Clearance search

Illustrative example; names are placeholders and the facts are invented. A founder plans to launch MARK B in the United States for meal-kit delivery. A search of the federal register turns up MARK A, registered for prepared meals. The USPTO can refuse a later application where the mark so resembles a registered mark as to be likely to cause confusion (15 U.S.C. §1052(d)). Its guidance says marks need not be identical: similar sound, appearance, meaning or commercial impression can be enough if the goods or services are related. USPTO guidance also points beyond the federal register, to state registers, domain names and common-law use found online. The founder's counsel reviews the hit and the wider results before money goes into packaging or filing fees.

EU. The EUIPO examines absolute grounds itself but refuses on earlier marks only upon opposition. An application can therefore be published over an earlier right, which makes a search the applicant's own safeguard. (EUTMR Arts. 8(1), 42(1))

UK. The IPO searches and reports earlier marks, and the applicant has two months to decide how to proceed. The IPO cannot refuse on those marks unless their owner opposes. (Trade Marks (Relative Grounds) Order 2007 arts. 2, 4; UKIPO earlier rights fact sheet)

US. The USPTO refuses confusingly similar marks on its own examination. It recommends a comprehensive search covering the federal register, pending applications, state registers, domain names and common-law use. (15 U.S.C. §1052(d); USPTO comprehensive clearance search guidance)

Switzerland. The IPI does not check for confusable earlier marks when examining an application. It recommends a professional similarity search before filing and says a Swissreg search alone is not enough. (MSchG Art. 30(2); IPI 'Search first!' guidance)