AI and Brand Protection for Luxury and Celebrity Brands

Justin Pierce: 00:13

If you're a business leader or general counsel, you already know AI isn't just another tech trend. It's the next frontier reimagining and reshaping how companies operate and compete. With that transformation comes complexity around intellectual property, data rights, regulatory oversight, litigation exposure, and brand integrity. This podcast is designed to give you clarity. I'm Justin Pierce, cochair of Venable's intellectual property division.

Justin Pierce: 00:43

In this season, I'll talk with colleagues and industry leaders about how AI is reshaping business, ecommerce platforms, toy companies, industrial automation, luxury brands, and beyond, and the legal strategies companies need to protect innovation while moving fast. Our goal is simple, to help you turn our legal insight into your competitive advantage. Welcome to season two of AI and IP, The Legal Frontier. This week, we're talking about AI and brand protection for luxury brands.

Justin Pierce: 01:23

Hi. I'm Justin Pierce, a partner at Venable and co chair of the firm's intellectual property division. As artificial intelligence accelerates the creation of digital content, it is also fueling a surge in brand impersonation, counterfeit goods, and domain name disputes across global markets. From deepfakes and AI generated websites to automated trademark searches and enforcement tools, companies are facing both new risks and new opportunities in protecting their intellectual property. At the same time, legal frameworks, from UDRP proceedings to copyright and trademark enforcement, are being tested by the speed and scale of AI driven activity. In this episode, we explore how brands, celebrities, and rights holders can adapt their protection strategies, leverage AI responsibly, and stay ahead of infringement in an increasingly synthetic digital landscape.

Justin Pierce: 02:24

With me are my Venable IP division colleagues, Kristen Ruisi, a partner in the Trademark Group, and Maria Sinatra, an IP litigator focusing on trademarks and copyright. Hello, Kristen. Hello, Maria. Thanks for joining us today. I'm looking forward to a great episode talking to both of you all about brand protection, IP enforcement, and trademarks in the world of AI.

Justin Pierce: 02:49

Before we do though, I want to talk a little bit about both of you and your background. I'll start with Kristen. How did you start at Venable?

Kristen Ruisi: 02:56

Sure. That's actually a very interesting story. I got a cold call from one of your colleagues who was looking for a trademark specialist for trademark prosecution, enforcement, brand protection, licensing. So I met with the team and, I made the decision to come to Venable, and I've been here going on, I think, 13 years. I'm a partner in the New York office.

Justin Pierce: 03:21

Sounds like a good decision. What was your background before then?

Kristen Ruisi: 03:25

Before then, I was at a a small boutique IP firm for about five and a half years. I did everything from trademark prosecution and enforcement to licensing, a lot of UDRP actions. I also worked with the litigation team on strategy, handled a lot of settlement agreements, pretty much everything trademark globally except being, a litigator. And prior to that, I worked eight years at a global luxury goods company. Also handling all of their, trademark, copyright matters, a lot of anti counterfeiting and licensing work, procurement, oppositions, cancellations.

Kristen Ruisi: 04:04

So I've been practicing IP with a focus on trademark for, you know, twenty four years now.

Justin Pierce: 04:11

Excellent. In a wide spectrum, true. Small firm, big firm, and in house.

Kristen Ruisi: 04:15

In house. Yes.

Justin Pierce: 04:15

Good to know. Yes. Maria, how about you? What first brought you to Venable?

Maria Sinatra: 04:20

Oh, man. It seems a little like a while ago now. I started as a summer associate, actually. I'm homegrown to Venable probably ten years. I started as a full time employee and I've been practicing intellectual property since being at the firm, primarily in the ABC Lit, advertising brand and content group, and working with Kristen, as well as other colleagues, and yourself. Helping clients on intellectual property matters.

Justin Pierce: 04:52

Excellent. How would you describe what you do? Litigation, prosecution, counseling, transactional?

Maria Sinatra: 04:59

I would say probably 70% of my time is on litigation or contentious matters, whether that be in federal courts or in front of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. And then the other remaining time is spent on counseling.

Justin Pierce: 05:17

Okay. Good mix. So given that today we're going to talk a lot about the impact of AI and brand protection and the impact of that in the various industries you represent, I'll start with Kristen, particularly given your trademark prosecution experience and a lot of the UDRP stuff that you do for brands. What are some of the challenges and opportunities? We'll start with the challenges, but what are some of the challenges you're seeing for clients given the advent of AI?

Kristen Ruisi: 05:46

So when it comes to UDRPs, I think because of AI and individuals, companies are are utilizing AI a lot to even come up with their domain name and generate their websites. It causes more infringement or potential infringement, a lot of similarities. So when it comes to a UDRP proceeding, which for those who don't know is a domain name dispute, held before WIPO, which is the World Intellectual Property Organization. There's an increase in the UDRP filings, which could eventually become problematic if there's a large scale with getting decisions out quickly.

Kristen Ruisi: 06:26

Part of the reason we use the UDRP proceedings is it's quick. It's generally completed within three months as opposed to maybe filing a a lawsuit. So with the increase in the UDRP filings, I think that might slow down the decisions, which could be problematic for clients when it's a website that's actually replicating theirs, and they want that down quickly. So I think there's some risks with that. But from a domain name perspective, it could be helpful, for monitoring purposes.

Kristen Ruisi: 07:04

So AI can monitor the new domain names. They can monitor different marketplaces. They can also monitor the blockchain domains, which gets a little bit more complicated. But with all the tools available to the clients, they're going to be able to enforce better, see what's out there, and decide what they wanna proceed with. But I do think when it comes to a specific UDRP, there's going to be an increase in filings, which can slow down the process.

Kristen Ruisi: 07:36

I think also, some companies or individuals dealing with IP issues and domains might choose to use AI to draft the UDRP complaint on their own, which already there have been instances of false sightings and citing cases, that WIPO actually hasn't issued. So I think there are pros and cons on both sides when it comes to domain names and and UDRP proceedings.

Justin Pierce: 08:03

I wonder, just to think about that a little bit, especially with the risk of hallucinations or incorrect and inaccurate citations in UDRP proceedings, who does it fall on in those cases, since they're more like arbitration, to sort of police those and check to make sure they're accurate?

Kristen Ruisi: 08:21

That's a good question. I don't know the answer to that, Justin. I think as the brand owner, if you're going to handle them in house, then sure, you can utilize AI to help you. But you still need human oversight, and you still need to check to make sure that whatever complaint is drafted by AI for the UDRP proceeding is citing accurate cases. And if you're a brand that wants to hire outside counsel, and work with maybe me or Maria at Venable or Justin, to ask the questions, are you utilizing these these tools to draft these complaints? If you are, are you checking them? So I do think the the brand owners, but also the attorneys handling, need to check. So it I think it falls on us.

Justin Pierce: 09:08

It's an interesting point of discussion. If you think about it, UDRPs are supposed to promise quick, cost efficient proceedings to get to the right owner of a dot com. And with the introduction of AI promising productivity, quickness, efficiency, it does introduce this new x factor, you know, hallucinations and things that might not be checked in proceedings that are already moving pretty fast, where maybe the participants aren't as used to having to check one another's citations.

Kristen Ruisi: 09:38

Right.

Justin Pierce: 09:39

Maria, on your end, I'm curious, if we think about litigation in some of the cases that you've been involved in over the past few years, particularly those that have some aspect of AI playing a role when it comes to brand enforcement. What have you seen that, at least at this point, gives you an idea that maybe there's some opportunity there? And what have you seen that you think is risky or concerning?

Maria Sinatra: 10:04

Touching on what Kristen mentioned with the actual filing aspect. You want make sure that whatever is being filed, either by a brand owner directly or if you're working with outside counsel, is accurate and and true to what the law is. Or in the case of a UDRP proceeding, what the WIPO precedent is. It makes it a little challenging being outside counsel if on the other side, an unrepresented party is using an AI tool to submit responses. Sometimes it's like two ships passing in the night - they're not responding to the actual issues at hand. The AI model may be misunderstanding what is prevalent to the proceeding based off of what's being fed to it by an individual. I've had experiences like that where actually, in a UDRP dispute, what was being responded to wasn't the actual dispute at hand. So that makes it a little challenging when you're not fighting the same fight, so to speak. That's tough. You know, in litigation, it's a little challenging if the case is being cited or the issues being presented are not factual or not what the case law actually says, and courts are sort of dealing with that. There have been instances where attorneys or parties have been subject to sanctions for for that. So that's a recent development where we're seeing an increase in those scenarios.

Justin Pierce: 11:48

One thing strikes me in your ships passing in the night comment, that means, in essence, that the proceedings, some of them that you've been involved in, have probably taken longer to get to the heart of the issue because people or different entities have used AI that wasn't checked.

Maria Sinatra: 12:05

Yes. 100%. That has happened in my experience. I mean, that's not the case all the time, you know. Sometimes for legal research, it it is helpful in the first instance, and and using vetted tools makes some of that go quicker. But if the litigants aren't on the same playing field, it tends to draw out the proceeding.

Justin Pierce: 12:28

And make it more costly, I suspect.

Maria Sinatra: 12:31

Unfortunately, yes, for for brand owners.

Narrator: 12:36

Building a beauty or wellness brand takes more than great products and marketing. On Venable's Beauty Law Glow Up podcast, partners Claudia Lewis and Kristen Ruisi explore the trends, challenges, and opportunities shaping the industry today. From influencer marketing and product safety to privacy, trademarks, and brand growth, each episode delivers practical insights to help companies build, protect, and grow their brand with confidence. Search for The Beauty Law Glow-Up wherever you listen.

Justin Pierce: 13:14

Both of you represented a lot of different clients in different industries, and I think your practices have gone from representing celebrities and entertainers to companies, I'd say, in industrial areas as well. One thing I'd like to hear from you both, and I'll start with Kristen on this, is just what are some of the proactive steps that you think clients should take to address some of the challenges and opportunities we've discussed so far when it comes to use of AI in protecting their brand?

Kristen Ruisi: 13:45

Sure. Absolutely. I do think that clients, you know, in house, if they have the capabilities or the team to do it, they can use AI to assist them with their strategies and even initial initial, and I stress the word initial clearance, right, to help them maybe get an idea, broad idea of what's out there if there is potential similarities. I don't recommend that clients rely on AI tools to actually do clearance searches for you because I think that there still are going to be, accuracy risks, and they might, not pick up niche conflicts or potentially even overestimate, confusion issues and things like that. But I think that they can utilize the tools to assist them with initial searches.

Kristen Ruisi: 14:33

So when they come to outside counsel, they can say, okay, these were the names we started with. It seems like there might be problems with these three. These three look clear. These are the two we're really interested in. Can you confirm that our understanding is correct and we might have some issues here and what they might be and how we can overcome it, or confirm that there are no issues.

Kristen Ruisi: 14:56

It could be a first step. Sometimes brands, if they're coming out with a new product, they go through 30 names. Before they get to the one that's available and that can become very costly if you're relying on outside counsel for all of them. So I do think that it's worth utilizing AI to narrow it down. But once you have two or three names, you need to go to outside counsel to then do a thorough full search, and provide you with a risk analysis as to whether or not these these marks are available. Could they utilize them to pick a trademark or a logo? Create one? Sure. I think there's some risks with that as well where the systems could potentially start spitting out similar names or similar looking logos, which could potentially lead to problems. I don't know that I'm personally comfortable just yet telling my clients they can go to AI to pick their brand name for them or make their logo. But potentially assist? Sure. Why not?

Justin Pierce: 16:02

How about those handling the search and operating those tools if they're in the attorney's hand using the AI tools, I would think you could probably give a better answer.

Kristen Ruisi: 16:13

I think that the attorneys using the tools, there's faster results. They could pick up foreign equivalents easier, probably, phonetic similarities that maybe we miss. So I do think that we can utilize the tools to conduct the searches quicker.

Justin Pierce: 16:33

Right.

Kristen Ruisi: 16:33

But there still needs to be a check. We can't rely a 100% on it. I do still think that we need to take a look at the overall picture that AI has presented when it comes to doing the clearance search and spotting initial potential issues and then us from there doing further research. But I do think it will speed up the process

Kristen Ruisi: 16:56

And maybe make it more efficient.

Justin Pierce: 16:57

Right.

Kristen Ruisi: 16:58

Which then in turn would make it more cost effective for clients. And and maybe we could do more searches for them for more names if it's going to take less time.

Justin Pierce: 17:07

Certainly. I have a feeling that we're going to see a lot more pitches to law firms or practitioners like you all with AI tools to to enhance or improve trademark search. Absolutely. With that in mind, and thinking about some of the other proactive steps that clients can take to address some of the challenges, I'm going to turn to Maria. What would you suggest on the litigation side?

Justin Pierce: 17:31

We've just talked about what happens if you've got some names, maybe some potential trademarks that you want to get searched or cleared, and you go to Kristen for. In your case recently, I know you've handled litigation involving AI issues. Are any trends becoming apparent to you at this early stage in terms of advice you might give to clients facing issues like that?

Maria Sinatra: 17:54

In the first instance, clients or just IP owners in general may want to be a little bit more proactive in obtaining copyright registrations. Even if the subject matter being copyrighted may not be a core, ad or piece of a company's literature or even photographs they're using. They may want to more proactively file for registration for those types of works just because if there is some sort of an infringement type situation, they do have standing to bring a federal claim or to work with either an e-commerce website or a social media website. To submit a a notice and takedown under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Maria Sinatra: 18:42

You know, absent registration, it makes it either harder to enforce when it's a notice and takedown or they may be prohibited from going to court in the case of trying to bring a claim under the Copyright Act without a registration.

Justin Pierce: 18:58

Right.

Maria Sinatra: 18:58

So having that in hand is one of the best tools affirmatively to be in a position to enforce against third parties that you haven't given rights to.

Justin Pierce: 19:12

You bring up copyright registration. That's an example of something that for years, even before AI became a hot topic, at consumer sense, that IP attorneys would always recommend to clients as sort of a belt and suspenders move, particularly for those clients who are in the content or media or entertainment business. I think AI, to me, seems like it's heightened the need for that.

Justin Pierce: 19:36

So with that, as we think about because I think it's a good segue to some of the entertainment and media work that we do. I'm going to turn back to Kristen. Any advice or thoughts in that particular area in terms of what clients in that space should do to protect themselves given the advent and proliferation of AI and deepfakes in particular?

Kristen Ruisi: 19:55

Absolutely. So in addition to, like Maria said, trying to get copyright protection if you can, I think specifically with entertainers and celebrities, and dealing with their name image and likeness issues, having not just trademarks and their logos, but trying to obtain sensory marks if they can. So an example of that might be if a celebrity has a certain phrase they're known for saying. If we're able to obtain registration of that individual saying the phrase, I would recommend probably in a class 41 live appearance, performance type aspect would probably be the easiest way to obtain those those registrations. With the rise of AI and deepfakes, if we see these things on social media and it's the the celebrity's voice, now we have a registration to rely on.

Kristen Ruisi: 20:48

Because as mentioned earlier, you need, in most instances, a registration to get the social media platforms to work with you to take down those posts. So if it's just the entertainer's voice and you don't have any other trademarks, having that sensory mark of their voice saying that slogan could be helpful. Other examples of sensory marks are the individual celebrity, doing some kind of movement. So maybe they're known to do a certain kind of dance or something along those lines.

Kristen Ruisi: 21:21

If we can get trademark protection of that, that will also help assist in enforcing these deepfakes that are up, if it's the individual being shown and they're moving. So those are some things I would recommend. We can always rely on the NIL rights, to assist with enforcement. But we don't know how things are going to progress, if the laws are going change when it comes to AI.

Kristen Ruisi: 21:48

So I think it would be a best practice if you're able to do it, to get some kind of sensory marks. May it be around voice or movement of the celebrity? I think that would be added layer of protection that would be needed. I think with AI, while the brands and the celebrities can take advantage of it for several of the reasons that we have said today, infringers can as well.

Kristen Ruisi: 22:12

So they're going to be able to use AI to make the deep fakes, to create very similar, and realistic looking websites, to make fake product images. So the more protection you could get, may it be a trademark sensory mark with sounds and movements, copyrights. I think if you can get as obtain as much as you can to help assist with with the AI infringement.

Justin Pierce: 22:39

I think those are all examples of trying to build more layers around that entertainer or celebrity or if we're talking about a company, a particular brand, or or recognized content. That makes sense. What's interesting to me is given the fact that here we are talking about the use of AI technology for brand owners, clients, entertainers, companies, celebrities. Obviously, you guys have talked about it's being used by infringers as well.

Maria Sinatra: 23:05

Oh, yeah. I mean, it's all over social media. You Brand owners and and celebrities have been forced against these infringers. I mean, to sort of work off of what Kristen said, tools that they could maybe use to bring a lawsuit aren't just limited to trademark or copyright rights. They can maybe bring a false advertising claim.

Maria Sinatra: 23:26

If the product is fake or touting benefits that it actually doesn't have they can bring a right of publicity claim. Those differ based off of the the different states and where it might be occurring. So that's more fact dependent, less of a federal framework. But those are definitely options that brand owners and individuals could take to combat either a deepfake or counterfeits or even infringing images or products in the marketplace.

Justin Pierce: 23:59

Right. Okay. Excellent.

Kristen Ruisi: 24:08

There's going to be, and there already is, all of these these deepfakes out there, I do think it's really important to utilize the AI, where we can for monitoring services and getting enforcement and getting takedowns quicker. And one of the the reasons why I think it's going to be important for brands to get these deepfakes taken down as quick as possible is I think that consumers, even though they're aware of AI, are going to be even more confused because there are a lot of companies that are making deals with these AI platforms where they're saying, hey, you can use these 20 trademarks or character marks of ours, and then your users can use them to make content, which then can be used on social media, and it's allowed.

Kristen Ruisi: 24:56

As a viewer on social media, if you're scrolling one of the platforms, how is your end user necessarily going to know? Is that a deepfake, or was that a deal that this brand has with a platform that allows these to be put up there? So there's a lot of potential confusion out there. So where the brand has the opportunity to utilize AI for quicker takedowns, they should in order to separate what's actually authorized that's out there and what's not, because I think that's gonna be our next big issue that comes up.

Justin Pierce: 25:29

Certainly. That's insightful. And looking into the future, I think that is the kind of thing that can happen. And that distinction between licensed and unlicensed use, I think, is getting tougher and tougher for consumers and even for those in our position as well. So with that, let me bring this to a close.

Justin Pierce: 25:46

One thing I always like to have for our audience is an insight or takeaway from the episode. We've covered a lot of different topics today. One that hit me that came up a couple of times is just the importance of making sure that while AI gives benefits and some negatives in terms of its technological use, to make sure it's checked, make sure it's part of the attorney workflow. And whether it's clients using it to make things easier, just be sure that you've integrated it with whatever you're doing with your attorney. So with that, I'd like to turn it to both of you to see Kristen, first, do you have a takeaway or insight for us?

Kristen Ruisi: 26:23

Yes. I do think AI needs to be basically what you had just said. A controlled, human supervised experience that brands and attorneys should utilize because it will be more efficient. It will be quicker. I think it'll be more cost effective. But we need to use it wisely, and we need to make sure we're checking everything. It's not going to replace. It's not to provide the legal counseling, but to assist in making things more efficient.

Justin Pierce: 26:59

Makes sense. Maria, your thoughts?

Maria Sinatra: 27:03

We didn't really touch on it that much here, but it sort of goes hand in hand with what you were mentioning, Justin. You know, recently with more litigants using more so prose or people who don't have counsel intimately involved, using public AI tools to assist with legal research, the traditional privilege relationship has been found by some courts to not exist in those situations. So I think everyone needs to be aware that if they're asking a public AI tool legal advice or a legal question, that may not be predicted down the line. And whatever you were inputting into that model may be discoverable if something bubbles up to litigation. So it's just something to keep in mind.

Justin Pierce: 27:53

An important cautionary tale. Thank you, Kristen. Thank you, Maria.

Kristen Ruisi: 27:57

Thank you

Maria Sinatra: 27:57

so much.

Justin Pierce: 27:59

That's about all we have time for today. I want to thank Kristen Ruisi and Maria Sinatra for helping us better understand how AI is reshaping brand protection from domain disputes and trademark strategy to combating deep fakes and counterfeits in the luxury and digital marketplace. You can read more about how Venable is helping businesses navigate the AI frontier by visiting venable.com/ai. Please join us next week when I'll talk to Mike Turner, director of IP strategy for Yokogawa about how in house counsel are navigating AI adoption, aligning tools with business realities, and balancing efficiency gains with the need for human judgment and control.

Justin Pierce: 28:45

I'm Justin Pierce. Thanks for listening to AI and IP: The Legal Frontier.