Studioip, LLC

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.

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.
⁠

Is Twelve-Peat a word?

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

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.
⁠

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

We appreciate you.

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.