Archive for March 2026

Three-Inn Meeting: Trademark Law and the Fight Against Counterfeiting

Some meetings are good. Some are great. And some — like this month’s Three-Inn Meeting — are the kind of evening that reminds you exactly why you joined the Inn in the first place.

This March, the Seattle Intellectual Property American Inn of Court joined forces with two of our regional counterparts — the William L. Dwyer American Inn of Court and the Hon. Robert J. Bryan American Inn of Court — for a collaborative gathering built around one of the most dynamic and consequential areas in modern IP practice: trademark law and the fight against counterfeiting. The evening drew practitioners from across all three Inns for a CLE program that was equal parts substantive, timely, and genuinely illuminating.

Why Three Inns?

The Three-Inn Meeting format is one of the most distinctive events on the Inn calendar — a rare opportunity to bring together practitioners from different professional communities around a shared topic of mutual interest. When three Inns align on a subject as rich and rapidly evolving as trademark enforcement and counterfeiting, the result is a room full of diverse perspectives, practitioners at every career stage, and the kind of cross-pollination of ideas that makes for truly excellent programming.

This month’s event did not disappoint.

The Program: From Fundamentals to the Front Lines

The evening opened with a presentation on trademark fundamentals — a grounding in the doctrinal principles that underpin brand protection in the United States. The presentation traced the legal architecture of trademark law before turning to the modern enforcement challenges that have transformed what it means to protect a brand in the digital age.

From there, the program moved into the areas that generated the most discussion: online enforcement, platform accountability, and consumer safety. These topics sit at the intersection of trademark law and the realities of e-commerce, and they raise questions that courts, regulators, brand owners, and platforms are actively working through in real time.

Key themes from the presentation included:

  • Online Enforcement — How brand owners detect, document, and pursue counterfeit listings across major e-commerce platforms, and the legal tools available to them under the Lanham Act and beyond.
  • Platform Accountability — The evolving responsibilities of online marketplaces to address counterfeit goods on their platforms, including voluntary brand protection programs, notice-and-takedown procedures, and the emerging legal and regulatory pressure to do more.
  • Consumer Safety — The underappreciated human cost of counterfeiting. Counterfeit goods are not merely a brand problem — they pose real risks to consumers who unknowingly purchase fake electronics, pharmaceuticals, children’s products, and safety equipment. The presentation made clear that trademark enforcement is, at its core, a consumer protection issue.

The Panel: Practitioners on the Front Lines

The presentation was followed by a panel discussion that brought the material to life in a way only practitioner perspectives can. The panel featured in-house counsel from Amazon and The Pokémon Company, offering contrasting but complementary vantage points on the counterfeiting challenge — one from the world’s largest e-commerce platform navigating its responsibilities as an online marketplace, and one from a globally recognized brand defending its intellectual property against an extraordinary volume of infringement activity worldwide.

The panel also included a professor from the University of Washington School of Law with expertise in the intersection of intellectual property, business, and commercial law, who offered academic grounding and a broader policy perspective on the questions practitioners grapple with daily.

Together, the panelists explored:

  • How brand owners and platforms build collaborative relationships around enforcement — and where tensions remain.
  • What brand owners can realistically expect from platform enforcement programs, and how to work within them effectively.
  • The role of data, technology, and AI-powered tools in identifying and acting on counterfeit listings at scale.
  • The policy and legal landscape around platform liability and what changes — legislative or judicial — may be on the horizon.

The Value of Collaboration

What made this evening particularly valuable was not just the quality of the content — it was the people in the room. Bringing together three Inns meant bringing together a broader cross-section of the Pacific Northwest IP legal community: litigators and transactional lawyers, in-house and outside counsel, law students and sitting judges. The questions from the floor reflected that diversity, and the conversation that followed the panel extended well into the networking reception.

That is what the Inn model is built for.

Trademark law is evolving faster than perhaps any other area of IP practice, driven by the explosive growth of e-commerce, the sophistication of counterfeiters, and the increasing expectations placed on platforms that serve as the primary marketplace for global commerce. Events like this month’s Three-Inn Meeting ensure that our members are not just watching that evolution from a distance — they are engaged in it, informed about it, and prepared to counsel clients through it.

Thank you to our colleagues at the William L. Dwyer Inn and the Hon. Robert J. Bryan Inn for joining us, and to our panelists for a conversation that was as practical as it was thought-provoking.

We look forward to seeing you at our next meeting.

The Ethical Use of Generative AI

This February, the Seattle IP Inn of Court held its monthly meeting around one of the most pressing topics facing legal practitioners today: the ethical use of generative artificial intelligence in law practice. The program was presented by Group 4, featuring Inn Mentorship Chair Aaron Weisman, and drew on guidance from the American Bar Association, the Washington State Bar Association, and emerging ethics authority to give members a practical, grounded framework for navigating this rapidly evolving landscape.

The session was substantive, timely, and — true to Inn form — deeply engaging. Here is what members covered.

The Big Seven: Duties That Govern AI Use in Law Practice

The presentation opened with what the group called the “Big Seven” — the seven duties under the Washington Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC) that every lawyer must consider when using generative AI tools. As the WSBA has noted, these are not exhaustive, but they represent the most commonly encountered ethical issues to date:

  1. Competence (RPC 1.1)
  2. Diligence (RPC 1.3)
  3. Confidentiality (RPC 1.6)
  4. Communication (RPC 1.4)
  5. Candor Toward Tribunals (RPC 3.3)
  6. Supervision of Lawyers and Nonlawyers (RPCs 5.1 and 5.3)
  7. Billing (RPC 1.5)

Each duty was examined in turn, with practical steps members can take to comply.

Competence: Know the Tool You Are Using

RPC 1.1 requires lawyers to provide competent representation, and Comment 8 makes clear that competence extends to the technology a lawyer uses in practice. Importantly, competence does not mean perfection or demanding that every lawyer become an early adopter of every new legal technology. It does require a baseline understanding of the AI tool at hand — its capabilities, its limitations, and its risks.

Practical steps include: understanding the limitations and potential risks of the AI tool being used; critically analyzing AI-generated output for accuracy and relevance; and exercising independent professional judgment before relying on any AI-generated content.

Diligence: Efficiency Does Not Replace Scrutiny

RPC 1.3 requires lawyers to act with reasonable diligence and promptness. The key insight here is that diligence is tethered to competence — if an AI tool promises to make a task more efficient, the lawyer still must use it with the requisite technical skill. Speed is not a substitute for scrutiny. Members were reminded to thoroughly review AI-generated output for legal and factual soundness, and to independently verify cases and legal arguments the AI presents.

Confidentiality: What You Share With AI Matters

This area generated significant discussion. RPC 1.6 prohibits a lawyer from revealing client information and requires reasonable efforts to prevent unauthorized disclosure. When it comes to AI tools, confidentiality concerns arise both from what information a lawyer inputs into a system and how that system uses it on the back end.

Practical guidance included: carefully reading end-user agreements and privacy policies before using any AI tool with client data; and, for lawyers using AI-powered chatbots for client intake, including appropriate disclaimers about the attorney-client relationship and clearly explaining to prospective clients whether their information will be kept confidential.

Communication: Clients Have a Right to Know

RPC 1.4 requires lawyers to reasonably consult with clients about the means by which their objectives will be accomplished, and to explain matters to the extent necessary for clients to make informed decisions. Applied to AI, this means disclosing the use of AI tools in legal research and drafting, obtaining informed consent before inputting confidential client information into an AI system, and explaining both the potential risks and the reasonably available alternatives.

Candor: You Are Responsible for What You File

RPC 3.3 prohibits lawyers from making false statements of fact or law to a tribunal — and it extends to AI-generated content submitted in court filings. The rise of AI “hallucinations,” where a tool confidently cites nonexistent cases, makes this duty more critical than ever. Members were reminded to verify the accuracy of all AI-generated content before submission and to alert the court immediately if material evidence is later discovered to be false.

Supervision: AI Training Is Now Part of Firm Management

RPCs 5.1 and 5.3 govern a lawyer’s duty to supervise other lawyers and nonlawyers, including independent contractors and vendors. This duty now extends to ensuring that anyone in a firm or legal department using AI tools has received adequate training to use those tools consistently with their ethical obligations. Best practices include establishing clear AI use policies, providing regular training, and carefully evaluating the contractual and technical safeguards offered by any AI product.

Billing: Transparency Is Non-Negotiable

RPC 1.5 prohibits unreasonable fees and requires transparency about the basis for billing. When AI tools are involved, lawyers must disclose how AI affects billing, charge fees that reflect the actual time spent on AI-assisted tasks, and obtain informed client consent before passing on the cost of AI tools as a matter expense. If a product carries a per-use cost, the client should know before the lawyer uses it on their matter.

A Note on the Evolving Landscape

The program drew on several authoritative sources, including ABA Formal Opinion 512 (July 2024) on generative AI tools, WSBA Advisory Opinion 2025-05 on AI-enabled tools in law practice, and the WSBA Legal Technology Task Force Report published in September 2025. Members left with a clear message: the ethical rules governing AI use are not new rules — they are existing professional duties applied to a new context. The framework is already in place. The obligation is to apply it thoughtfully.

This month’s meeting was a reminder of why programs like this matter. As generative AI becomes an increasingly standard part of legal practice, the Inn remains committed to preparing its members to use these tools responsibly, ethically, and in full compliance with their professional obligations.

Special thanks to Group 4 and Inn Mentorship Chair Aaron Weisman for an exceptional presentation.