Picture this. You’ve spent six weeks workshopping a brand name with the team. The founder loves it. Marketing already mocked up a logo. Then someone in legal asks the question that should have come up sooner: “Did anyone actually run a trademark knockout search?” Cue the awkward silence.
Table of Contents
This scenario plays out in companies of every size, and it usually ends one of two ways. Either the team gets lucky and the name is clear, or they discover a confusingly similar mark already registered with the USPTO, and the whole rebrand starts over. The good news? Five minutes of preliminary screening could have flagged the problem on day one. That’s the entire point of a trademark knockout search — and why understanding how it differs from a full clearance search matters more than most business owners realize.
In this guide, we’ll break down what a knockout search actually is, why it isn’t a substitute for a comprehensive clearance review, and how the two work together to keep your brand safe before you ever file an application.
What Is a Trademark Knockout Search?
A trademark knockout search is a fast, narrowly focused screening of federal trademark records — primarily the USPTO’s Trademark Search system (the successor to the legacy TESS database) — to spot identical or near-identical marks already registered or pending in the same or closely related classes of goods and services. Think of it as the first triage cut. If your proposed mark is already taken, there’s no point spending money on a deeper analysis.
The “knockout” name comes from boxing. The search either knocks the name out of contention immediately, or it survives the first round and earns the right to be examined more carefully. Most knockout searches take a few hours to a single business day to complete, and they’re a routine starting point for any responsible brand-naming exercise.
Here’s what a trademark knockout search typically covers:
- Live and pending federal trademark registrations in the USPTO Trademark Search database
- Exact-match and very close phonetic matches in the relevant Nice classification
- Recently abandoned applications (which can come back to life)
- A quick pass through high-traffic domain names and basic web search results
What it does not cover is just as important. Common law usage, state registrations, foreign filings, and creative phonetic equivalents all sit outside the scope of a knockout. That’s a feature, not a bug — keeping the search narrow is what makes it cheap and fast.
Rather have someone run the search for you? PerspireIP runs structured knockout screens and full clearance searches — see our trademark search service →, or ask us for a quote on a comprehensive search. If the name clears, our trademark filing service takes it from there for a $399 professional fee per class; USPTO official fees (currently about $350 per class) are additional, passed through at cost, never marked up, and confirmed before filing.
Also Called a Knock-Out Search, a Preliminary Search, or Trademark Screening and Analysis
One reason this step gets skipped is that nobody agrees what to call it. Ask three firms to price the same piece of work and you will get three different labels on the quote. A knock-out search, written with the hyphen, is the spelling you will most often see from UK and European practitioners and from WIPO-facing agents; it means exactly the same screen.
A preliminary search is the phrase US attorneys tend to use with clients, usually to signal that it is a first look rather than an opinion. Search vendors sell the same scope as trademark screening and analysis. The narrowest version of all — exact character-string matches only, no phonetic or visual variants — is often quoted as an identical mark search.
The labels matter commercially, because the scope behind them is not standardised and nothing in USPTO practice defines any of them. Two quotes for a "preliminary search" can differ by an order of magnitude: one may cover the federal register alone, the other may add state registers, common-law use, domains and marketplace listings with a written relevance grade on every hit.
Before you compare prices, make the provider write down four things: which databases are searched, whether phonetic and visual variants are included, which classes and which related goods are covered, and whether you receive raw hits or a graded analysis. If those four are not in writing you are not comparing the same product, whichever of the four names is printed at the top of the quote.
One Term, Two Trades: The Patent Meaning of a Knockout Search
There is one more terminology trap worth naming, because it routinely sends people to the wrong kind of report. In patent work the same label describes something different: a fast, narrowly scoped prior-art screen aimed at finding the single reference that would defeat a claim’s novelty, run before anyone commissions a full invalidity study. The two practices share a strategy — spend a little early to surface a fatal problem before the expensive stage — and almost nothing else. They search unrelated databases, apply unrelated legal tests, and hand back unrelated deliverables.
Everything on this page is about the trademark version: brand names, logos and the register. If you arrived looking for the patent side, start with our guide to how a patent invalidity search is built for litigation instead.
Knockout Search vs. Full Clearance Search: The Real Difference
If a trademark knockout search is the first round, a full clearance search — sometimes called a comprehensive search — is the championship bout. It’s wider, deeper, and built to catch the conflicts that a quick screening can’t. According to USPTO guidance on comprehensive clearance searches, the goal is to evaluate not just identical marks but anything that creates a likelihood of confusion in the marketplace.
Here’s how the two compare in practice:
- Scope. A knockout looks at federal records only. A full clearance pulls in state filings, common law usage, business registries, domain databases, and foreign jurisdictions if you operate internationally.
- Similarity logic. A knockout flags identical and near-identical wording. A full clearance applies phonetic, visual, and conceptual similarity tests — the same ones a USPTO examiner uses.
- Goods and services analysis. A knockout matches within your filing class. A full clearance considers related classes, complementary products, and overlapping consumer channels.
- Output. A knockout gives you a thumbs-up or thumbs-down. A full clearance produces a written legal opinion you can rely on if a dispute arises later.
- Cost and time. A quick federal screen is an hour or two of work. Full clearance takes days, and the clock stretches with every extra jurisdiction. Published prices diverge just as sharply: our own flat professional fee is $120 for the basic USPTO-plus-domain screen and $200 for full domestic clearance across the federal register, common-law sources and all 50 U.S. state registers.
So what does a comprehensive trademark search cost compared to a basic one? At PerspireIP the gap is $80, not an order of magnitude. The four flat tiers are $120 (USPTO federal register plus domain availability), $150 (adds unregistered common-law sources), $200 (adds all 50 U.S. state registers — the full domestic picture) and $250 (adds a WIPO/Madrid international search). Multi-country and custom scopes are quoted rather than priced from a list.
Those are search fees only. If the name clears, filing is billed separately at a $399 professional fee per class; each office’s official government fees are additional, passed through at cost, never marked up, and confirmed with you in writing before anything is filed — the USPTO alone is currently about $350 per class. Compare the search tiers and order one →
The two aren’t competing products. They’re sequential. Skip the knockout, and you risk paying for a full clearance on a name that was always going to be blocked. Skip the full clearance, and you risk filing on a name that looks clean federally but conflicts with a common law user who can still sue you.
How a Trademark Knockout Search Works, Step by Step
Running a useful knockout takes more than typing your name into the USPTO search tool and scrolling through hits. A real trademark knockout search follows a repeatable process. Here’s how an experienced searcher approaches it.
Step 1: Define the mark precisely. Are you searching a word mark, a logo, a tagline, or all three? The search strategy changes for each. For word marks, capture the exact spelling plus likely typographical variants.
Step 2: Identify the goods and services class. The Nice Classification has 45 classes, and a mark in one class can coexist with the same mark in another, unrelated class. Get this wrong and the entire search points the wrong direction.
Step 3: Search exact and near-exact matches in the USPTO Trademark Search tool. Use the wildcard operators (*) and field-specific searches to catch variants. Pay attention to live status, pending applications, and Section 8/9 affidavit filings.
Step 4: Run high-priority phonetic checks. Even in a knockout, you should test obvious sound-alikes. “Kleer” vs. “Clear.” “Phix” vs. “Fix.” The USPTO will flag these later, so catching them now saves heartache.
Step 5: Quick web and domain pass. Search Google, social handles, and the .com/.io for the name. If a major company is using the name commercially without registration, you’ve still got a problem.
Step 6: Document the findings. A defensible knockout produces a short memo — what you searched, what you found, and what risk level you’ve assigned. This becomes evidence of good faith if a dispute ever arises.
Step 7: Decide whether to escalate. If the knockout is clean, move to a full clearance before filing. If it isn’t, save your money and go back to the naming whiteboard. For deeper context on the next phase, see our step-by-step guide to trademark clearance searches.
Real-World Scenarios Where a Knockout Search Saved (or Should Have Saved) the Day
Consider a SaaS startup we’ll call NorthArrow Analytics. They had board approval, a fundraise lined up, and a launch date eight weeks out. A 90-minute knockout search uncovered a live registration for “North Arrow” in IC 042 — the exact class for software services. The team pivoted to a different name within a week, avoided a cease-and-desist, and saved an estimated $80,000 in rebranding and legal costs.
Now contrast that with a regional restaurant chain that skipped the search entirely. They opened five locations under a name that turned out to be federally registered by a much larger food brand in a related class. The result? Forced renaming after eighteen months of operation, six figures in signage and packaging waste, and a settlement payment to the senior user. The kicker — a $300 knockout would have flagged the conflict on day one.
These stories aren’t unusual. The USPTO itself recommends doing a clearance review before applying, and most opposition proceedings trace back to applicants who never bothered to look. Once you’ve cleared the federal hurdles, you’ll also want to think about ongoing protection — see our breakdown of how trademark monitoring services protect your brand 24/7.
Identical Trademark Screening vs. USPTO Comprehensive Clearance Search
Some confusion comes from terminology. An identical trademark screening search is just another name for a trademark knockout search: a quick scan of federal records for marks that match yours exactly or nearly so. It answers one question — is the name already taken outright?
A USPTO comprehensive clearance search for similar trademarks is a different animal. The USPTO recommends searching not only for identical marks but for anything confusingly similar — sound-alikes, look-alikes, foreign-language equivalents, and marks covering related goods or services. That is the standard an examining attorney applies under the Section 2(d) likelihood-of-confusion analysis, and it is the standard a comprehensive clearance is built around.
That wider standard is a separate job with a separate deliverable, and we walk through it record by record in our guide to US trademark clearance searches — which registers get checked, how the Section 2(d) factors are weighted on each hit, and what a defensible comprehensive report has to contain before you rely on it.
One point trips up a lot of first-time filers: the USPTO does not run a clearance search for you before you file. The examiner searches after you have paid the filing fee — and if they find a conflict, you lose the fee. Clearing the mark beforehand, including common law uses that never appear in the federal register, is entirely your responsibility.
How Much Does a Comprehensive Trademark Search Cost Compared to a Basic One?
Budget is usually the deciding factor, so here are the numbers side by side.
| Knockout (basic) search | Comprehensive clearance search | |
|---|---|---|
| Typical cost | $150–$500 per mark, per class | $500–$2,000+; more with a written attorney opinion |
| Turnaround | A few hours to 1 business day | 3–7 business days |
| Databases covered | Federal register only | Federal, state, common law, domains, international |
| Similarity analysis | Identical and near-identical marks | Phonetic, visual, conceptual, related goods |
| Output | Go / no-go screen | Risk-graded report or legal opinion |
The pattern most cost-conscious teams follow: run a quick trademark knockout search on every candidate name, then pay for one comprehensive search on the finalist. You spend a few hundred dollars eliminating the obvious losers and reserve the four-figure search for the name you will actually file.
Those bands are the short version. For the full breakdown — what pushes a search to the top of each range, where written attorney-opinion fees land, and how the numbers change once you add classes or foreign jurisdictions — see our trademark clearance search cost guide, which prices each search tier line by line.
What PerspireIP Charges for Each Search Tier
Those industry bands describe the market as a whole. They are not our rate card, and the gap between the two is wide enough that it changes the decision. Most people arrive at this question wanting to know what the invoice will actually say, so here are our own published prices, tier by tier, with the scope that each one buys.
| Tier | What it covers | Professional fee |
|---|---|---|
| 1. USPTO + domain name | USPTO federal register search, domain-name availability check, clearance summary and a plain-English risk read | $120 |
| 2. Adds common law | Everything in Tier 1, plus common-law (unregistered) sources | $150 |
| 3. Adds all 50 state registers | Everything in Tier 2, plus every U.S. state trademark register — the full domestic clearance picture | $200 |
| 4. Adds WIPO / international | Everything in Tier 3, plus a WIPO / Madrid international search | $250 |
The most important line in that table is not a price, it is the boundary between Tier 1 and Tier 3. Tier 1 at $120 looks like the obvious starting point, and for screening a shortlist of candidate names it is. But it covers the federal register and domains only. It does not include common-law sources, and it does not include state registers. Calling that a comprehensive search would be wrong, and it is the single most common way search pricing gets misrepresented — a buyer is quoted the entry price and told it carries the full scope.
If what you need is genuine comprehensive domestic clearance — the federal register, common-law use, and all fifty state registers read together — that is Tier 3 at $200. That is the cheapest tier we offer that honestly deserves the word “comprehensive,” and it is the one to order on a name you have decided to build a business around. Tier 4 at $250 extends the same work across the WIPO and Madrid records, which is what you want before committing to a brand you intend to sell outside the United States.
Why These Numbers Sit Below the Market Bands
The $500–$2,000+ figures in the comparison table above are not wrong. They are what a law firm typically charges when the search is performed by, or billed through, an attorney and delivered with a signed written opinion on registrability. The search labour is a modest part of that number; the opinion and the professional liability behind it are most of it.
We are a dedicated IP search practice rather than a billing-hours firm, which is why our tiers are priced as flat products. That distinction matters when you are deciding what to buy: if your situation genuinely calls for a signed attorney opinion — a contested adoption, an investor or acquirer asking for one in diligence, a decision you may later need to defend as reasonable — then you want that four-figure product from counsel, and no search report substitutes for it. If what you need is a competent, documented read on whether a name is clear enough to file, that is what the tiers above are for.
One more boundary worth stating plainly: anything outside those four tiers is quoted rather than priced from a list. Multi-country programmes, searches confined to particular foreign jurisdictions, design and logo (figurative) searches, and searches across unusually crowded classes all vary too much in scope to carry a fixed number. Ask and you will get a figure before any work starts, not after.
Search Cost Versus Filing Cost: Two Separate Budgets
Searching and filing get budgeted together and priced separately, and conflating them is how people end up surprised. A search is a flat professional fee with no official charge attached, because reading a register costs the government nothing. An application is different: it carries a government filing fee that exists whoever prepares it.
Our filing work is $399 per class as a professional fee. Government fees are additional and are never marked up — we pass through exactly what the office charges. For a U.S. application the USPTO fee alone is approximately $350 per class, as at September 2026, so a realistic single-class budget is our $399 plus roughly $350 of official fee, and both numbers should be confirmed before you file because official fees change. Anyone advertising a flat “trademark filing from $399” without naming the government fee separately is quoting you half the bill.
Put the two budgets side by side and the sequencing becomes obvious. Screening three or four candidate names at the entry tier costs less than the official fee on a single class. Full domestic clearance on the finalist at $200 costs less than half of what you will spend getting that one application on file. The search is the cheapest part of the whole exercise and the only part that can save you the rest of it — which is why ordering it after you have already filed, or after you have printed packaging, is the expensive way to do this.
Ready to price your own situation? Our trademark search service page carries all four tiers with an order form, and our trademark filing service page sets out the $399-per-class professional fee alongside the government fees for each jurisdiction we file in.
How PerspireIP Can Help With Your Trademark Knockout Search
At PerspireIP, we treat the trademark knockout search as the foundation of every brand protection engagement, not an afterthought. Our team runs structured knockouts that go beyond a simple TESS query — we layer in phonetic intelligence, related-class screening, and a quick common-law sweep so you get a clearer picture before any money is committed.
For clients who clear the knockout, we move directly into a full clearance and filing strategy, ensuring nothing falls through the cracks between phases. For founders and in-house teams who’d rather not navigate USPTO databases at 11 p.m., we deliver a plain-English risk memo within one to two business days. Fast, defensible, priced for early-stage budgets. If you’re also evaluating broader protection, check our guide on choosing between copyright, trademark, and patent protection.
The Statutory Test a Knockout Search Is Actually Screening For
Most explanations of a knockout screen describe the searching. Far fewer describe the refusal it is trying to predict. A trademark knockout search is a forecast about one statutory ground: section 2(d) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1052(d), which bars registration of a mark that so resembles a mark already registered, or previously used in the United States and not abandoned, that confusion is likely. Every spelling variant and every class you check is a proxy for that single sentence. Read it closely and you can see both why the screen works and precisely where it stops working.
The statute reaches prior unregistered use. Ex parte examination does not. An examining attorney searches USPTO records and cites what is in them: live registrations, and — where someone got there first with a still-pending application — an advisory that a 2(d) refusal may follow if that earlier application matures into a registration, with your file suspended in the meantime rather than refused outright (TMEP 1208.02). A common-law owner has to assert its own rights, through an opposition or a lawsuit. That asymmetry is why “the federal register is clear” and “the name is safe to launch” are two different claims.
Likelihood of confusion is itself a multi-factor enquiry, drawn from In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973). Thirteen factors are listed there, but in examination two of them do almost all of the work: how similar the marks are, and how related the goods or services are. The remaining factors — trade channels, buyer sophistication, actual confusion, the strength of the senior mark — need evidence an ex parte record rarely holds. A screen that compares spellings but never reads the recited goods has answered only half of the test.
Section 2(d) is a relative ground: it turns on somebody else’s rights. The refusals that turn only on your own mark are invisible to any conflict search, however deep, and they account for a great deal of the disappointment that follows a clean report.
- Merely descriptive — §2(e)(1). A mark that describes a feature, function or quality of the goods is refused even when the register is empty. Descriptive marks can sometimes be rescued by evidence of acquired distinctiveness under §2(f), but that is an evidentiary project, not a search result.
- Failure to function — TMEP 1202.04. Wording consumers read as an informational slogan rather than a badge of source is not performing as a mark at all, and that objection generally cannot be amended away.
- Name or portrait of a living individual — §2(c). Registration needs that person’s written consent, which is a signature to obtain rather than a conflict to find.
- Specimen and use problems. A use-based filing has to show the mark in actual commercial use on the goods recited. No screen tells you whether your packaging will qualify.
The practical consequence is a better brief. Ask for the knockout search to be run against the classes you will actually recite, not the mark alone, because relatedness is half of the statutory test. Ask separately whether the candidate has a descriptiveness problem, because that question is answered by reading the goods and a dictionary rather than by searching the register. And keep the shortlist long enough that a name lost to §2(e)(1) does not cost you the whole naming cycle.
One more thing changes the calculus outside the United States. The EUIPO, the DPMA in Germany and the INPI in France do not refuse an application on relative grounds of their own motion — an earlier mark blocks you only if its owner opposes. A screen run for those offices is not predicting an examiner’s refusal; it is predicting who is likely to oppose, and how expensively. Same search, different question, and worth settling before the first invoice. Our trademark search service scopes the screen to the registers that actually decide the outcome.
When Should You Order Each Search? A Simple Decision Framework
Still not sure which search fits your situation? Use this rule of thumb, which mirrors how most IP counsel sequence the work.
- You have a shortlist of 3–10 candidate names. Order a trademark knockout search on each. It is the cheapest way to eliminate names that are dead on arrival and keeps the naming process moving.
- You have one finalist and a filing date in mind. Order the comprehensive clearance search now, before the design team produces final assets. A week of searching is cheaper than a quarter of rebranding.
- You are expanding into new product lines or countries. Treat it like a new mark. A name cleared for software in the U.S. is not automatically clear for hardware in Germany — related classes and foreign registers need their own review.
- You already filed without searching. Do not wait for the examiner. A retroactive clearance review lets you withdraw or amend early, before an opposition or office action raises the stakes.
The sequencing matters as much as the searches themselves. Teams that screen early and clear thoroughly almost never end up in the rebrand horror stories that fill IP case law reporters — and the few hundred dollars spent up front buys an asset most founders undervalue: certainty.
And if your budget is genuinely zero? Run the free USPTO search yourself, document what you find, and at minimum screen the exact name and obvious sound-alikes in your filing class. An imperfect screen beats no screen at all — just be honest with yourself about what a do-it-yourself pass can and cannot catch before you bet the brand on it.
Conclusion
A trademark knockout search isn’t a substitute for a full clearance — it’s the first defensive line. Run it before you fall in love with a name. Run it before the design team finalizes a logo. Run it before legal sees the application draft. Catching a conflict at the knockout stage costs hundreds of dollars; catching it after launch costs hundreds of thousands. The math is simple, and the timing matters.
One last piece of practical advice: write the results down. Whether you run the trademark knockout search yourself or hire a professional, a dated record of what you searched and what you found is evidence of good faith — and it can soften willfulness claims if a dispute ever surfaces. Brand protection is a process, not a one-time event, and the searching you do today becomes the paper trail that protects you tomorrow.
Ready to screen your next brand name the right way? Contact PerspireIP today for a same-day trademark knockout search and a clear path forward — whether that’s a full clearance, a filing strategy, or simply a confident green light to keep building.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a knockout search?
A knockout search is a fast, preliminary screen of a trademark register — the USPTO’s in the United States — that looks for identical and near-identical marks already claimed for related goods or services. The point is elimination, not clearance: it is designed to kill an unusable name in hours, before anyone spends money on branding or filing fees. The term is used interchangeably with knock-out search, preliminary search and screening search. A knockout search deliberately does not cover common law users, phonetic equivalents or state registrations, which is why it is a first filter rather than a green light — a full clearance search is the step that actually clears a mark for use and registration.
How long does a trademark knockout search take?
Most professional knockout searches are completed within two to twenty-four hours. The exact turnaround depends on the number of names being screened and the complexity of the goods and services classes involved.
Is a knockout search enough to file a trademark application?
No. A knockout is a preliminary screen. Filing on a knockout alone leaves you exposed to common law users, phonetic conflicts, and state-registered marks that the knockout doesn’t cover. A full clearance search should always follow before filing.
Can I do my own trademark knockout search on the USPTO website?
You can run a basic search on the USPTO Trademark Search system yourself, and it’s a smart first move. But interpreting the results — likelihood of confusion, related-class analysis, phonetic equivalents — takes practice. A do-it-yourself knockout is a good filter, not a final answer.
What does a trademark knockout search cost?
Pricing varies by provider, but most professional knockout searches fall between $150 and $500 per mark, per class. Compare that with the cost of rebranding after launch and the value becomes obvious.
What happens if my mark fails the knockout?
A failed trademark knockout search means there’s a conflicting mark serious enough to derail a federal filing. Your options are to choose a different name, narrow your goods and services to avoid overlap, or — in some cases — negotiate a coexistence agreement with the senior user. Your IP counsel can advise on which path makes sense.
What is a trademark clearance search used for?
A clearance search is used to confirm a proposed mark is safe to adopt and register before you invest in branding or pay USPTO filing fees. It identifies registered, pending, and unregistered (common law) marks that could trigger a refusal, an opposition, or an infringement claim.
What is an identical trademark screening search?
It is another term for a knockout search — a fast screen of the federal register for marks identical or nearly identical to yours in the same or related classes. It catches outright blockers but not the subtler likelihood-of-confusion conflicts a comprehensive search uncovers.
Does the USPTO run a comprehensive clearance search for me?
No. The USPTO only searches for conflicting marks after you file, during examination — and filing fees are non-refundable if your application is refused. Pre-filing clearance for similar trademarks and common law uses is the applicant’s responsibility.
What a Trademark Knockout Search Cannot Tell You
The strongest argument for running a knockout first is also the strongest argument for not stopping there. A trademark knockout search is a screen, and a screen is defined as much by what it lets through as by what it catches. Knowing the blind spots is what keeps a clean knockout result from turning into false confidence.
Five categories of risk sit outside what a register screen can see.
- Unregistered common-law rights. In the United States, rights come from use, not registration. A regional restaurant chain, a long-running trade name or an established product line can hold priority over you in its territory without ever appearing on the federal register. Nothing about a federal screen surfaces it.
- State registrations. Every state maintains its own trademark register, and those filings do not appear in USPTO results. A state registration will not block your federal application, but it can absolutely complicate your launch in that state.
- Pending applications not yet published. There is a lag between filing and the moment an application becomes searchable and reviewable. An application filed last week with priority over yours may not be visible when you screen.
- Phonetic and visual near-equivalents. A knockout is built around identical and closely spelled matches. Marks that sound alike, translate to the same meaning, or create the same commercial impression through different spelling are exactly the conflicts a screen is least likely to surface.
- Design and composite marks. A word-mark screen cannot evaluate a logo whose dominant element is visual, and design-code searching is a separate discipline.
There is a sixth limitation that is conceptual rather than technical. A knockout tells you a conflicting mark exists. It does not tell you whether an examining attorney would find a likelihood of confusion, which turns on the multi-factor analysis US practice applies to relatedness of goods, channels of trade, sophistication of purchasers and strength of the senior mark. That judgment is legal work, not search output.
None of this makes the screen less worth running. It makes the sequencing matter. Use the knockout to kill the obviously dead candidates cheaply and fast, then spend the full clearance budget on the one or two names that survive – and reserve the legal opinion for the name you are actually going to build a business on.
Clear Your Mark Before You File
A knockout search you run yourself catches identical marks; it rarely catches the confusingly similar ones that cause refusals. PerspireIP runs comprehensive trademark clearance searches across USPTO, state and common-law sources, each delivered with a clearance summary and a plain-English risk read — $200 for full domestic clearance (USPTO, all 50 state registers and common-law sources), or from $120 for a USPTO-plus-domain screen. A WIPO/international search is $250; custom multi-country searches are quoted. A signed written likelihood-of-confusion opinion is not part of any search tier — tell us if you need one and we will quote it separately. Search fees are flat as at October 2026, with no government charge attached to a search.