No. The system prompt declines all forms of registrability assessment (likelihood-of-confusion, distinctiveness, descriptiveness), prior-art opinions, claim-scope analysis, and fair-use defenses. These are attorney conclusions that require actual examination of the mark, the prior-art landscape, or the allegedly infringing work, and they sit outside the chatbot's scope. The refusal language is calibrated to redirect to a consultation rather than turn the prospect away.

From the language the prospect uses. A brand name, a logo, or a slogan signals trademark. A software invention, a mechanical device, or a process signals patent. A song, an article, a video, or a photograph signals copyright. The bot also asks clarifying questions when the language is ambiguous (a founder saying 'protect my idea' usually means trademark plus a patent conversation), and routes once the type is clear.

Yes. Multibot lets you run a trademark bot on your trademark pages, a patent bot on your patent pages, and a copyright bot on your copyright pages, each with its own intake fields and tone. The trademark bot asks about marks and classes; the patent bot captures invention disclosure summaries; the copyright bot asks about the work and the alleged infringement. Splitting the bots keeps the routing accuracy higher than one general IP bot.

Yes, if you keep them in your content. Add USPTO trademark class fees, provisional and non-provisional filing fees, and copyright registration fees as page content or ACF fields, and the bot reads from those. When the USPTO updates fees, you update the page once and the bot is current. The bot will not invent fees if your content does not include them; it will book the consultation and let the attorney quote.

The bot collects the parties involved and any opposing parties, then flags the intake for your conflicts team before any consultation is confirmed. IP firms have complex conflict situations because the same prospect might be adverse to an existing client in an unrelated industry where the marks are nonetheless similar. The bot does not make conflict calls; it captures enough information for a meaningful clearance and lets a human decide.

Yes. Configure the bot with the jurisdictions your firm covers (Madrid Protocol, EUIPO, WIPO, country-specific filings) and it routes accordingly. International trademark filings have very different cost structures from US filings, and a founder asking about EU protection should not get a US-only quote. The bot also handles Spanish, Mandarin, German, and other common languages natively for international prospects.

The bot recognises urgency language (cease-and-desist already received, marketplace listing already taken down, infringement happening now) and routes to the same-day or next-day calendar with the IP litigator. Trademark and copyright disputes often have short response windows, and the intake captures the deadlines visible from the documents the prospect describes. Routine prosecution inquiries route to the standard calendar.

Conversation logs live in your WordPress database. The initial message should make clear that pre-engagement communications are not yet privileged, which is the same posture as a web form or first email at most firms. For invention disclosures particularly, many firms set short retention windows on conversation logs and migrate substantive disclosures into the matter management system once the engagement starts. Patent inquiries are sensitive enough that the privacy posture matters more than for routine intake.