Corsearch vs MarqVision: how they compare in 2026

A long established trademark search and services business with a substantial AI layer built onto it. Corsearch predates generative AI by decades and its underlying assets are a data operation across 190 registries and more than 1,100 screening databases plus a professional analyst workforce, both of which function without models. TrademarkNow was relaunched in May 2024 with advanced AI, which dates the model layer as an addition rather than a foundation. The AI is nonetheless real and technically specific: phonetic, semantic and visual similarity analysis, an image recognition engine for logo and industrial design search, AI name generation, risk scoring, and an AI that blocks non compliant marketplace listings before publication. Remove the models and Corsearch remains a working trademark search and brand protection business staffed by analysts. Same placement as PatSnap and Lexis+ AI, and for the same reason: a mature platform hosts the model layer rather than depending on it.

The models are the product and there is nothing conventional beneath them. What MarqVision sells is detection and enforcement at a scale no human team can reach: scanning more than 1,500 channels across 118 countries, comparing findings against a brand's own product data at SKU level, analysing video frame by frame, and generating the notices that follow. The named capabilities are all machine learning: Atomic Product Detections described as using generative AI for SKU-level precision, a multi-agent system that decides whether an infringement is valid and classifies the enforcement grounds, an LLM framework that auto-generates search keywords in any language, image recognition and text analysis, and models the company states are trained on successful enforcement data. There is no content asset underneath, since the corpus is marketplace listings the crawler gathers and only the models make usable, and the stated comparator is not other software but the manual monitoring the product replaces. Verified 2 September 2026.

Similarity methodology is named at a technical level and nothing measured is published. The vendor states that matching evaluates phonetic, semantic and visual similarity, and that industrial design search uses sophisticated similarity algorithms, which describes the basis of a match rather than asserting accuracy generically. Risk scoring surfaces a graded result rather than a binary answer. What is absent: no precision or recall figure for similarity matching, no false negative rate on clearance search, no evaluation, no benchmark and no test corpus. The gap is consequential in a way specific to this category, because the failure mode in clearance is a miss rather than a fabrication: a confusingly similar mark that the search does not return produces a clearance opinion that is wrong and looks complete. One published phrase is noted and not credited, that automated watch delivers efficient monitoring without sacrificing accuracy, which is an unfalsifiable comparative with no figure attached. Checked the trademark solutions pages, the screening, clearance and watch pages, the TrademarkNow page and the press material on 29 Aug 2026.

Accuracy is measured, published, and unusually well contextualised, and one clause in the agreement undercuts all of it. Three figures appear across the product lines: 97 per cent on enforceable item detection using SKU-level comparison, 99.8 per cent across more than 48,000 domain impersonation incidents, and 94 per cent SKU-matching accuracy on unauthorised sales, with the company stating openly that these are internal benchmarks. The mechanism behind them is described rather than asserted, covering SKU-level comparison against genuine product data, multi-signal detection and a tiered model routing borderline cases to analysts. Failure modes are named in more detail than any vendor in this corpus manages, in a published piece that sets out what a false positive costs and names misrepresentation liability under 17 U.S.C. 512(f), tortious interference and platform reporting suspension as the consequences. What holds this below the top band is that only one figure carries a sample size and none carries a test set, and more importantly that section 2.4 of the operative terms states that Marq Vision assumes no liability for the quality, accuracy or validity of the data gathered in or by the Platform and that in no event shall the customer rely on it. The marketing measures accuracy and the agreement disclaims reliance on it. Verified 2 September 2026.

The oversight model is a purchasable product tier, which makes it inspectable and is the clearest such structure in this category. Watch is offered in two named configurations: Automated Watch using AI for efficient monitoring across expanding portfolios, and Expert Watch providing bespoke strategies and focused insight for more complex, high value matters. A customer chooses the level of human involvement according to the stakes of the matter, and the vendor states the trade off openly rather than implying that automation is always sufficient. The same structure runs through Brand Protection, described as combining AI detection with deep IP expertise and a team of experts. Held at B because the mechanics are not published: no statement of what triggers escalation from automated to expert review within a service, no description of what an Expert Watch analyst checks or against what standard, no confidence threshold on AI generated notices, and no account of what the pre publication listing blocker does unattended when it wrongly flags a legitimate listing.

Real review surfaces are published and the threshold at which the system acts alone is not. On the oversight side the material is substantive: the company states that a human reviewer confirms every significant decision, describes a tiered human-in-the-loop model that routes only borderline cases to analysts, and returns the reasoning and a risk score with each classification so a team can see why a determination was made. Two customer-side controls are contractual rather than optional. Section 8.3 of the terms requires the customer to have qualified representatives using due care to review, validate and verify all information transmitted, and to report claims only where it holds a good faith belief in their veracity. The whitelist gives the customer a standing exclusion list of sellers it does not wish to enforce against. Against that sits the speed the product is sold on, with 15-minute detection-to-enforcement, median responses under five hours for fake domains, response times described as seconds for piracy, and enforcement actions initiated automatically. Both statements cannot be fully true at once, and what the conflict shows to be missing is the definition: significant and borderline are never defined, so nothing published states which determinations reach a person. Verified 2 September 2026.

Published original research and named executives, with customers quoted but not identified. The strongest element is research rather than testimonial: the vendor publishes trademark volume figures to the individual mark, reporting 83,613,385 active trademarks at the end of 2023 against a forecast of 100,720,928 by 2026, which is a falsifiable claim about the world derived from its own data holdings and is checkable against registry records by anyone who wishes to. Named executives appear with titles: Simon Baggs as Executive Chairman and Matteo Amerio as President of Brand and Content Protection. Customer voices are extensive and mostly anonymous, with one named individual, Andy S. Ehard, quoted without an organisation. Held at B rather than A because no customer organisation is named anywhere in located material, no case study with methodology exists, and every performance figure is an up to claim without baseline, sample or period, being 40 percent faster clearance, 50 to 70 percent reduced watch review time and 75 percent faster notice turnaround than unnamed other industry solutions.

The reference base is one of the largest in the index and spans categories that rarely appear together. Roughly forty logos run across automotive with Nissan and GM, electronics with Panasonic, consumer goods with Henkel, Persil and Miele, beauty and fashion with Lush, Wella, Stussy, Courreges, Lemaire and Ader Error, Korean commerce and finance with Coupang, Shinsegae, Toss and KT&G, and gaming and media with Smilegate and Class101. Six case studies are published and five individuals speak with name and title, including Tae Hyun Kim, Director of Ecommerce at Miele, Ryan Dahlstrom, Global Director of Digital Commerce at Darn Tough Vermont, and John Belcaster, General Counsel of MSCHF. Operational figures are published in quantity: 180 times faster enforcement for its own teams, 50 per cent faster than traditional providers, 15-minute mean time to resolution, more than ten million sellers tracked, dozens of offline raids in Shenzhen, Guangdong and Yiwu, and one million dollars of counterfeits seized. What holds this below A is method and dating: no figure carries a measurement basis or a date, and none is tied to a named customer. Verified 2 September 2026.

Nothing located, and the omission is material for this product class rather than incidental. A trademark clearance search and the opinion built on it are classic attorney work product, and a clearance report showing that a risk was identified before adoption is exactly the document that becomes contested in later infringement litigation, where it bears on willfulness. Nothing published addresses attorney client privilege, work product, or the confidentiality of a search report at all beyond a statement that reports can be stored safely within the platform. The conflicts dimension is equally unaddressed: this vendor performs clearance for many brand owners across the same classes and markets, so a search run for one client concerns marks owned by others who may also be customers, and no published material describes what separates them. Checked the trademark solutions pages, the TrademarkNow page, the platform logins page and the site navigation on 29 Aug 2026.

One limb is genuinely strong and the rest are thin or point the wrong way. Section 5 of the terms is a proper mutual confidentiality regime with a compelled-disclosure notice commitment, and it survives termination. Section 4.2 confirms the customer owns all data it transmits and that no licence is granted beyond providing the services, with section 4.3 limiting Marq Vision's licence to the term and to service provision. Against that, section 2.5 grants a broad right to use customer-submitted information, expressly including information about the customer's customers, distributors, inventory and products, for improving the platform, developing updates and improvements, and improving Marq Vision's, its subsidiaries', its vendors' or its other customers' business models and services. Anonymised data is carved out of confidential information entirely at section 5(d) and is owned by Marq Vision under section 4.1. Nothing addresses segregation between customers, no retention or deletion position for customer data appears in either the terms or the privacy policy beyond a general reasonableness statement, and neither privilege nor work product is mentioned, which is defensible given section 1.2 disclaims any attorney-client relationship but leaves the question unanswered for a customer whose in-house counsel routes enforcement through the platform. Verified 2 September 2026.

Not located. The product generates trademark risk assessments and clearance results that in house counsel and outside advisors rely on to decide whether a brand can be adopted, and the vendor describes the TrademarkNow range as do it yourself tools, which means non lawyers in marketing and brand functions are an intended user population making risk decisions on generated output. Nothing published states that output is not legal advice, addresses when qualified counsel should be involved in a clearance decision, or engages any professional conduct framework. Checked the trademark solutions pages, the TrademarkNow page, the webinar and content library material and the site navigation on 29 Aug 2026.

The agreement draws the line clearly and the marketing crosses back over it. Section 1.2 of the terms, headed Authorization; No Legal Representation, states that the services do not include any legal representation, that Marq Vision and its personnel do not and cannot provide legal guidance or advice, that in no event shall the services constitute the creation of any potential or actual attorney-client relationship, that soft notices are not a substitute or replacement for any legal claims, and that any legal questions should be directed to the customer's own counsel. It also states that where offline services involve proceedings, those are brought by third-party law firms or agencies. That is a complete statement of what the product is and is not, and it is reinforced by the customer warranties at section 8.3 requiring due care in review and a good faith belief before any claim is reported. What pulls against it is a marketing claim on the anti-counterfeit page that the AI-driven solutions comply fully with the ABA's ethics guidelines, ensuring the highest standards of legal integrity in every action. The American Bar Association's rules govern lawyers, and this vendor's own agreement says it is not acting as one, so the claim asserts compliance with a framework the terms say does not apply to it. No jurisdiction limits are stated. Verified 2 September 2026.

Nothing published about how the models are governed, evaluated or monitored. No AI policy, no model card, no bias or fairness testing, no evaluation methodology, no accuracy monitoring, no drift statement, no named governance body, no ISO 42001 and no EU AI Act positioning were located, the last being notable for a company with London operations and stated European presence. The vendor publishes substantial commentary on AI in brand protection, including a webinar examining the hype and reality of AI generated fakes, which engages AI as a subject affecting its customers rather than disclosing anything about its own systems. One capability makes the absence pointed: an AI that blocks non compliant listings before publication makes automated decisions affecting third party sellers who are not customers and have no visibility into the model, and nothing published addresses how those decisions are governed or appealed.

One transparency commitment is published and no machinery stands behind it. The anti-counterfeit page states that a customer will always have full visibility into when and how AI is used to enforce and protect their brand, which is a governance principle rather than a feature and is more than most records in this corpus offer. The impersonation material adds that every classification carries its reasoning and a risk score, which is explainability at the level of an individual decision. Beyond that nothing was located. No responsible AI page, framework or set of principles exists, no individual or function is named as accountable for model behaviour, nothing describes what is evaluated before a model change ships, and there is no certification such as ISO 42001. Nothing anywhere addresses uneven output, which is a live question on a system operating across 118 countries and 1,500 channels where detection quality plausibly varies by language, script, marketplace and product category, and where a false positive is not an inconvenience but a takedown against a real business. Verified 2 September 2026.

No stewardship position located. Nothing states whether customer search queries, candidate brand names, portfolio data or uploaded logo images are used to train or improve models, no retention period is published, and no deletion right is described. The nearest statement is that the platform is secure so reports can be stored safely within it, which describes storage as a product feature rather than a stewardship commitment. The sensitivity here is commercial rather than personal and is acute: a search for an unlaunched brand name or an unpublished logo reveals a company's product strategy before announcement, and a competitor learning what names a rival is clearing would gain a real advantage. One published capability sharpens the question, being that insights are stated to continuously improve detection accuracy, which implies customer derived signal feeds model improvement without stating whose data or on what basis. Checked the trademark solutions pages, the screening page, the TrademarkNow page and the site navigation on 29 Aug 2026.

A trust centre exists and almost nothing beneath it is stated in a way a reviewer could test. Section 1.3 of the terms commits Marq Vision to using information security techniques consistent with good industry standards, and the privacy policy states that all appropriate technical, organisational and administrative security measures are used, both of which are reasonableness language rather than a described control set. Retention is acknowledged and never quantified, with the privacy policy saying data is kept no longer than reasonably necessary and the terms containing no deletion obligation for customer property on termination. No subprocessor is named anywhere: the privacy policy describes agents and affiliated businesses generically. No incident or breach notification practice was located on any surface. Access control is addressed only as the customer's responsibility to protect its own password. A Vanta-hosted trust centre is linked from the footer and would ordinarily carry the control detail; it renders client-side and returned no readable content, which is recorded as a retrieval limit rather than an absence. Verified 2 September 2026.

No published position located. Nothing was found on liability for AI output, warranty, service levels or remedy. The exposure is directly commercial and quantifiable in this category: a clearance search that misses a confusingly similar prior mark leads to a brand launch that must later be abandoned or defended, with rebranding costs and infringement exposure following, and a published customer quote states that no oppositions have been filed against rights searched or cleared by Corsearch, which is an outcome claim rather than a commitment about what happens when one is. On the brand protection side, an AI blocking a legitimate listing before publication imposes a cost on a third party seller with no described recourse. Checked the trademark solutions pages, the brand protection pages, the platform logins page and the site navigation on 29 Aug 2026.

A complete allocation is published and the exposure the product actually creates sits entirely with the customer. Section 10.1 caps Marq Vision's aggregate liability at amounts paid in the twelve months before the occurrence, and section 10.2 excludes consequential damages mutually with indemnification obligations carved out. Section 9.1 gives the customer a real indemnity for third-party claims that the platform infringes intellectual property, and section 8.2 warrants performance in compliance with law, non-infringement of the platform, and absence of malicious code. That is more structure than most records here. The limitation worth a buyer's full attention is what the indemnity excludes. Section 9.1(d) removes from Marq Vision's indemnity any claim arising from the customer's use of the services to request removal of content or to send soft notices, which is the core function of the product, and section 9.2 requires the customer to indemnify Marq Vision for actions taken at its instruction and for any consequence of a party being wrongly omitted from the whitelist. Section 8.4(b) states expressly that Marq Vision is in no event responsible for enforcement against an entity that should not have been targeted if it was not properly whitelisted. Wrongful takedown liability, the risk the vendor's own published material identifies as the central one, is allocated to the brand. Verified 2 September 2026.

Nothing located. No trademark docketing system, IP management platform, portfolio management system or document management integration was named, and no API or export documentation was found. The gap is the same one that ran through this category for patent tools and it is equally material for trademark practice, since renewals, deadlines and portfolio records live in a docketing system and a clearance or watch result has to reach it. The vendor does describe results as visible across teams and reports as storable within the platform, which is internal collaboration rather than integration with a customer's existing estate. Checked the trademark solutions pages, the TrademarkNow page, the platform logins page and the site navigation on 29 Aug 2026.

No integration into the systems legal or IP work already lives in was located, and none is claimed. Checked the home page, the anti-counterfeit, brand protection, content protection, impersonation and MarqLaw pages, the MARQ AI terms in full, the privacy policy in full and the complete site footer on 2 September 2026. No IP management or docketing system is named, no case management or document management system, no connector list, no API or developer documentation, and no integrations page exists in the navigation or the footer. What the platform does connect to is the enforcement estate rather than the customer's own systems, with the privacy policy noting that third-party account credentials may be provided so that account information transmits into the customer's MarqVision account, which is marketplace access rather than workflow integration. Trademark management is delivered through a separate product on a separate domain, and nothing describes data moving between it and the enforcement platform. Verified 2 September 2026.

Nothing located. No hosting provider is named, no region or data residency commitment is published, and no deployment options are described. The vendor operates internationally with London named in its press material and serves customers across global markets, and nothing states where search queries, candidate names or portfolio data are processed or stored. For a European customer clearing a brand name, the residency question engages data protection obligations and, more practically, the confidentiality of an unlaunched product name. Checked the trademark solutions pages, the TrademarkNow page, the press releases and the site navigation on 29 Aug 2026.

Nothing published addresses where the platform runs or how customers are separated within it. Checked the home page, the anti-counterfeit, brand protection, content protection, impersonation and MarqLaw pages, the MARQ AI terms in full and the privacy policy in full on 2 September 2026. No cloud provider is named, no hosting region or country is stated, no residency option is offered, nothing distinguishes processing from storage, and no tenancy or isolation model is described. The only geography published is corporate, being offices in Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York, Seoul, Paris, Shanghai and Tokyo, and the only cross-border statement is the privacy policy's reference to the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework. That reference is itself a problem for this axis rather than an answer to it, since Privacy Shield was invalidated in 2020 and replaced in 2023, and the policy carrying it took effect in February 2026. For a platform operated from Delaware with offices in Seoul, Shanghai and Paris, processing brand and seller data across 118 countries, the absence of any residency statement is a material gap. Verified 2 September 2026.

No certification, attestation or security documentation of any kind was located. Searches combining the vendor name with ISO 27001, SOC 2, GDPR certification and trust centre terms on 29 Aug 2026 returned only generic explainer articles about those standards and no Corsearch specific result. No trust centre, security page, named auditor, penetration testing partner or examination date was found, and the only security related statement located is that the platform is secure so reports can be stored safely within it, which names no standard and cannot be verified. Under the three tier test the artifact is absent rather than gated. Recorded as a documented absence across the surfaces and searches actually run rather than as a certainty, and it is the weakest security position in ip-and-patents: every category peer publishes at least one named certification and three publish a trust centre.

A trust centre is linked and no attestation is stated on any page a reader can render. The footer carries a direct link to a Vanta-hosted trust centre for MarqVision, which is a real route rather than a badge image, and its existence indicates a compliance programme being monitored. What is absent is everything the reader needs from it. No standard is named anywhere on the site itself: neither SOC 2 nor ISO 27001 appears on the home page, the product pages, the terms or the privacy policy, so a buyer learns of a certification only by leaving the site. No auditor, certificate number, report period, scope or trust services criteria is published, and no penetration testing or vulnerability programme is described. The Vanta portal renders client-side and returned no readable content on 2 September 2026, which is recorded as a retrieval limit on this reading rather than as an absence on the vendor's part, and the grade rests on what the vendor states on its own surfaces, which is nothing. Verified 2 September 2026.

Nothing located. No foundation model provider, model family or version is named, no distinction is drawn between proprietary and third party models, and no subprocessor list was found. The vendor describes award winning AI, image recognition engines and similarity algorithms, all of which characterise capability rather than provenance, and nothing states whether any external model processes customer queries, candidate brand names or uploaded images. Checked the trademark solutions pages, the TrademarkNow page, the brand protection pages, the webinar material and the site navigation on 29 Aug 2026.

The capabilities are named in proprietary terms and nothing identifies what sits underneath. The published vocabulary is extensive: Atomic Product Detections described as using generative AI, a multi-agent AI that determines whether infringement is valid, an LLM framework auto-generating keywords in any language, image recognition and text analysis, and models stated to be trained on successful enforcement data. Not one of those is attributed. No model is named, no version, no provider entity, and nothing states whether any component is built in-house or reached through a third party, which is the question a brand handing over its product catalogue and seller data would ask. No subprocessor list exists in the terms, the privacy policy or anywhere else, the privacy policy describing third parties only as agents and affiliated businesses. Nothing states where inference runs, and no commitment exists to notify customers when the model set changes. Trademarked capability names in place of provider identification is what this band describes. Verified 2 September 2026.

No pricing published at any level. No price, no range, no tier structure and no unit of charge, and no indication of how the platform prices relative to the expert services sold alongside it, which is the structural question for a vendor selling both software subscriptions and analyst delivered watch and brand protection work. A trial is referenced on the TrademarkNow marketing surface, which lowers the barrier to evaluation without disclosing cost. Every route ends in a contact or demo request. Checked the trademark solutions pages, the TrademarkNow page, the pricing navigation and the site navigation on 29 Aug 2026.

The structure is published in the terms in real detail and no figure appears anywhere. Fees sit on an order form and are stated at section 3.1 to be based on the services purchased rather than actual usage, and to be non-refundable, which tells a buyer this is a committed subscription rather than a consumption model. The term renews automatically for successive twelve month periods under section 7.4 with thirty days notice of non-renewal. Two escalation provisions are published and one is unusually candid: section 3.5 states plainly that fees may be revised on renewal, resulting in an increase every renewal term, and section 3.6 caps increases on multi-year agreements at seven per cent on each anniversary unless the order form says otherwise. Late payment attracts one per cent per month with suspension available after fifteen days. Coverage scope is itself commercial, with the order form specifying regions and section 8.4(a) reserving discretion over which marketplaces are prioritised. What is absent is any number, tier or unit: no pricing page exists, and the entry routes are a free brand scan and a demo request. Verified 2 September 2026.

Coverage is enumerated with counts, modalities and specialist verticals, and it is the most complete statement of scope in this category. Registry and database coverage is stated numerically: 190 global registries, more than 1,100 global screening databases, and insights drawn from more than 1,000 sources. Matching modality coverage is the distinguishing element and no peer states it: phonetic, semantic and visual similarity are named as separate analytical dimensions, with a dedicated image recognition engine for logos and a separate industrial design search engine, so a practitioner can tell that word marks, device marks and registered designs are each addressed rather than assuming one search covers all. Corsearch Pharma extends coverage into regulatory drug name checks alongside trademark clearance, which is a genuinely distinct workflow. Brand protection coverage extends across marketplaces, gray market channels and content categories including books, gaming, music and film. Graded A because a buyer can verify scope against their own marks, classes and jurisdictions from published material. Held short of perfection because no jurisdiction list is published behind the 190 registry figure and no update lag or refresh frequency is stated.

Coverage is documented by industry and by right rather than by buyer role, and on its own terms it is thorough. Seven industry pages are published for beauty, fashion, automotive, pharmaceuticals, food and beverage, network marketing and natural health products, each a category with distinct counterfeiting patterns. Six solution lines are separately documented. The rights covered are stated explicitly, with the anti-counterfeit page saying the platform protects trademarks, copyrights, patents and designs, and geographic reach is given precisely as more than 1,500 channels across 118 countries with offices in seven cities and the site published in English, Korean and Japanese. What is missing is the buyer. There is no page addressed to legal, IP counsel or brand protection teams as roles, and the named individuals in customer stories are overwhelmingly commerce and sales, with a single general counsel among them, so a reader cannot tell from the site whether the platform is bought by the legal function or by digital commerce. No portfolio size band is stated and nothing describes where coverage stops. Verified 2 September 2026.

Silent. The quoted phrase is the only data handling statement located and it describes storage as a product benefit rather than addressing use. No statement in either direction was found on whether customer search queries, candidate brand names, uploaded logo images or portfolio data are used to train or improve models. One published line makes the silence more consequential than usual: the vendor states that insights continuously improve detection accuracy and long term platform protection, which implies that signal derived from use feeds model improvement without stating whose data, on what basis, or whether customer content is included. The sensitivity here is commercial rather than personal: a search for an unlaunched brand name discloses product strategy before announcement. Recorded as silent, not as a negative commitment. Checked the trademark solutions pages, the screening page, the TrademarkNow page and the site navigation on 29 Aug 2026.

Training is described in product material and is not addressed in the agreement, which is what puts it in this value rather than a contractual one. The content protection page states the quoted position, describing an anti-piracy method built on models trained on successful enforcement data. A published article on false positives goes further, describing a tiered human-in-the-loop model in which borderline cases route to analysts and their decisions are then fed back into training to shrink the review queue over time. Enforcement data and analyst decisions are generated in the course of work performed on customer matters using customer-supplied product data, so the material customers contribute is in the training loop even though neither statement uses the phrase customer data. The agreement does not name training at all. Section 2.5(b) of the MARQ AI terms grants a broad right to use information the customer submits, expressly including information about the customer's customers, distributors, inventory and products, for improving platform performance, developing updates and improvements, and improving Marq Vision's and its subsidiaries', vendors' or other customers' business models and services, and separately allows any anonymised data to be used for developing new products. That is a wide improvement right that does not name training, so it does not by itself move the value.

Not addressed. No retention period is published for search queries, generated risk assessments, watch notices or stored reports, and no deletion right is described. Retention is presented as a feature rather than a policy, with reports stored within the platform for later access, and nothing states for how long, under what terms, or what happens on termination. For clearance work the stored report is the sensitive artifact, since it records which names a company considered and rejected. Checked the trademark solutions pages, the TrademarkNow page, the platform logins page and the site navigation on 29 Aug 2026.

Retention is acknowledged and never quantified. The privacy policy states that personal information is kept as long as necessary to fulfil the purpose for which it was collected or to comply with legal or regulatory requirements, and no longer than reasonably necessary, with no period attached to any category. The terms are silent on the point in both directions: section 7.3 sets out the effect of termination as the licence ending and the customer ceasing use and destroying documentation, and imposes no deletion or return obligation on Marq Vision for customer property. Nothing states how long detection records, evidence packages, seller intelligence or enforcement history are held, and no retention setting is offered. Two provisions push the other way and belong on the record. The privacy policy states that some information may remain in records after account deactivation, and that aggregated data derived from or incorporating personal information may continue to be used even after the customer updates or deletes it. Section 4.1 of the terms confirms Marq Vision owns anonymised data outright.

Not addressed, and this vendor presents the question in a sharper commercial form than any patent peer. Corsearch performs clearance and watch for large numbers of brand owners simultaneously, which means a search run for one client returns and analyses marks owned by others who are themselves customers, and Watch services monitor new filings on behalf of parties whose interests directly conflict. Nothing published describes what separates one customer's searches, candidate names and portfolio data from another's, whether analysts delivering Expert Watch for one brand owner work on matters adverse to them, or what governs staff access across the services business. The vendor states that results are visible across your teams, which is collaboration within a customer and not a boundary between customers. No permission model or segregation description of any kind was located. Checked the trademark solutions pages, the watch page, the screening page and the site navigation on 29 Aug 2026.

Checked the home page, the anti-counterfeit, brand protection, content protection, impersonation and MarqLaw pages, the MARQ AI terms in full and the privacy policy in full on 2 September 2026. Nothing describes segregation between customers or isolation of one brand's data from another's. No tenancy model is stated and no access boundary is described beyond the customer's own obligation to protect its password. The question has a specific edge on this product that the published material does not reach. Section 2.5(b) of the terms permits use of information a customer submits, including data about its customers, distributors, inventory and products, to improve the business models and services of Marq Vision's other customers, and the platform maintains a global seller database of more than ten million entries built from enforcement work. A brand would reasonably want to know what separates its catalogue and channel intelligence from a competitor's on the same platform, and nothing published answers that.

Not addressed. No government or law enforcement request clause, no commitment to notify a customer before producing their data, and no transparency report were located. The vendor holds pre launch brand names, unpublished logo designs and clearance histories, which are commercially sensitive and would be of interest in a dispute, and it also operates enforcement services that involve identifying and acting against third party sellers, which puts it in contact with platform operators and potentially with authorities. Nothing published addresses any of it. Checked the trademark solutions pages, the brand protection pages and the site navigation on 29 Aug 2026.

The commitment is in the operative agreement and it is more specific than most. Section 5 of the MARQ AI terms permits disclosure of confidential information where required by valid court order, judicial process or regulatory authority, and then requires the receiving party to use best efforts to preserve confidentiality and to give the quoted notice promptly, unless restrained from doing so by court order. Naming the nature, scope and contents as what must be disclosed to the customer is more than the bare notification most records here offer. The obligation is mutual and survives termination. Two limits belong on the record. Anonymised data is excluded from the definition of confidential information at section 5(d), so the notice commitment does not reach it. And the privacy policy takes a different and broader position for personal information, reserving the right to access, read, preserve and disclose any information Marq Vision believes necessary to comply with law or court order, to enforce its agreements, or to protect its own rights, property or safety, with no notice commitment attached.

Named by count and type with no licensing basis stated. Coverage is quantified precisely: 190 global registries, more than 1,100 global screening databases, and insights from more than 1,000 sources, with the vendor separately publishing active trademark totals to the individual mark, which demonstrates the corpus is real and maintained. The licensing question is genuinely live here and unaddressed. Registry data is public, but common law and unregistered rights sources, company name registers, domain data and commercial screening databases are typically licensed or proprietary, and a corpus of more than 1,100 databases plainly extends well beyond the 190 registries. Nothing states which sources those are, on what basis they are held, or what update lag applies to any of them, which matters because a clearance search against stale data is a false negative waiting to surface.

The sources are identified by platform and scale and no rights basis is stated for any of them. Coverage is published as more than 1,500 marketplaces, social media platforms, websites and app stores across 118 countries, with individual platforms named throughout the product material including Amazon, Alibaba, Taobao, TikTok, BiliBili, YouTube, Google and Meta, and a global seller database of more than ten million entries. The customer's own genuine product data is the comparison set for SKU-level matching. What is absent is the legal basis on which any of it is gathered. Nothing states whether marketplace listings are collected under platform agreements, APIs, brand registry programmes or by crawling against those platforms' terms of use, and the distinction matters commercially as well as legally, since the company separately markets its marketplace partnerships in Southeast Asia and China and holds direct takedown authority on YouTube, which implies negotiated access on some channels and not others. No licence, agreement or permission is described for the underlying listing data anywhere.

Own treatment signal, and this record BREAKS the pattern that held across all five patent vendors in this category. The trademark analogue of a currency check is status: whether a cited mark is live, abandoned, cancelled, expired or under opposition, because a clearance search that treats a dead mark as a blocker is as wrong as one that misses a live one. Status is a first class attribute of this product rather than an optional layer. The vendor publishes active trademark counts to the individual mark and forecasts them, its Analyze function surfaces active trademark owners in the market, Portfolio Analyzer creates and verifies portfolios, and Watch monitors on an ongoing basis for new filings and changes affecting registered rights, with a stated 75 percent faster notice turnaround. Recorded at own treatment signal rather than higher because no citator or status authority is named as a source, no statement describes how status is determined or how current it is, and no explicit claim is made that dead or cancelled marks are flagged as such in results.

Checked the home page, the anti-counterfeit, brand protection, content protection, impersonation and MarqLaw pages, the MARQ AI terms and the privacy policy on 2 September 2026. No public material addresses subsequent history, treatment or good law checking, and none is claimed. The product does not retrieve primary law, so a citator has nothing to operate on and the limb does not bite in its usual form. The analogous currency question in this product class is whether the intellectual property right being enforced is still valid and in force, and it is addressed only as the customer's responsibility rather than as a system check: section 8.3(d) of the terms requires the customer to warrant that it is the rightful owner or licensee of all rights subject to the services, and section 8.4(b) states that the sufficiency of the customer's own registrations is outside Marq Vision's control. Nothing describes the platform verifying a registration's status before enforcing on it.

Not addressed, with a graded output that is not the same thing. NameCheck is stated to provide a clear picture of trademark risk in seconds and the platform provides risk scoring, which grades the legal risk of a candidate mark rather than the model's confidence in its own retrieval. Those are different quantities and conflating them would be an error: a mark can be scored low risk because nothing similar exists, or because the search failed to find what does. Nothing published describes what the system does under uncertainty, whether a low confidence match is flagged, whether an ambiguous phonetic or visual similarity is surfaced for human review, or whether Automated Watch will escalate a notice it cannot classify. Given that the failure mode in clearance is a silent miss, this is the signal that matters most for this product and it is unanswered.

Confidence is scored and surfaced, and nothing describes the system declining. The impersonation material states that every classification produced by the multi-agent system comes with its reasoning and a risk score, so a user sees both a rationale and a graded confidence rather than a bare determination. A published article on false positives adds that a tiered human-in-the-loop model routes only borderline cases to analysts, which is a confidence threshold operating on the workflow even though the threshold itself is never defined. What is absent is any account of what the system does when it cannot reach a determination at all, whether it abstains, holds an item, or defaults to escalation, and nothing states what confidence level is required before an automated enforcement action proceeds. The customer-maintained whitelist is a suppression mechanism supplied by the customer rather than a behaviour of the model.

None located, with the instrument named. General web searches combining the vendor and product names with court, order, sanction, negligence and clearance terms returned nothing on 29 Aug 2026, and no named docket database, trademark office record system or court record tracker was searched. Recorded as a statement about what this search found, not as a clearance. The exposure shape is distinctive: this product generates no citations to legal authority, so the analogous adverse finding would be a proceeding addressing reliance on a defective clearance search, which would surface as trademark infringement litigation where the adequacy of a clearance opinion is contested rather than in a sanctions order.

Searched the AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin, and reporting drawing on it, on 2 September 2026 on the product and corporate name MarqVision and Marq Vision Inc. No court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming the product was located. This is a statement about the public record rather than a finding about the product. The signal fits this product class poorly and the reason is worth recording: MarqVision generates takedown notices and enforcement packages rather than legal citations, so its characteristic failure is a wrongful enforcement action against a legitimate seller rather than a fabricated case reference in a filing. The vendor's own published material identifies that risk directly, naming misrepresentation liability under 17 U.S.C. 512(f), tortious interference and platform reporting suspension as the consequences of false positives. Those outcomes surface as civil claims or platform sanctions rather than as entries in a hallucination tracker, and no tracker indexes them.

Not addressed. No named ethics opinion, no USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct reference, no bar guidance and no engagement with professional conduct rules was located, despite the vendor publishing an extensive content library of webinars and analysis aimed at in house counsel and outside IP advisors. That material addresses market trends, enforcement strategy and AI in brand protection without reaching the professional duties of the counsel relying on its output. Fifth of six records in this category at this value, with Patlytics the only exception. Checked the content library, the trademark solutions pages, the blog material and the site navigation on 29 Aug 2026.

An authority is named and no instrument is, and the claim sits awkwardly against the agreement. The anti-counterfeit page states that MarqVision's AI-driven brand protection solutions comply fully with the ABA's ethics guidelines, ensuring the highest standards of legal integrity in every action. Naming the American Bar Association puts this above a bare gesture at professional standards, which is why the lowest value does not fit. But no rule, model rule or formal opinion is identified, nothing states which obligations are said to be met or how compliance is assessed, and ABA Formal Opinion 512 on generative AI is not referenced. The claim also runs against section 1.2 of the company's own terms, which states that Marq Vision does not and cannot provide legal guidance or advice and that no attorney-client relationship arises, since the ABA's rules bind lawyers rather than software vendors. A reader is left with an assertion of compliance with a framework the agreement says does not govern the service.

Savings claims only, quantified across three distinct workflows. Published: clearance timelines reduced by up to 40 percent, watch review time cut by 50 to 70 percent, and notice turnaround 75 percent faster than other industry solutions, alongside a customer statement that TrademarkNow drove a 40 percent lift in an IP legal team's delivery speed for brand name clearance. Naming three separate workflows with different figures is more granular than a single headline and is credited as such, and none carries a baseline, sample, period or identification of the other industry solutions being compared against. Nothing appears on the client's side of the equation: no position on how AI assisted clearance work should be billed by a firm to its client, and no exportable record showing what portion of a clearance search or watch review was machine performed. Checked the trademark solutions pages, the clearance and watch pages and the press material on 29 Aug 2026.

Time and cost savings are published with figures and nothing addresses the bill. The company states that Marq AI saves its expert teams 180 times the time previously required to enforce infringements, that enforcement runs 50 per cent faster than traditional brand protection companies, and that mean time to resolution is fifteen minutes, and it publishes a Saturation Rate metric and revenue recovery framing intended to show enforcement paying for itself. Nothing addresses how AI-assisted work is recorded, billed or disclosed, and no per matter record of AI-assisted work was located. The signal's usual direction is partly inverted here, since the buyer is the brand owner rather than a firm billing a client, so compressed enforcement time accrues to the customer rather than changing an invoice. It is not fully inverted: MarqLaw engages partner law firms who bill for litigation, customs and field investigation work supported by platform output, and nothing published describes how AI-assisted preparation is reflected in those engagements.

Not addressed. No trust centre, security page, named certification, subprocessor list, named model provider, data processing agreement or documentation request route was located, so a firm has nothing it could forward to a client and no destination to point one toward. This is the only record in ip-and-patents at this value: Patlytics publishes certifications openly, DeepIP publishes them without a route, and PatSnap, Solve Intelligence and IP Author all operate trust centres reachable from their sites. Checked the trademark solutions pages, the platform logins page, the about section and the site navigation on 29 Aug 2026.

Checked the MARQ AI terms in full, the privacy policy in full, the home page and the anti-counterfeit, brand protection, content protection, impersonation and MarqLaw pages on 2 September 2026. No subprocessor list exists in any form. The privacy policy describes third parties only by category, covering agents performing tasks on Marq Vision's behalf, affiliated businesses and third-party law firms, advertisers and partners receiving de-identified data, without naming a single entity. No model or AI provider is named anywhere on any surface. No data processing agreement is published, and no forwardable client-facing disclosure material was located. A Vanta-hosted trust centre is linked from the footer and would be the natural home for a subprocessor list; it renders client-side and returned no readable content, which is recorded as a retrieval limit rather than an absence. A brand asked by a partner or regulator which entities process its catalogue and seller data could not answer from anything published.

Partial record, and the forum question is different here in a way that matters. A clearance search report is the artifact that surfaces in later infringement litigation, where what a brand owner knew before adoption bears on willfulness and enhanced damages, so the disclosure question is not about a filing but about what the search recorded and whether it can be produced years later. On that limb the product does something: reports are stored within the platform and remain retrievable, results are visible across teams, and a customer quote states that no oppositions have been filed against rights searched or cleared through the vendor. The gaps are the familiar two and a third specific to this record. Nothing indicates that output records which model produced a similarity assessment or when, nothing captures a human verification record showing that an analyst or attorney reviewed a result, and nothing states which databases were searched on a given date, which is precisely what a party defending the adequacy of its clearance would need to evidence.

This is the closest any record in this pull comes to the signal without meeting it. Evidence capture is a published product function rather than a by-product: the anti-counterfeit page states that the platform automatically extracts and stores the evidence needed to shut down illicit activity and generates full self documentation reports, MarqLaw is marketed on courtroom-ready evidence packages, the impersonation material describes a report-ready enforcement package prepared for each channel, and a published article states that consistent enforcement backed by a documented record of every action is what redirects counterfeiters elsewhere. The anti-counterfeit page also carries an AI transparency commitment, stating that a customer will always have full visibility into when and how AI is used to enforce and protect their brand. What is not described is the record this signal asks for: nothing states that the visibility is exportable, and nothing captures which model or agent made a given determination, on what confidence, or which human reviewer confirmed it, which is precisely what a party challenging a takedown or a 512(f) claim would seek.