: Would it be easier to defend a case regarding real property or intellectual property?

sometimes it is very hard to defend yourself in intellectual property cases because sometimes there are no tanglible proofs. intellectual property includes the protection of various kinds of information which is sometimes hard to prove. however, according to the law, certain types of intellectual property can be easily proven. for example, if you have a trademark you can prove it is yours if you proved precedence of usage. in copyright you have to prove that you published your work first, you dont even need registration. in patents and tradedresses you must have a registration document. protection in all forms of intellctual property is renewable (except in copyrights whose protection lasts for the life time of the author and 100 years after his death)
in real property it is all different. because it depends more or less on tangible evidences and it is easir to establish your defence.

both

real due to an actual physical object
intellectual only if written and copyrights are not expired

The rules regarding real property are a lot older, and sometimes more convoluted, but there is pretty clear case precedent for almost every situation you can think of. Also, real property issues are dealt with in state courts.

IP is a relatively recent area of law, and is tricky to argue unless you happen to find a case that is directly on point. Many of the rules are still in the fuzzy areas, especially as they relate to patents and internet applications of IP law. Also, Copyrights are purely Federal law, so you're talking federal court, while Trademarks have potentially conflicting theories/rules whether you're arguing under federal TM laws or state Unfair Competition statutes.

In the end, it all comes down to whether the rules that are there are in your favor, and what areas of the law you (or your attorney) knows. If the rules are against you, or of the area of law is unfamiliar, it's going to be more difficult to defend.