Search Engine Comparison

In August of 2006, in preparation for the INTA Trademark Administrator's Conference, we commissioned a report on the state of the trademark search engine market. We wanted to see if we continued to live up to our claims of being the fastest, most accurate and efficient trademark search engine out there. The answer remains a resounding yes.

We've decided to release part of this report to the public to allow you to come to your own conclusion.

The Benchmark

Machine Statistics:

Windows XP
CPU: 1.5 GHz
RAM: 256MB
Internet: High Speed

Search Pattern Used:



Trademark Name
Index Headings
Figurative Elements
Foreign Character


(Liquors and Spirits)

Version 8.5 Build #50
Local Databases:
  • CIPO Agent
  • USPTO Attorney


1. Time Spent Entering Criteria and Loading

The amount of time it takes from the start of the search to the moment all trademarks are loaded, ready to be viewed.

2 .Time Spent Loading

Duration of time spent loading in general, i.e. no user actions can take place because the system is loading something. (This is included in 1, and doesn?t include 6)

3. Time to Load All Hits

Duration of time spent only to display hits, not search (This is included in 2)

4. Number of Hits

The number of hits returned by the search

5. "Machine" Time to View All Hits

Time spent getting through (scrolling through/popping up) all full texts not counting human variables. Pure "machine" time.

6. Time to Generate a Report

Time spent loading while generating a report. Time spent customizing or other human variables are removed.

7. Total Time

The addition of 1, 5, and 6.

8. % Slower

Percent Slower than CDNameSearch.
e.g., 100% slower is 2X as slow.

Test Results (CIPO)

Search Engine Time Spent Entering Criteria and Loading Time Spent Loading Only Time to Load all Hits Only Number of Hits "Machine" Time to View all Hits Time to Generate a Report Total Search Time % Slower
CDNameSearch 9s 2s 0.5s 28 15s 13s 37s -
SAEGIS 119s 78s 15s 22 29s 30s 178s 381% 116s 46s 12s 25 100s 9s 225s 508%
Inspiro 131s 102s 62s 26 286s 27s 444s 1100%

Test Results (USPTO)

Search Engine Time Spent Entering Criteria and Loading Time Spent Loading Only Time to Load all Hits Only Number of Hits "Machine" Time to View all Hits Time to Generate a Report Total Search Time % Slower
CDNameSearch 13s 5s 0.5s 30 12.5s 30s 55.5s -
SAEGIS 91s 47s 13s 25 42.5s 50s 183.5s 231% 43s* 14s 4s 25 93s 5s 148s* 167%
Inspiro 175s 137s 83s 21 231s 22s 428s 671%

* had only two of the indices available for USPTO searching (Description and Trademark Name) thus making its search time significantly faster, but also making it open to missing important results.
~ Disclaimer: These results are based on actual searches conducted Aug 2006. The results are only accurate for that particular search, at that particular time, on the particular machine on which it was performed. Your own search times will vary.



As you can see above, CDNameSearch is on average 3X to 9X Faster than other trademark search engines in all areas of searching. This kind of speed is only possible with the CDNameSearch engine and our optimized data.


CDNameSearch consistently returned the most amount of relevant marks, and didn't miss a single relevant mark found by another search engine. On the other hand:


Missed 9

These nine marks were missed possibly because SAEGIS' proprietary classification system did not label them correctly. Along those lines, SAEGIS returned a mark whose only ware was "cologne," a ware completely unrelated to Class 33.

CDNameSearch also returned a mark which was not classified as Class 33 by CIPO. However, since one of its wares is "verres Ó liqueur," our proprietary classification system classified it as related to Class 33. Such a good could be shown to be relevant to liquor (distribution channels, etc) in a way likely to cause consumer confusion, and so the addition of this mark to the search results was warranted.

Missed 4

These four marks were incorrectly not classified as Class 33. CDNameSearch's proprietary classification system properly classified them.


Missed 10

The first four of these marks were missed due to the same above missed classifications. The other six marks were missed for reasons we couldn't decipher from analyzing the full text alone.


It's difficult to show empirically that CDNameSearch is more efficient than other search engines. Certainly speed and accuracy play a part in this, but where efficiency is really apparent is in the interface, in how many clicks it takes to perform an action, and in how long it takes to go through, sort and manage your search results.

To get an idea of how CDNameSearch's interface works and how easy and comfortable it is to use, take a look at these screenshots.

CDNameSearch's Trademark Search Window CDNameSearch's Easy to Navigate Result Booklet CDNameSearch's Design Grid Layout

CDNameSearch's Search Summary and Link to Official Govt. Inforamtion CDNameSearch's Report Wizard and Full Text Highlighting

If you need hands-on proof, download the CDNameSearch Demo.

An Itemized Feature Comparison

The following information was gathered using knowledge made available in Aug 2006. If there is an error, please let us know.
Available Fields for Trademark Searching
Active and Inactive
Other Trademark Status
Actions or Prosecution History
- - -
Search Status Changes by Date
Goods, Wares and Services
Trademark Owner
Trademark Agent, Representative or Attorney
- -
PTO Classifications
- -
Intl' (WIPO) Classifications
Vienna or Design Codes
Design or Figurative Elements
- -
Foreign Character Translation
Trademark Disclaimer
Index Heading or Pseudo Mark
Trademark Description
- -
Total 15 14 10 14 14 9
Search Engine and Interface Features
Boolean Operators
Search Wildcards
Proximity Operators
- - -
Letter Substitution Wildcard
- -
Literal Search Operator
Precedence or Nested Search Terms
- - -
Special Character Search
Single Letter / Acronyms Searching Capability
Phonetic Search Capabilities
- -
Corrupted Spelling Cross Checking
- - -
Multi-Database Searching
- -
Translation Tools
- - - - -
Transliteration Tools
- - - - -
Search History
- -
Advanced Design Search Tool
- - - - -
Proprietary Classification System
- - - -
Trademark Lookup by Serial or Application Number
Total 14 13 13 10 8 5
Trademark Management Tools and Features
Search and Analysis Time Tracking
- - -
Client Cost Tracking
- - -
Search or Analysis Task Tracking
- - - - -
Client or Matter Information
- -
Trademark Monitoring Capabilities
- - -
Monitoring Archive
- - - - -
Total 4 4 5 2 0 0
Trademark Analysis Tools and Features
Informative Trademark Synopsis
(Results listed each with their Name, Status, Owner, Serial or Application Number, Classes, Partial List of Wares in a brief, easy to read synopsis)
- - - -
Result Categorization or Labeling
- - - -
Data Cross Checking
- - -
Manual Ranking of Results
- -
Add Comments to Specific Trademarks
- - - -
Add Comments to Reports
- - -
Result Sorting by Trademark Attribute
- -
Complete Full Text Information
Detailed Result Summary
- - - -
Reporting Tool
- -
Report Customization
- -
Reports Archive
- - - -
Online Collaborative Tools
- - - -
Save and Load Search Criteria
- -
Remember and Reload Search Results
- -
Ability to View the Live Govt. Full Text
- - - -
Combine the Results of Completed Searches
- - -
Operations (Addition, Subtraction) Between Completed Searches
- - -
Total 16 13 14 11 0 1
Grand Total 50 45 42 38 23 16
Anything wrong with this list? Please let us know.

Sign in | Site Map | Site Search | Terms of Use | Privacy Code

Welcome! Please sign in

Printer Friendly | Secure Mode

English | Franšais | Espa˝ol