Corsearch
Trademark and brand protection provider combining AI technology with expert services, and the first trademark rather than patent vendor on this index. The trademark platform is TrademarkNow, relaunched in May 2024 with advanced AI, providing screening, clearance, watch and portfolio management through AI powered similarity analysis evaluating phonetic, semantic and visual similarity across global trademark data. Named tools include ExaMatch for preliminary screening and research, NameCheck for rapid risk assessment, LogoCheck for clearing candidate designs and logos through image recognition, Name Generator producing AI suggested candidate names, Portfolio Analyzer for creating, verifying and comparing trademark portfolios, and an Analyze function surfacing active trademark owners, geographic trends, class and goods and services patterns and competitor information. Industrial Design Search is a separate AI image recognition engine for searching potential designs for registration using similarity algorithms. Corsearch Pharma unifies trademark and regulatory checks in one platform for drug name clearance. Coverage is stated across 190 global registries, more than 1,100 global screening databases and insights drawn from more than 1,000 sources. Watch is offered in two configurations: Automated Watch using AI for efficient monitoring at portfolio scale, and Expert Watch providing bespoke strategies and focused analyst insight for complex high value matters. Brand Protection covers counterfeit removal, online channel cleanup, seller identification, revenue recovery, gray market disruption, an AI that blocks non compliant listings before publication, and content and piracy protection across books, gaming, music and film, described as combining AI detection with expert analysis. Published performance claims include 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. The company publishes trademark volume research, reporting 83,613,385 active trademarks at the end of 2023 and forecasting 100,720,928 by 2026. Simon Baggs is Executive Chairman and Matteo Amerio President of Brand and Content Protection. Pricing is not published.
Capability grades
All 15 axes, graded from public sources on the date shown. Hover a grade to see what the letter means on that axis.
AI Centrality
How much of the product is actually AI. Whether the machine learning is the mechanism the buyer is paying for or a feature layered onto conventional software, and whether the vendor is specific about which is which.
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.
Citation Accuracy and Hallucination Disclosure
Whether the vendor publishes measured accuracy on citations and assertions, grounds output to primary sources, and says plainly what its system does when it does not know. Legal has a documented public record of fabricated citations reaching filed briefs, so an untested claim of accuracy is not evidence.
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.
Autonomy and Oversight Model
What the system decides on its own, what a lawyer must approve, and whether the vendor documents where the review point sits. A tool that drafts under review and a tool that files without one are different products and different risks.
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.
Operational and Outcome Evidence
Named, dated evidence that the product works in production at real firms or legal departments. Case studies with figures and identified customers count. Unattributed testimonials and launch announcements do not.
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.
Privilege and Confidentiality Posture
How client confidences are handled: attorney client privilege and work product treatment, segregation of one client matter from another, whether client data trains any model, and what the vendor commits to in writing rather than in marketing.
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.
UPL and Professional Responsibility Posture
Whether the vendor is clear that it supplies a tool rather than legal advice, who its audience is, and how it addresses unauthorized practice of law, competence and supervision duties, and jurisdiction limits. ABA Formal Opinion 512 is the reference point.
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.
AI Governance and Bias Disclosure
Published governance over model behaviour: who owns it inside the vendor, what is tested before release, and what is disclosed about disparate output across matter types, parties, or populations.
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.
AI Safety and Data Stewardship
Retention, deletion, access control, and what happens to prompts and documents after they are processed. Whether the vendor states its subprocessors and its incident practice, or leaves the buyer to assume.
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.
AI Liability and Recourse
What the vendor stands behind contractually when its output is wrong. Indemnities, caps, carve outs, insurance, and whether any of it is published or only reachable through a negotiated agreement.
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.
Practice Systems Integration Depth
How deeply the product reaches into the systems legal work already lives in: document management such as iManage and NetDocuments, Word and Outlook, contract lifecycle management, matter management, e-billing, and court filing systems.
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.
Deployment Model and Data Residency
Where the software runs and where the data sits. Multi tenant cloud, single tenant, private deployment, on premises, and whether region of residence is a published option or an enterprise conversation.
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.
Security Certifications and Trust Center
Independent attestation a buyer can pull without a sales call: SOC 2, ISO 27001, penetration test summaries, a trust center with current reports and named scope rather than a badge image.
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.
Model Supply Chain Disclosure
Which models sit underneath, whose they are, where they run, and whether the vendor commits to telling customers when that changes. A legal buyer inherits every dependency it cannot see.
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.
Commercial Transparency
Whether a buyer can learn what this costs without entering a sales process: published rates, the unit being charged, what sits behind an enterprise tier, and what implementation adds.
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.
Firm and Practice Coverage
Who the product is actually built for. AmLaw, midlaw, small firm and solo, in house departments, government and courts, and which practice areas are supported rather than merely claimed.
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.
Legal Signals
What each signal meansA signal records what public sources say on the date shown. It is not a grade and it is not a recommendation. Where a signal reads Not addressed, it means the index did not locate the material in public sources on that date, which is a statement about disclosure rather than about the product.
Client Data in Training
Can material a lawyer puts into this product be used to train a model?
No located term or policy addresses the question either way.
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.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
No located public material states how long prompts and outputs are retained.
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.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
No located public material addresses walls or matter level segregation.
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.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
No located term or policy addresses third party requests for customer data.
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.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
Sources are identified without stating the licence or rights basis.
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.
Good Law Verification
Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?
The vendor computes and surfaces subsequent history itself, with the method described.
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.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behaviour
What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?
No located public material addresses what the product does when it cannot ground an answer.
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.
Fabricated Citation Record
Does a public court record exist involving output from this product?
No court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming this product has been located as of the date shown. This is a statement about the public record, not a finding about the product.
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.
Bar Guidance Alignment
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
No located public material engages with bar or ethics guidance.
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.
Billing and Fee Posture
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
Public materials claim time savings without addressing billing or disclosure.
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.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
No located public material supports a client side disclosure obligation.
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.
Court Disclosure Support
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
Some elements of the record are available, short of a document level export.
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.