I never expected I was going to work in a field that moves faster than me. Considering I can shower in less than 5 minutes (not exaggerating), the way technology is evolving is absolutely wild.

For me, as an intellectual property attorney, it’s been fascinating because it means I need to move faster than my shower routine—innovating, thinking about how legal issues can impact our clients, and always staying one step ahead. Fitting for an Aquarius, I think, given that a friend once said that when he realized he could reach out to me through Telegram.

This also means that I can collaborate in the creation of the foundations of a new legal system, one that involves blockchain, artificial intelligence, quantum, robotics, and all the things I never even considered experiencing.

How? One great example is trademarks. Yes, some people think it’s just filing a trademark and getting a lame registration certificate that you’ll never print or frame. But think about this: intellectual property is intangible and abstract, yet we humans found a way to download it into the physical realm through documents that prove its existence. Not so lame, right?

Right now, the trademark offices are scratching their heads over applications seeking to protect stablecoins like USD that contain descriptions such as:

• Software as downloadable digital coins of value
• Software, namely, downloadable digital assets, virtual currency, digital currencies
• Downloadable cryptographic keys for receiving and spending crypto assets

Or for NFT project-based tokens like PENGU:

• Providing a digital currency or digital token for use by members of an online community via a global computer network

What’s the difference? Does it matter? Are all tokens the same? Does the sophistication of users on a specific blockchain matter for confusion? These are all questions that go through my attorney mind—and which I deal with every day.

These questions mean that my job as an attorney in emerging technology has never been as relevant as it is today. To understand the legal implications, we must first understand the technology we’re dealing with—like blockchain.

With the emergence of digital assets and tokens of value, how do we ensure we protect our clients’ marks, especially considering that in this specific example, the USPTO said money and cryptocurrency are methods of exchange and thus cannot be a service or product?

Well, that’s what I mean when I say we are constructing the foundation of new systems. I’ve always seen intellectual property from a holistic perspective, where all intangible assets need to be harmonized to create a strong foundation. That’s why my approach to trademarks is to accurately reflect my clients’ offerings—whether that means enhancing a piece of tech or narrowing their niche.

In a recent case before the USPTO, we were trying to protect the token of a meme coin, which differs from an NFT or stablecoin. I submitted it under Class 09: downloadable software, namely, providing a digital token for use within blockchain networks and related to interactions with blockchain communities.

The USPTO cited a mark that covered NFTs and suggested an amendment of the description to cover the same. This was inaccurate, as the meme coin is a form of currency within a specific blockchain project. That made me revisit and suggest focusing on financial services, but at the end of the day, it’s not a financial service in the traditional sense, right?

Experience and conversations with our fellow bureaucrats at the USPTO explaining these differences, are what will set the precedent for cases to follow. It’s our job to ensure we are as accurate as possible. The future is our hands.. (:

What are the obstacles you, as an attorney in emerging tech, have encountered? How did you resolve them? I’d love to hear from you.