The Service
What the Go/No-Go Search actually tells you.
Filing a trademark without a clearance search is one of the most common and costly mistakes brand owners make. Trademark rights in the U.S. go to whoever files first, but filing first does not mean filing safely. If a conflicting mark already exists, your application can be refused by the USPTO, opposed by the prior owner, or result in an infringement claim against you.
The Go/No-Go Search is a comprehensive legal review of the trademark landscape for your proposed mark before anything is filed. It covers three distinct layers that a basic USPTO search does not: the federal database, all 50 state trademark registries, and common law use. A business can hold enforceable trademark rights through years of commercial use even without a federal registration, and those rights can block your application or expose you to liability.
What you get is not a database printout. It is a formal legal opinion letter from Armani explaining what was found, how serious each conflict is, and a clear recommendation: proceed, modify the mark, or choose a different name. That opinion is backed by a 15 to 30 minute consultation to walk through the results and answer your questions before you commit to anything.
If you move forward to filing after the search, Go/No-Go clients receive a discounted rate on the Standard or Premium package. The search is the first step in the process, not a separate cost added on top of filing.
What's Included
Everything in the flat fee.
Who It's For
The right first step before any filing.
The Go/No-Go Search is recommended for anyone considering a trademark filing. These are the situations where it matters most.
Process
From intake to legal opinion, step by step.
Submit your proposed mark, the goods or services it will be used with, and any relevant context about your business. This tells Armani which trademark classes to search and shapes the scope of the legal opinion.
A three-layer search is conducted across the USPTO federal database, all 50 state trademark registries, and common law sources. Every result that could pose a likelihood of confusion or infringement risk is identified and assessed.
A formal written opinion summarizes what was found, explains the risk level of each conflict, and states a clear recommendation: proceed, modify the mark, or choose a different name. This is a document you can reference and share with investors or partners.
You and Armani talk through the results directly. She answers your questions, explains any conflicts in plain language, and advises on whether and how to move forward. No paralegal intermediary. Just the attorney who did the search.
If you decide to file, Go/No-Go clients receive a discounted rate on the Standard or Premium filing package. The search is step one of the process, not a standalone cost on top of filing.
Pricing
Flat fee. No USPTO fees at this stage.
No USPTO fees at this stage. The search does not involve filing anything with the USPTO. The $450 is the complete cost of the search, opinion, and consultation. USPTO filing fees apply only if you proceed to file, starting at $350 per class for standard electronic applications.
Get Started
Ready to clear your mark? Start here.
Complete the intake form below to get started. Armani will review your submission and be in touch to confirm next steps.
FAQ
Questions about the Go/No-Go Search.
It is not legally required, but skipping it is one of the most common and costly mistakes in trademark law. Without clearance, you may file a mark that the USPTO refuses due to a conflicting registration, or one that infringes on a mark with common law rights. That can expose you to a cease and desist or infringement claim even if the USPTO approves your application. The $450 search is inexpensive compared to a refused application, a forced rebrand, or litigation.
The USPTO TESS database only covers federally registered and pending marks. It does not capture state trademark registrations, common law use, unregistered business names, domain names, or trade dress. A business that has operated under a name for years without a federal registration can still hold enforceable common law rights in their market. The three-layer search covers all of this, and the written legal opinion tells you what the results actually mean for your specific mark and industry, not just whether something exists in a database.
No. The USPTO examiner independently reviews every application and may raise issues that were not flagged in a clearance search, including descriptiveness refusals or new marks filed after the search was completed. What the search does is give you an informed, attorney-backed assessment of your risk before you spend money on filing. It eliminates the most common, preventable reasons for refusal and gives you a formal legal record of due diligence.
Finding a conflict is not necessarily a dead end. The legal opinion explains what type of conflict was found, how serious the risk is, and what your options are. Options might include modifying the mark, narrowing the goods and services description, filing in a different class, or choosing a different name entirely. Some conflicts are high-risk blockers and others are low-risk situations you can proceed through with awareness. That judgment is exactly what the written opinion provides, and the consultation is where you and Armani work through it together.
Clients who complete the Go/No-Go Search before filing receive a discounted rate on the Standard or Premium filing package. The search is designed as the first step in the trademark process, not a standalone service stacked on top of it. Armani will confirm the applicable rate during your consultation after reviewing the search results.
Yes. A Google search or a quick look at the USPTO website does not cover state registrations, common law use, or the legal analysis of how similar a competing mark actually is under trademark law. Two marks do not have to be identical to create a likelihood of confusion refusal. They just have to be similar enough that consumers might confuse the source of the goods or services. Evaluating that similarity requires legal judgment, not just a database lookup.