Trademark Clearance & Screening

You are preparing to launch a new brand called “Vyntra” for a line of cloud security software. Before investing in branding and legal filings, you need to determine whether the name is available across your target markets (US, EU, and Canada) in Nice classes 9 and 42. This guide walks through a full clearance workflow using the Signa API, from initial search to conflict analysis.

Prerequisites

A Signa API key with trademarks:read scope
Your target brand name, jurisdictions, and Nice classes

Run a phonetic search across jurisdictions

Start with a broad search using multiple strategies. Phonetic matching catches near-misses that exact search would miss, for example “Ventra”, “Vintra”, or “Wyntra”.

curl -X POST https://api.signa.so/v1/trademarks \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer $SIGNA_API_KEY" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{
    "query": "Vyntra",
    "strategies": ["exact", "phonetic", "fuzzy", "prefix"],
    "filters": {
      "offices": ["US", "EM", "CA"],
      "nice_classes": [9, 42],
      "status_stage": ["filed", "examining", "published", "registered", "opposition_period"]
    },
    "options": {
      "aggregations": ["status_stage", "office_code", "nice_classes"]
    },
    "limit": 50
  }'

import Signa from "@signa-so/sdk";

const signa = new Signa({ api_key: process.env.SIGNA_API_KEY });

const results = await signa.trademarks.search({
  query: "Vyntra",
  strategies: ["exact", "phonetic", "fuzzy", "prefix"],
  filters: {
    offices: ["US", "EM", "CA"],
    nice_classes: [9, 42],
    status_stage: ["filed", "examining", "published", "registered", "opposition_period"],
  },
  options: {
    aggregations: ["status_stage", "office_code", "nice_classes"],
  },
});

console.log(`Matches on this page: ${results.data.length}`);
console.log("Aggregations:", results.aggregations);

Expected output:

{
  "object": "list",
  "data": [
    {
      "id": "tm_a1b2c3d4",
      "mark_text": "VENTRA",
      "status": { "primary": "active", "stage": "registered" },
      "office_code": "US",
      "classifications": [
        { "nice_class": 9, "goods_services_text": "Computer software for payment processing and transit fare collection" },
        { "nice_class": 42, "goods_services_text": "Software as a service (SaaS) featuring payment processing software" }
      ],
      "owners": [
        { "id": "own_xyz789", "name": "Cubic Transportation Systems Inc.", "country_code": "US" }
      ],
      "relevance_score": 88,
      "match_explanation": {
        "strategies_matched": ["phonetic", "fuzzy"],
        "boost_factors": [{ "factor": "live_status", "weight": 1.3 }]
      }
    }
  ],
  "aggregations": {
    "status_stage": { "registered": 6, "examining": 4, "abandoned": 3, "expired": 1 },
    "office_code": { "US": 8, "EM": 4, "CA": 2 },
    "nice_classes": { "9": 10, "42": 7, "35": 3 }
  },
  "search_meta": {
    "search_id": "srch_9mKp2vLx",
    "query": "Vyntra",
    "strategies_used": ["exact", "phonetic", "fuzzy", "prefix"],
    "international_registrations": "grouped",
    "execution_time_ms": 87
  },
  "has_more": true,
  "pagination": { "cursor": "eyJpZCI6..." },
  "request_id": "req_8kLm2nPq"
}

match_explanation.strategies_matched tells you why each result matched. When phonetic is in the list and relevance_score is above 85, the names sound nearly identical, a serious conflict risk even if the spelling differs.

Triage results by risk level

Use the aggregations and relevance scores to categorize matches:

Risk Level	Criteria
High	`relevance_score` > 85 AND `phonetic` in `strategies_matched` AND same Nice class AND status is `registered` or `examining`
Medium	`relevance_score` 70-85 OR adjacent Nice class OR status is `published` / `opposition_period`
Low	Only `fuzzy` in `strategies_matched` OR status is `abandoned` / `expired`

Filter the search results to isolate high-risk conflicts:

# Filter to registered marks with high relevance in the same classes
curl -X POST https://api.signa.so/v1/trademarks \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer $SIGNA_API_KEY" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{
    "query": "Vyntra",
    "strategies": ["exact", "phonetic"],
    "filters": {
      "offices": ["US", "EM", "CA"],
      "nice_classes": [9, 42],
      "status_stage": ["registered", "examining"]
    },
    "limit": 20
  }'

const highRisk = await signa.trademarks.search({
  query: "Vyntra",
  strategies: ["exact", "phonetic"],
  filters: {
    offices: ["US", "EM", "CA"],
    nice_classes: [9, 42],
    status_stage: ["registered", "examining"],
  },
  limit: 20,
});

const conflicts = highRisk.data.filter((tm) => (tm.relevance_score ?? 0) >= 85);
console.log(`High-risk conflicts: ${conflicts.length}`);

Pull full details on each conflict

For every high-risk match, fetch the detail tier to see classifications, owners, attorneys, and prosecution history.

# Batch fetch all conflict marks at once (max 100)
curl -X POST https://api.signa.so/v1/trademarks/batch \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer $SIGNA_API_KEY" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{
    "ids": ["tm_a1b2c3d4", "tm_e5f6a7b8", "tm_c9d0e1f2"]
  }'

const details = await signa.trademarks.batch({
  ids: conflicts.map((c) => c.id),
});

for (const tm of details.data) {
  console.log(`${tm.mark_text} (${tm.office_code})`);
  console.log(`  Status: ${tm.status.stage}`);
  console.log(`  Classes: ${tm.classifications.map((c) => c.nice_class).join(", ")}`);
  console.log(`  Owner: ${tm.owners[0]?.name}`);
  console.log(`  G&S: ${tm.classifications[0]?.goods_services_text}`);
}
if (details.not_found.length > 0) {
  console.log("Not found:", details.not_found);
}

Expected output (per mark):

{
  "id": "tm_a1b2c3d4",
  "mark_text": "VENTRA",
  "status": { "primary": "active", "stage": "registered" },
  "office_code": "US",
  "classifications": [
    {
      "nice_class": 9,
      "goods_services_text": "Computer software for payment processing and transit fare collection"
    },
    {
      "nice_class": 42,
      "goods_services_text": "Cloud computing services for payment platforms"
    }
  ],
  "owners": [
    { "id": "own_xyz789", "name": "Cubic Transportation Systems Inc.", "country_code": "US" }
  ],
  "filing_date": "2019-04-12",
  "registration_date": "2020-01-14"
}

Pay close attention to the goods_services_text in each classification. Two marks in the same Nice class can coexist if their goods and services descriptions do not overlap. “Payment processing software” and “cybersecurity software” are both Class 9 but serve different markets.

Review the owner's full portfolio

Understanding the conflicting owner’s portfolio reveals how aggressively they protect their brand and whether they operate in adjacent spaces.

# Get owner profile with stats
curl https://api.signa.so/v1/owners/own_xyz789 \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer $SIGNA_API_KEY"

# List their marks in classes 9 and 42
curl "https://api.signa.so/v1/owners/own_xyz789/trademarks?nice_classes=9,42&limit=50" \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer $SIGNA_API_KEY"

const owner = await signa.owners.retrieve("own_xyz789");

console.log(`Portfolio size: ${owner.stats?.trademark_count}`);
console.log(`Grant rate: ${((owner.stats?.grant_rate ?? 0) * 100).toFixed(0)}%`);
console.log(`Jurisdictions: ${owner.stats?.jurisdiction_count}`);

const ownerMarks = await signa.owners.trademarks("own_xyz789", {
  nice_classes: [9, 42],
  limit: 50,
});
console.log(`Marks in Class 9/42: ${ownerMarks.data.length}`);

Expected output:

{
  "stats": {
    "trademark_count": 142,
    "registered_count": 118,
    "grant_rate": 0.83,
    "jurisdiction_count": 12
  }
}

A high grant_rate (above 80%) and broad jurisdiction coverage suggest an owner with an active legal team. They are more likely to oppose a confusingly similar filing.

Check for proceedings history

See whether the conflicting mark has been involved in oppositions or cancellations. This tells you how actively the owner enforces their rights.

# Check proceedings on the conflicting mark
curl "https://api.signa.so/v1/trademarks/tm_a1b2c3d4/proceedings" \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer $SIGNA_API_KEY"

# Search for opposition proceedings involving the owner
curl "https://api.signa.so/v1/proceedings?q=Cubic+Transportation+Systems&proceeding_type=opposition&limit=20" \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer $SIGNA_API_KEY"

// Check proceedings on the conflicting mark
const proceedings = await signa.trademarks.proceedings("tm_a1b2c3d4");

// Search for opposition proceedings involving the owner
const ownerOppositions = await signa.proceedings.list({
  q: "Cubic Transportation Systems",
  proceeding_type: "opposition",
  limit: 20,
});

console.log(`Mark proceedings: ${proceedings.data.length}`);
console.log(`Owner oppositions filed: ${ownerOppositions.data.length}`);

for (const p of ownerOppositions.data) {
  console.log(`  ${p.proceeding_type} (${p.status}), filed ${p.filed_date}`);
}

Expected output:

{
  "object": "list",
  "data": [
    {
      "id": "prc_op001",
      "proceeding_type": "opposition",
      "status": "decided_granted",
      "parties": [
        { "owner_id": "own_xyz789", "name": "Cubic Transportation Systems Inc.", "role": "opponent" },
        { "owner_id": "own_other", "name": "Ventra Labs LLC", "role": "respondent" }
      ],
      "filed_date": "2023-06-15",
      "decision_date": "2024-02-20"
    }
  ]
}

An owner who has successfully opposed similar marks in the past poses a higher risk. In this example, Cubic already won an opposition against another “Ventra”-variant mark, strong evidence they would oppose “Vyntra” too.

Compile a clearance summary

Bring together all findings into a structured report. Repeat the opposition lookup from the previous step for each distinct conflict owner, then fold the count into the risk assessment:

function assessRisk(input: {
  relevanceScore: number;
  status: string;
  phoneticMatch: boolean;
  ownerOppositionsFiled: number;
}): "high" | "medium" | "low" {
  if (input.relevanceScore >= 85 && input.status === "registered" && input.phoneticMatch) {
    return "high";
  }
  if (input.relevanceScore >= 70 || input.ownerOppositionsFiled > 0) {
    return "medium";
  }
  return "low";
}

// Oppositions filed by each distinct conflict owner
const oppositionsByOwner = new Map<string, number>();
for (const ownerName of new Set(conflicts.map((tm) => tm.owners[0]?.name).filter((n): n is string => Boolean(n)))) {
  const filed = await signa.proceedings.list({ q: ownerName, proceeding_type: "opposition", limit: 20 });
  oppositionsByOwner.set(ownerName, filed.data.length);
}

const report = {
  candidateName: "Vyntra",
  targetJurisdictions: ["us", "eu", "ca"],
  targetClasses: [9, 42],
  searchDate: new Date().toISOString(),
  totalConflicts: conflicts.length,
  conflicts: conflicts.map((tm) => {
    const phoneticMatch = tm.match_explanation?.strategies_matched.includes("phonetic") ?? false;
    const ownerName = tm.owners[0]?.name ?? null;
    const ownerOppositionsFiled = oppositionsByOwner.get(ownerName ?? "") ?? 0;
    return {
      trademarkId: tm.id,
      markText: tm.mark_text,
      office: tm.office_code,
      status: tm.status.stage,
      niceClasses: tm.classifications.map((c) => c.nice_class),
      relevanceScore: tm.relevance_score ?? 0,
      ownerName,
      ownerOppositionsFiled,
      riskLevel: assessRisk({
        relevanceScore: tm.relevance_score ?? 0,
        status: tm.status.stage,
        phoneticMatch,
        ownerOppositionsFiled,
      }),
    };
  }),
  recommendation: conflicts.some((tm) => (tm.relevance_score ?? 0) >= 90)
    ? "HIGH RISK - Consider alternative names"
    : "MODERATE RISK - Proceed with legal counsel review",
};

console.log(JSON.stringify(report, null, 2));

Watch for new conflicts

Rather than re-running this search on a schedule, create a watch scoped to the same query and register a webhook. Signa then evaluates every data update against the watch and pushes an alert the moment a conflicting mark is filed, instead of you polling for one. If you would rather pull results yourself, keep the POST /v1/trademarks body in version control and re-run it on your own schedule, narrowing to filing_date so each call only returns conflicts filed since the last run:

TypeScript

const clearanceQuery = {
  query: "Vyntra",
  strategies: ["exact", "phonetic", "fuzzy"],
  filters: {
    offices: ["US", "EM", "CA"],
    nice_classes: [9, 42],
    status_stage: ["filed", "examining", "published", "registered", "opposition_period"],
    filing_date: { gte: lastRunIso },
  },
  limit: 100,
};

const fresh = await signa.trademarks.search(clearanceQuery);
console.log(`New conflicts since ${lastRunIso}: ${fresh.data.length}`);

Persist the timestamp of your last successful run. On the next invocation, pass it as filing_date.gte so the API only returns marks filed since then.

What’s next

Opposition Tracking

Monitor TTAB proceedings if a conflict owner files an opposition against your application.

Competitor Intelligence

Track competing owners to catch new filings in your space before they publish.

Getting started

Core concepts

Build with AI

Data

Monitoring

Working with the API

Use cases

Trademark Clearance & Screening

Prerequisites

Watch for new conflicts

What’s next

Opposition Tracking

Competitor Intelligence

​Prerequisites

​Watch for new conflicts

​What’s next

Opposition Tracking

Competitor Intelligence

Prerequisites

Watch for new conflicts

What’s next