Registration Guides
Reviewed by MoxMark IP Operations
Guidance is checked against official filing sources and the practical trademark workflows MoxMark handles for e-commerce brands.
Official references
A trademark clearance search is a review of existing trademark records conducted before submitting a new trademark application. As of 2026, this step remains the most effective way to reduce the risk of having an application refused, receiving an office action based on a conflicting mark, or discovering after registration that an earlier rights holder has a stronger claim. For sellers operating across multiple markets, clearance search is not optional—it is the foundation of any responsible filing strategy.
Key Takeaways
A trademark clearance search identifies existing trademark registrations and pending applications that could conflict with a proposed new mark. The search is not a guarantee of registrability—it is an assessment of the known risk landscape at the time of filing. Even a clean search result does not mean a mark will be approved, because examiners may identify issues not surfaced by a commercial database search, including common law rights that are not reflected in the registered trademark records.
What the search does provide is a clear picture of the competitive trademark environment around a proposed name or logo. A thorough clearance search reveals identical marks, phonetically similar marks, visually similar marks, and marks with similar meanings covering related goods—all categories that can form the basis of a likelihood of confusion refusal from an examining attorney.
Running a Google search for a brand name before filing is a reasonable first step for checking general market presence, but it is not a substitute for a trademark clearance search. Google surfaces current website content and marketing material. It does not surface:
An examiner at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), or another IP office will search the official trademark register—not the commercial internet. A brand name that appears available based on a Google search may already be registered by an entity that simply does not have a prominent online footprint. A proper trademark search uses the official databases that examiners actually consult.
The databases required for a clearance search depend on the markets where registration is being pursued. For each target jurisdiction, the relevant official database must be searched separately.
For United States filings, the primary database is the USPTO's Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS), which contains all live registered marks and pending applications. For European Union filings, the EUIPO eSearch Plus database covers all EU trademark registrations and applications. For United Kingdom filings, the UK Intellectual Property Office trademark search tool provides access to UK-specific records following the UK's departure from the EU trademark system. For China filings, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) trademark database must be searched, noting that Chinese trademark examination involves unique considerations around character similarity and phonetic equivalence in Mandarin.
For sellers pursuing multi-country coverage through the Madrid System, the WIPO Global Brand Database provides a cross-jurisdictional search tool, though individual national database searches remain advisable for high-value markets.
Understanding how IP office examiners evaluate similarity is essential for interpreting search results correctly. Examiners do not limit their conflict analysis to exact spelling matches. The United States standard, established through decades of case law, evaluates marks across three dimensions: sight (visual appearance), sound (phonetic similarity), and meaning (conceptual equivalence).
Under this framework, a proposed mark of "KLEAR" may be refused on the basis of likelihood of confusion with an existing registration for "CLEAR" in the same goods category, because the marks are phonetically identical despite different spellings. A proposed mark of "APEX" may be refused based on an existing "SUMMIT" registration if both marks are used for similar goods and both convey the concept of a top or peak position.
This means that clearance searches must go well beyond exact name matches and include phonetic variants, common misspellings, translation equivalents for marks with dictionary meanings, and visual lookalikes for logo marks.
A search result is not conclusive on its own—the relevance of a potential conflict depends heavily on the goods and services covered by the existing mark relative to the goods and services the applicant intends to register. Two marks may be highly similar in appearance but coexist without conflict if they are registered for genuinely unrelated product categories where consumer confusion is implausible.
Conversely, marks that appear moderately similar in name may be flagged as conflicts if the goods are closely related in the marketplace. An examiner will consider whether a consumer encountering both marks in their normal purchasing context would be likely to believe the goods come from the same source or from affiliated companies.
For sellers filing in the context of a broader trademark basics understanding, the goods and services description in the application is one of the most consequential decisions in the filing process. Overly broad descriptions create unnecessary conflict risk; overly narrow descriptions leave coverage gaps.
Several recurring mistakes in clearance searches lead to avoidable office actions. Searching only one country when filing in multiple markets is the most common structural mistake—a US search does not surface conflicts in the EU or China, and vice versa. Searching only for the exact proposed mark spelling and missing phonetic equivalents is the most common substantive mistake.
Ignoring pending applications is another significant error. An application filed six months before yours will typically have priority over your filing even if it is not yet registered at the time of your search. Pending applications appear in trademark databases and must be evaluated as potential conflicts alongside registered marks.
Failing to re-run the search immediately before filing is also a risk. Trademark registers are updated continuously. An application filed by a competitor in the weeks between your initial search and your filing date may surface as a conflict during examination.
A clearance search that reveals a potential conflict does not automatically mean the proposed mark cannot be registered. The appropriate response depends on the strength of the conflict and the filing strategy options available.
If the conflicting mark is in a different class of goods with no realistic argument for relatedness, filing may proceed with the conflict noted as a manageable risk. If the conflicting mark is similar in name and covers related goods, the options include modifying the proposed mark to reduce similarity, narrowing the goods description to avoid overlap, pursuing the mark in markets where the conflict does not exist, or seeking a legal opinion on the strength of the conflict before deciding whether to file.
Discovering a significant conflict before filing costs nothing beyond the time spent on the search. Discovering it after filing means losing the application fee and starting the process over with a new brand name. The economics of a thorough clearance search are strongly favorable.
MoxMark's trademark search tool connects directly to official databases in the US, EU, Australia, and China for real-time results. Transparent pricing covers both the search analysis and the filing if you decide to proceed.
Q: How long does a trademark clearance search take?
A: The time required depends on the scope of the search and the number of markets being covered. A single-market search using an official database can be completed in a matter of hours. A multi-market search covering the US, EU, UK, China, and additional jurisdictions typically takes one to three business days when conducted thoroughly.
Q: Is a clearance search required before filing a trademark application?
A: No IP office requires a clearance search as a legal prerequisite to filing. However, filing without a clearance search means filing without knowledge of the conflict landscape. An application refused on likelihood of confusion grounds costs the same filing fee as an application that succeeds, so the search pays for itself by avoiding foreseeable refusals.
Q: Can I do my own trademark clearance search?
A: Sellers can conduct a basic clearance search themselves using official databases such as USPTO TESS, EUIPO eSearch, and WIPO's Global Brand Database. However, interpreting the results—particularly identifying non-obvious phonetic similarities and evaluating the relatedness of goods—requires familiarity with trademark examination standards. A professional search analysis provides an interpretation layer that a raw database query does not.
Q: What happens if my mark conflicts with a pending application that was filed before mine?
A: A pending application filed before yours will typically establish an earlier priority date. If that earlier application proceeds to registration, it may be cited against your application during examination. The outcome depends on whether the goods and services overlap and how similar the marks are in practice. Identifying pending applications during the clearance search is one of the most important reasons to search the live application database rather than only the registered marks.
Q: Does a clean clearance search guarantee my trademark will be approved?
A: No. A clearance search identifies known conflicts in the registered trademark databases, but it does not guarantee that an examiner will not raise issues based on unregistered common law rights, descriptiveness of the mark, or other grounds unrelated to prior registrations. A clean search reduces known conflict risk but is not a registration guarantee.
Use these internal resources to connect the article to a search, filing, or brand protection workflow.