Studioip, LLC

05/18/2026

Meet Daijah McKim — IP attorney, creative, and private pilot with a passion for great storytelling and the strategy behind building strong brands.

Daijah values authenticity in both business and storytelling, bringing curiosity, precision, and a sense of adventure to everything she builds. She’s always ready to help good ideas take flight.

04/28/2026

New York is moving to crack down on AI impersonating professionals.
⁠
A proposed bill would bar AI chatbots from posing as lawyers, doctors, or other licensed providers—and allow users to sue if they’re misled.
⁠
The effort reflects a broader trend, as states like California, Colorado, Texas, and Utah continue advancing their own AI regulations in the absence of federal standards.
⁠
Taken together, this signals growing momentum toward holding AI systems accountable in high-risk, professional contexts.
⁠

04/22/2026

HAPPY EARTH DAY
⁠

04/22/2026

Is Twelve-Peat a word?

Congratulations to Jessie Pellant
on being selected to the annual
Colorado Super Lawyer’s list… Again!

04/09/2026

04/02/2026

Talk about a bracket buster! This is a match up no one saw coming.
⁠
This month, the NCAA filed a trademark infringement suit in federal court, seeking to stop DraftKings from using terms like “March Madness,” “Final Four,” “Elite Eight,” and “Sweet Sixteen” in connection with its sports betting platform. The NCAA didn’t just ask for damages — it pushed for an emergency TRO, signaling how urgent it viewed the issue at the height of the tournament.
⁠
From the NCAA’s perspective, this isn’t about words showing up on an app. It’s about what those words represent.
⁠
“March Madness” is a trademark built over decades. It carries recognition, trust, and a very specific identity tied to college athletics. The NCAA’s argument is that DraftKings’ use of those marks, especially alongside tabs with betting options, rides on that goodwill and creates the impression that the NCAA is affiliated with or endorsing the platform.
⁠
And that’s where trademark law comes in.
⁠
At its core, trademark law is about preventing consumer confusion, not just direct copying. The more accurate question for trademark infringement is, might a consumer believe there’s some connection, sponsorship, or approval where none actually exists.
⁠
DraftKings, on the other hand, is taking a very different position. Their argument is essentially that it’s not using “March Madness” as a brand, rather only using it descriptively to refer to the tournament itself. In other words, this is nominative fair use.
⁠
That tension — between trademark rights and the ability to merely refer to real-world events — is what makes this case interesting.
⁠
Because at some level, everyone agrees on one thing: you have to be able to talk about “March Madness.” It’s an American cultural event. Media companies, fans, businesses, and social platforms all reference it constantly. The legal question is how far that reference can go before it starts to look like branding or endorsement.
⁠
But stepping back, there’s likely a broader takeaway that goes beyond just trademark law.
⁠
For the NCAA, “March Madness” centers on college athletics, amateur competition, and with that, a certain level of integrity. If that same mark becomes closely tied to gambling platforms, the meaning of the brand starts to shift. Not just for March Madness, but for the integrity of NCAA sports all together.
⁠
To me, that's why this lawsuit exists. Not just to stop DraftKings from using certain terms, but to prevent a larger change in how consumers view NCAA sports.
⁠

03/28/2026

Thank you Larissa
for your continued support
of our team and for our clients.

We appreciate you.

03/27/2026

VISION is a creative deep dive to uncover what’s already true.
We look for the patterns beneath the chaos.
The values beneath the visuals.
The authenticity that’s been there all along.

From that place, ideas don’t feel forced.
They feel inevitable.
The story sharpens. The voice settles.
The brand starts advertising itself simply by being fully seen.
And when that happens, you don’t chase trends. You lead them.

03/06/2026

An evening honoring very deserving winners of the 2 Colorado Women's Bar Association awards, and StudioIP is proud to support this organization and its recognition of women leading the way.

03/05/2026

11/18/2025

A few weeks ago, OpenAI updated its Universal Terms of Use, and the legal community erupted. Lawyers cheered when they saw language barring the “provision of tailored advice that requires a license, such as legal or medical advice, without appropriate involvement by a licensed professional.” Many took it as a sign that ChatGPT was now banned from giving legal advice, but that is not exactly true.

OpenAI’s Head of Health AI, Karan Singhal, clarified on X: “Not true. Despite speculation, this is not a new change to our terms. Model behavior remains unchanged. ChatGPT has never been a substitute for professional advice, but it will continue to be a great resource to help people understand legal and health information.” OpenAI did not rewrite its Terms. It simply consolidated three existing policies into one unified set.

The update made me think about two questions. First, what is legal advice versus legal information, as discussed in ABA Model Rule 5.5? Second, who are these rules really designed to protect?

These questions echo earlier tensions between technology and the bar, including LegalZoom.com v. N.C. State Bar (2011) and LegalForce RAPC Worldwide v. LegalZoom.com (2017). In both cases, lawyers accused LegalZoom of unauthorized practice of law. The distinction between legal advice and legal information often seemed tied to professional self interest rather than public harm.

ABA Model Rule 5.5(b) states that a lawyer not admitted in a jurisdiction cannot establish a continuous presence there for the practice of law or represent that they are admitted. The rule originally aimed to stop individuals from falsely presenting themselves as lawyers, but it has evolved in response to technologies that challenge the traditional delivery of legal services.

In the LegalForce case, the complaint focused heavily on competition. It argued that LegalZoom’s efficiency and scale were unfair to lawyers and could create a monopoly. The concern appeared to be the protection of the traditional legal workforce, not the protection of clients.

To me, today’s conversations about AI in the legal profession are not about control, but about access. There is a growing need for affordable and accessible legal help, especially in today’s economic and political climate. AI does not threaten justice. It expands access to it.

While many fear automation, it can actually reduce human error, which has historically been a major cause of client harm through incompetence or neglect.

Ultimately, clients still need human lawyers to interpret, negotiate, strategize, and litigate. That is where our training matters most, including explaining the reasoning behind complex clauses or decisions. The human eye and human judgment remain essential. But the future of law depends on whether we adopt AI as a tool to inform, empower, and scale access to justice, or resist it out of fear of losing ground.

The rules may not have changed, but maybe our mindset should.