How to Check If Your Business Name Is Taken

October 16, 2025

Quick answer: Run a focused, repeatable name search: start with the USPTO’s cloud-based Trademark Search to find live federal marks and likely confusables, then broaden to WIPO’s Global Brand Database and any national registers for markets you care about. Treat results as legal risk bands (T1/T2/T3), not a binary “available” flag, and hand 2–3 viable finalists to counsel for full clearance. The point is to avoid collisions and pick a name with a realistic legal path, not just to grab a free domain. The USPTO retired TESS and now directs users to the newer Trademark Search interface—use that workflow for more reliable filters and results.

Start here: run an exact USPTO query for your candidate, then try a wildcard/stem and a sound-alike search (example queries you can copy: “AcmeCloud”, “Acme*”, or phonetic variants like ACME / AKMI).

Why this matters

A proper pre-screen protects your launch: it prevents you from investing in a business name that has no legal path, saves weeks of rework, and reduces the risk of costly refusals or oppositions. It doesn’t replace an attorney’s full clearance, but a good DIY search narrows choices so counsel can act efficiently.

Also note: U.S. trademark fees changed in 2025—errors and incomplete filings now carry higher surcharges, so early screening is more valuable than ever.

The WANT method: check, score, decide

Treat name selection like an operational process, not a one-off brainstorm. The WANT method gives you a simple, repeatable structure you can copy across candidates and stakeholders.

Criteria Triangle: before you search, agree on your top three decision criteria (example B2B weights: Clarity x3, Distinctiveness x2, Protectability x2). These weights plug into your one-page NameScore so teams can compare apples-to-apples.
Risk Ladder: after each screen, tag the candidate’s legal and linguistic exposure. Use T1/T2/T3 for legal (low → high) and L1/L2/L3 for linguistic risk. This gives stakeholders a quick risk snapshot without legalese.
Selection agenda: run private scoring first, then discuss only the top-scoring names by your Criteria Triangle. Resolve ties with the pre-set tie-break order: Protectability → Pronunciation → Strategic fit.

Example (mock): “AcmeCloud” scores Clarity 4, Distinctiveness 3, Protectability 2 → weighted total = (4×3)+(3×2)+(2×2)=24. Risk Ladder: T2 (possible similar marks), L1 (clean linguistically). Action: keep as finalist and run full USPTO + WIPO queries. Copy this framework into your naming doc or download the NameScore template to run the same steps across candidates.

Step-by-step: how to check if your business name is taken (U.S. + global)

Step 0: Fast web scan for industry collisions (before you get attached)

Before you run USPTO or WIPO queries, do a focused 10-minute web sweep to spot who’s already using the business name in the wild. This quick check flags obvious collisions (companies, products, apps, marketplaces, or social handles) so you don’t invest in a name that’s already active in your market.

How to do it

Search engines: run exact-phrase and category queries like “<exact name>” + <your industry>. Then broaden with stems and wildcards (example: “AcmeCloud”, “Acme*”).
Business directories & apps: check LinkedIn company pages, Crunchbase, the App Store and Google Play, major marketplaces, and common social handles (Twitter/X, Instagram, TikTok).
Domain & site check: look up the domain and variations (see domain name availability), and skim SERP snippets to assess whether use is active or dormant.

How to interpret it

Exact matches in your same or adjacent industry = immediate collision risk for customers and search (expect higher T-risk and practical problems: SEO, app stores, marketplaces).
Matches in clearly unrelated industries may be acceptable (classic example: Pandora for music vs. Pandora for jewelry). Still note them—famous marks or brands with expansion plans can create unexpected risk.

What not to do

Don’t kill a name solely because someone uses it in an unrelated field—context matters.
Don’t assume a free domain equals a clear legal path. Domain availability and trademark protectability are separate issues; you’ll check both.

Decision rule

If the exact name appears in your industry and looks active, tag it T2/T3 and deprioritize unless there’s a compelling reason to pursue it.
If usage is in a remote, unrelated category, note it and proceed to formal trademark and domain checks—let counsel weigh in during clearance.

Step 1: Define what you’re actually checking

The mark: list the exact candidate plus plausible variants—spacing, hyphens, plurals, dropped vowels, and common misspellings.
Goods/services: write one clear sentence of how you’ll sell (this maps to likely Nice classes and narrows searches).
Confusables: enumerate obvious look- and sound-alikes (C/K swaps, PH/F, vowel drops). These are what USPTO examiners call out as “similar in sight, sound, or meaning.”

Why: the USPTO doesn’t just block exact matches. The top refusal ground is likelihood of confusion, driven by overlap in sight, sound, meaning, and related goods/services.

Step 2: Search the USPTO Trademark Search system

Go to USPTO Trademarks → Search and use the current Trademark Search interface (TESS is retired).
Run an exact query first, then broaden with stems and truncations. Example query progression: exact (“AcmeCloud”), wildcard/stem (“Acme*”), and sound-alike variants (phonetically similar spellings).
Filter to live records first—these represent active federal rights. Then review relevant dead records for context (they can indicate past use or rebranding).
Open promising conflicts and read the identification of goods/services and status history. Copy the record number, owner name, and filing/registration dates to your NameScore sheet.

Why: the USPTO moved to a modern cloud-based Trademark Search in 2023–2024 for better stability and filtering—use it to reduce false negatives and surface real conflicts.

Step 3: Evaluate “confusingly similar,” not just exact matches

Compare sight, sound, and meaning. Ask: would an ordinary buyer think both names come from the same source when goods/services overlap?
Don’t assume prefixes/suffixes will save you; the core commercial impression matters. Note whether the conflicting mark uses stylization, logos, or a common dictionary term.
Record each conflict with a short note: similarity (high/med/low), relatedness of goods/services, owner (company), and any active uses (website, apps, marketplaces).

Why: “confusingly similar” combinations (similar mark + related goods/services) drive refusals and oppositions—document facts that will help counsel evaluate risk.

Step 4: Expand to WIPO’s Global Brand Database

Search your candidate and close variants in WIPO’s Global Brand Database to capture international and Madrid filings that may affect expansion plans.
Apply filters for priority markets (countries where you’ll sell or manufacture), and note any Madrid International Registrations that name the same owner—these can extend rights across multiple states.

Why: WIPO aggregates many national records, giving an early global signal. Still, for critical markets check national IP office databases directly—WIPO doesn’t always mirror local filings or nuances.

Step 5: Check priority national registers (as needed)

For countries where you expect significant sales or manufacturing, search those national IP office databases directly (many have English search options or agent services).
Capture near-misses and local owner names for counsel to investigate—national practice on descriptiveness, class interpretation, and enforcement can vary by state.

Step 6: Assign a legal Risk Ladder band

After your DIY screens, tag each name with a T-band and L-band:

T1 – Low: no obvious conflicts in USPTO live records and nothing close in WIPO/priority markets.
T2 – Medium: similar marks exist; goods/services overlap is arguable or class proximity is fuzzy.
T3 – High: clear similar marks in related classes; likely to draw an Office Action or opposition.

This internal banding doesn’t replace an attorney’s opinion, but it prioritizes counsel time and limits wasted filings on fantasy names.

Step 7: Move 2–3 finalists to counsel

When you have two or three T1/T2 finalists, package each candidate with the items below so counsel can run a focused clearance and advise filing strategy:

The USPTO and WIPO query strings you ran (copyable) and screenshots or links to the closest conflicts
Key data points: record/serial numbers, owner names, filing/registration dates, and copies of the identification of goods/services
Your intended goods/services description and assumed Nice classes (one-line summary)
A short rationale explaining why you think the name is viable and any commercial priorities (domains, trademarks, markets)

Counsel will perform full clearance, advise on registration strategy (scope, classes, and potential oppositions), and handle trademark applications and registration tasks.

What to look for in results (and how to read risk)

Sight: shared root, same beginning, or mirrored structure often creates the same commercial impression and drives confusion.

Sound: say both names in a normal sales sentence — similar cadence or phonetics matter more than exact spelling.

Meaning: synonyms, translations, or common metaphors can collide when goods/services are related.

Field proximity: Nice classes help, but adjacent categories or overlapping customers can make otherwise distant marks effectively related.

Status: prioritize live federal registrations, but watch recently dead records with active websites or marketplace listings — they can indicate ongoing common-law rights.

If two candidates feel close, resolve ties by your pre-set rule: Protectability → Pronunciation → Strategic fit. That keeps selection focused on legal runway, then market clarity.

DIY search traps that cause expensive do-overs

Exact-match tunnel vision: checking only your exact spelling misses look- and sound-alikes with identical services — run stems, wildcards, and phonetic variants.
Class myopia: assuming different Nice classes are automatically safe is risky — enforcement and consumer perception create practical relatedness across classes.
Domain ≠ trademark: a free domain or an available website handle doesn’t guarantee trademark clearance; domains are a commercial asset, not a legal right.
Ignoring fees and rule changes: the USPTO fee and rule changes that took effect in 2025 increase the cost of sloppy filings and add surcharges for incomplete applications — prioritize cleaning your record and counsel review.

International intent: a quick sanity pass

If you plan to sell or manufacture across states or countries, perform these minimal global checks before you commit to a business name:

Rerun the WIPO Global Brand Database search including obvious translations/transliterations and alternate scripts.
Check priority languages for negative or awkward meanings (use a quick linguistic checklist — see below) and scan local marketplaces for similar uses.
Assign an L-risk band (L1/L2/L3) for linguistic exposure and cultural fit in priority markets.

WIPO is a broad aggregator, but it doesn’t replace checking national registers or talking to a local attorney in key states or countries.

Linguistics mini-checklist (5 fast tests)

Read-aloud: can a colleague read and say it smoothly in five seconds?
Stress: does emphasis fall on a natural syllable that preserves meaning?
Letterforms: is the name legible on mobile UI, truncated titles, and app icons?
Semantics: any obvious negative or confusing translations in target languages?
Spelling drift: will customers predictably misspell it when searching or linking by name?

Paste these five checks into each candidate’s one-page doc so linguistic risks are consistent across the team. If a name stumbles in these tests, it will likely stumble in sales calls and organic search.

Your one-page “NameScore” sheet (copy this section into your doc)

Score each factor 1–5 and apply your Criteria Triangle weights (example shown). Use the one-line totals to compare candidates quickly; include domain and state-level checks in the same sheet.

Clarity (x3): buyers parse and pronounce it correctly — score 1–5
Distinctiveness (x2): stands apart in our category — score 1–5
Protectability (x2): DIY screens suggest a plausible path to registration — score 1–5
Architecture fit (x1): plays with parent brand, products, and future extensions — score 1–5
Global usability (x1): no obvious linguistic or cultural issues in priority markets — score 1–5
Story potential (x1): clear marketing hook for brand and campaigns — score 1–5

Tie-break rule: Protectability → Pronunciation → Strategic fit. Example calculation (mock): AcmeCloud — Clarity 4 (×3)=12, Distinctiveness 3 (×2)=6, Protectability 2 (×2)=4; Total = 22. Add domain availability, state entity name search, and DBA/LLC considerations as checklist items in the same sheet.

When to stop searching and call it

You have two or three T1/T2 candidates with clean WIPO scans and L1/L2 linguistic risk, plus available or manageable domain options.
Stakeholders can score them without anchoring to aesthetics, and the NameScore sheet shows clear winners by weighted totals.
Counsel confirms there’s a practical path to registration (classes, scope) and no high-risk oppositions or ownership issues.

When those conditions are met, package the finalists (queries, screenshots, NameScore, domain notes, state business/entity search results) and hand them to counsel — then decide once and launch once.

FAQs

Do I need to log in to search USPTO?

Quick answer: No—anyone can run searches without an account, but signing in improves stability and gives access to saved queries and newer interface features as the tool evolves.

Is the old TESS tool still required?

Quick answer: No. The USPTO retired TESS and now points users to the modern Trademark Search system—use that for more reliable filters and results.

What exactly is “confusingly similar”?

Quick answer: A mark is “confusingly similar” when similarity in sight, sound, or meaning combined with related goods/services would likely make an ordinary consumer think both come from the same source. It’s the primary ground for refusals.

How have fees changed?

Quick answer: The USPTO’s 2025 rule increased filing fees and added surcharges for incomplete or nonconforming applications—verify the current fee schedule before you file to avoid surprises.

Is a WIPO search enough for global clearance?

Quick answer: No. WIPO’s Global Brand Database is an essential aggregator and early warning tool, but it does not replace searching national registries or consulting local counsel for markets that matter.

Extra FAQs

Should I form an LLC or file a DBA before filing a trademark?

Short answer: You don’t need an LLC to file a federal trademark, but checking state-level entity names (state business / entity name search) and DBAs is important to avoid local conflicts and to secure domain and company name alignment. If you plan to operate as a specific company or owner, register the entity and check for name availability in your priority states first.

How long does clearance and filing take?

Short answer: A DIY pre-screen can be done in a few hours per candidate; a thorough clearance with counsel typically takes 1–3 weeks depending on scope and jurisdictions. Once filed, USPTO examination timelines vary (months to over a year), and international registrations depend on each national office or Madrid processing times.

When should I call counsel?

Call counsel before you file an application and as soon as you have 2–3 finalists. Counsel can confirm registration strategy (classes, scope), review potential oppositions, and advise on registration vs. common-law strategies for domains, company registration, and cross-state issues.

Conclusion

Checking if a business name is “taken” is a disciplined workflow, not a single click. Define the scope (mark variants, goods/services, confusables), run the current USPTO Trademark Search, evaluate confusingly similar risk, expand to WIPO and priority national registers, assign legal and linguistic risk bands, and move a tight shortlist to counsel for clearance. Do this and you’ll avoid fantasy names, protect your runway, and launch with confidence.

Next steps (copyable)

Run a 10-minute web & domain scan for your top names (exact + industry query).
Complete a NameScore for 3 candidates (use Criteria Triangle weights and record USPTO/WIPO queries).
Package queries, screenshots, NameScore, domain notes, and state business/entity search results and send to counsel.

If you want ready assets, download the NameScore template and sample USPTO/WIPO query strings to speed the process. When you’re ready, schedule a short screening call with counsel to confirm filing strategy, classes, and next steps for registration.