How To Search a Trademark

By Ava Na Li | Attorney | Ava Li Law PLLC

2026 Federal Trademark Registration Guide, Part Three: How to Search a Trademark

This article is part of Ava Li Law’s federal trademark registration guide. Attorney Ava Na Li attended the USPTO’s 2024 Trademark Basics Boot Camp, an eight-week program covering trademark application requirements and practice. Drawing on that training, this series explains the registration process and the standards examining attorneys apply, helping applicants understand the issues that can affect a filing and prepare a stronger application.

Some images on this website are provided by third parties for illustrative and educational purposes. Copyright remains with the respective owners.

Introduction

A trademark search is an essential step before filing. It helps identify potential conflicts, assess whether a proposed mark can distinguish your business, and reduce the risk of a dispute after you have invested in the brand. A useful search considers both the wording and the design elements of the mark.

The original article described word-mark searches through the USPTO’s former Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS), including alternative spellings and variations, and searches for visual elements using design search codes. It also emphasized identifying the appropriate goods and services. The USPTO’s Trademark ID Manual helps applicants select descriptions and classifications that match their offerings. References to TESS below describe the search approach in that historical system.

Why Search Before Filing?

A search can uncover earlier rights that may affect your ability to register or use a mark. It also helps you assess how crowded the field is and whether a more distinctive choice would provide a stronger position. Identifying those issues early gives you a chance to adjust the brand or filing strategy before committing more time and money.

What Does the USPTO Consider?

When reviewing an application, a USPTO examining attorney considers whether the proposed mark is likely to cause consumer confusion. Several connected factors shape that analysis.

1. Similarity

Appearance: The attorney considers visual similarities, including lettering, colors, and design elements. Sound: Different spellings may still produce a similar pronunciation. Meaning: Words or designs may convey a similar idea or commercial impression even when they are not identical. The following example illustrates how appearance and sound can overlap.

T.MARKETY and TEE MARQEE

These marks share a similar arrangement of letters and a similar sound, particularly in “MARKETY” and “MARQEE.” The period in “T.MARKETY” may do relatively little to change its overall visual impression. Their pronunciation may also create a similar impression when spoken. Those similarities warrant closer review, but they do not resolve the question by themselves. The relationship between the goods or services and the relevant market context also matters.

2. Relatedness

The examining attorney considers whether the goods or services are related in a way that could lead consumers to believe they come from the same source. The analysis may include market positioning, the relevant customers, and the channels through which the goods or services are sold.

An Example of Related Goods

Consider TRAQ for racquetball rackets and TRAK for snow skis. The products serve different sports, but both may be sold through sporting goods stores, specialist retailers, and online channels to overlapping groups of customers. Similar marks in that setting may lead consumers to assume a common source. The example shows why differences between the products do not end the inquiry; the way they reach customers also needs attention.

3. Market Context and Use

The commercial setting helps explain how consumers encounter a mark. Similar marks used in very different markets may present a different risk from similar marks used for closely connected offerings. For example, use for high-end clothing and use for electronic equipment would require examining the relationship between those markets and their customers rather than relying on the words alone.

Well-known marks add another consideration. The original article used DOVE for ice cream and for soap or personal care products to illustrate a possible cross-category association. Such an example calls for a fact-specific review, not an assumption that the same word necessarily identifies one company. The broader point is that strong brand recognition can affect consumer expectations across product categories.

Reviewing the market context and actual use helps put a mark’s commercial significance in perspective. That context can inform both the search and the protection strategy that follows.

Taken together, these factors help the USPTO evaluate whether similar marks for related goods or services are likely to confuse consumers. A meaningful search therefore looks beyond exact matches and considers how the marks function in the market.

Types of Trademark Searches

Different searches answer different questions. A clearance review may combine several of the following approaches.

1. Federal Trademark Search

A federal search reviews the USPTO’s records for existing registrations and pending applications that may conflict with the proposed mark. Two core components are word searches and design searches.

Word searches examine the verbal elements of a mark. In the TESS system discussed in the original article, these searches included the wording itself as well as variations that might reveal conflicting marks.

Design searches use USPTO design search codes to locate marks with relevant visual elements, including symbols, images, and other design features.

2. State Trademark Search

A state search reviews registrations maintained by individual states. Each state has its own registration system and records. Searching those records can uncover marks that are identical or similar to the proposed mark but may not appear in the federal database.

3. Common Law Trademark Search

A common law search looks for marks that are used in commerce without federal or state registration. Actual use can create rights within a particular geographic area, so a clear federal search does not necessarily mean a brand is available. Common law research may include the following sources.

Online searches: Search engines, social media, and business websites can reveal uses of the proposed name or similar names.

Business directories: Industry-specific listings may identify unregistered marks already being used by other businesses.

Trade publications: Industry publications can provide evidence of commercial use that does not appear in registration records.

4. International Trademark Search

An international search reviews trademark records in other countries or regions. This is particularly relevant to businesses planning to enter multiple markets. Sources may include World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) databases and the records of national or regional trademark offices.

5. Goods and Services Classification Search

Classification research helps identify the goods and services that should be included in the review and accurately described in the application. The original article discussed using the “International Class” field in TESS to search relevant classes. Class information helps organize a search, but the relationship between the actual goods or services still requires attention.

6. Domain Name Search

A domain search checks whether the proposed brand name is already registered as an internet domain. Domain registration services and resources such as ICANN or InterNIC can help establish availability. WHOIS records, where information is available, may also help identify existing domain holders and potential conflicts.

Combining these approaches gives a more complete view of a proposed mark’s availability and the risks associated with using it. The purpose is to identify issues early enough to make informed decisions about the brand.

Federal Search Strategies

1. Word-Mark Searches

Begin with the core wording of the mark, then expand to alternative spellings, abbreviations, and similar forms. A search for “APPLE,” for example, might also consider “APLE” or “APPL.” The original article described using TESS’s “Word and/or Design Mark Search (Free Form)” feature to broaden the review beyond exact matches.

2. Design Searches

Identify the principal visual elements and locate the relevant entries in the USPTO’s Design Search Code Manual. Use those codes to find marks with similar features. For an eagle design, the original article gave “03.15.01” as an example of a code to investigate. The relevant code and its scope should be checked against the design being searched.

3. Basic and Expanded Searches

A basic search targets a particular word or design element directly. An expanded search considers spelling variations, alternative forms, and related goods or services. The original article used “STA*” as an example of broadening a TESS search beyond “STAR.” Advanced search tools can also help narrow results by class or design code. Search syntax must match the system being used.

4. Goods and Services Searches

Search the categories that reflect the actual offering and consider related goods or services that could raise a conflict. Clothing, for example, generally falls in Class 25, while retail services generally fall in Class 35. The original article described using the TESS “International Class” field and the identification manual together to check coverage and classification.

From Search Results to a Filing Decision

A useful trademark search combines word and design research, considers variations rather than only exact matches, and identifies the relevant goods and services. Federal records are one part of that work; state records, common law use, and market context can also affect the decision. A comprehensive review helps a business assess the risks before it invests further in a brand or files an application.

The next installment in the federal trademark registration guide examines practical filing requirements, including the information, evidence, and decisions needed to prepare an application.

This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult an attorney about your specific circumstances. Ava Li Law PLLC is not responsible for actions taken or not taken in reliance on this article.

© Ava Li Law PLLC. All rights reserved. No reproduction, republication, or commercial use without prior written permission.