美国纽约地方法院近期对全球“元宇宙商标侵权第一案”做出判决，但该案反映出来的元宇宙新型商业模式与既定商标体系之间的冲突仅是冰山一角。在商标注册阶段，注册分类表是否应对日益增多的虚拟商品进行呼应;在商标侵权阶段，商标性使用是否为侵权的前置要件以及商标性使用认定规则如何适用。出现这些挑战的症结在于立法条文的滞后性，其本质仍是法律与不断发展的科学技术之间的矛盾。据此有必要根据国内外既有类似案例与实践经验，讨论我国商标注册制度中纳入“虚拟商品”类别的可能性，在元宇宙商业交易模式下的商标性使用作为侵权前置要件的必要性，以及其认定规则在元宇宙商业模式下的适配性。

The U.S. District Court of New York recently ruled on the world’s “first Metaverse trademark infringement case”, but the conflict between the new business model of the Metaverse and the established trademark system reflected in this case is only the tip of the iceberg. whether the registration classification should respond to the increasing number of virtual goods at the trademark registration stage; In the stage of trademark infringement, whether trademark use is a precondition for infringement and how to apply the rules for determining trademark use. The crux of these challenges lies in the lag of legislative provisions, the essence of which is still the contradiction between law and the evolving science and technology. Accordingly, it is necessary to discuss the possibility of including the category of “virtual goods” in China’s trademark registration system, the necessity of trademark use as a precondition for infringement in the Metaverse commercial transaction model, and the adaptability of its identification rules under the Metaverse business model, based on similar cases and practical experience at home and abroad.