarks - Utilizing Class 9 and Class 41
An "intellectual property mix" strategy that combines not only design rights but also trademark rights is effective. The following distinctions are particularly important for trademark applications related to the Metaverse:
While design rights protect the form of a design, trademark rights protect brand names and logos. If your company's brand name or emblem is attached to the vehicle design on the Metaverse, you will have double protection of design rights and trademark rights. Even if a counterfeiter tries to escape from the scope of similarity under design rights by making subtle changes to the design, if the brand name or logo remains in use, they can defend against it using trademark rights.
Consider filing a Class 9/41 trademark application
Category 9: Downloadable computer software, software for virtual reality, downloadable virtual goods (digital assets including vehicles on the Metaverse)
Category 41: Provision of entertainment services in virtual reality space, provision of online games, event planning and management on the Metaverse
By securing trademark rights in these categories, brand protection on the Metaverse will be greatly strengthened. Companies that have already obtained trademarks for real-world vehicles should also consider additional applications under Class 9 and Class 41.
Strategy 3: Global response - securing rights in major markets
The metaverse is essentially aglobal space. Registering a design in Japan alone is not enough to counter counterfeiting on overseas platforms. It is necessary to strategically file overseas applications, taking into consideration the server location of major Metaverse platforms and the corporate location of the operating company.
Priority filing destinations include:
1. United States: Location of major platform operating companies such as Meta (formerly Facebook) and Roblox Corporation. Application as a US design patent is valid.
2. EU: Collective protection under the European Community Design (RCD). A single application can cover 27 countries within the EU.
3. China: One of the world's largest metaverse markets. Local protection through Chinese design applications is essential.
4. South Korea: Has an active metaverse market and is home to major platforms such as NAVER Z.
When filing overseas applications, you can efficiently obtain protection in multiple countries with one international application by taking advantage of the Hague Agreement (Geneva Amendment to the Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs). It is possible to apply in Japanese, and there are advantages in terms of cost compared to individual applications.
Summary
The 2026 Design Law Amendment will be a true game changer in the protection of vehicle designs on the Metaverse. By making it possible to register designs for virtual goods and by clarifying the means to counter cross-over imitations that straddle the real and virtual worlds, this will be a huge boost for creators and rights holders of digital designs.
However, whether you can take advantage of this tailwind depends on your preparations now. Under the first-to-file system, delays in filing can have fatal consequences. The key to securing a competitive advantage is to take inventory of digital assets, formulate a design application roadmap, mix intellectual property with trademarks, and build a global application strategy prior to the enforcement of the revised law.
Intellectual property strategies in the Metaverse era are not an extension of traditional physical products. We need to build a new intellectual property portfolio to protect and utilize design both digitally and physically. Utilizing my knowledge as a patent attorney, I will do my best to support you in protecting your digital assets.
Please feel free to contact us about intellectual property strategy in the metaverse era
From formulating strategies for design and trademark applications in anticipation of the 2026 Design Law Amendment,
Our patent attorneys will provide detailed support for global applications.
Design Law Amendment
Metaverse
Vehicle design
Design rights
Virtual Goods
Digital assets
Intellectual property strategy
Cross reality
AUTHOR
Takefumi SUGIURA （杉浦 健文）
EVORIX Intellectual Property Law Firm Managing Patent Attorney
Supports clients across IT, manufacturing, startups, fashion, and medical industries, covering patent, trademark, design, and copyright filings through trials and infringement litigation. Specialized in IP strategy for AI, IoT, Web3, and FinTech. Member of the Japan Patent Attorneys Association (JPAA), Asian Patent Attorneys Association (APAA), and Japan Trademark Association (JTA).
