Assessments
Absolute grounds, similar marks and recommendations
On this page
Below the Registration Outlook, the report works through the evidence. A table of contents on the left jumps between sections.
Mark details
What was assessed: the mark, the image, the country, your applicant origin, the classes and your business description. It also states “Trademark register — data as of” with the exact date of the register snapshot used, and lists the source registers beneath it.
That date is frozen at the moment the assessment was created and never moves — so an old report always tells you honestly how current it was when written. See How fresh the data is.
Mark analysis
The type of mark, and its distinctiveness on the scale Generic → Descriptive → Suggestive → Arbitrary → Fanciful, each level explained. It flags whether the mark reads as weak or strong, adds class-specific notes, and states any expected disclaimer — a formality where you concede exclusive rights to a descriptive element while keeping the mark as a whole.
Absolute grounds
One card per ground, each either showing the issues found or confirming that none were:
- Distinctiveness
- Deceptive or misleading
- Public order
- Prohibited elements
- Geographical indications
- Linguistic and cultural
- Personality rights
- Well-known marks
- Surname significance
Every card that raises an issue also carries How to improve — the practical fix.
The linguistic and cultural check is the one people underestimate. A word that is neutral in English can be descriptive, generic or offensive in the language of the market you are entering, and that is decided locally.
Your own marks
If you declared marks you already own, they appear here rather than in the conflict list, with the holder or number you matched them by. They were weighed as your prior rights.
Similar marks analysis
The relative-grounds evidence: the earlier marks that could stand in your way. Each one shows
- an overall conflict risk — No risk, Low, Medium or High
- visual, phonetic and conceptual similarity, each Low, Medium or High
- the goods overlap — identical, related or unrelated
- Why similar? — the mechanisms behind the match
You can switch between cards and a table, filter by any of those axes, and sort by conflict risk.
If nothing was found, the section says so plainly.
Assumptions and limitations
Two tabs stating what the analysis assumed and where its limits are. Worth reading before you rely on the report for a large decision — it is where the caveats live.
Recommendations
Actions to consider for improving your chances, ordered by impact. These are the concrete outputs: narrow this class, disclaim that element, add a distinctive component, consider filing in a different form.
If your outlook is Minor issues, this section is essentially your to-do list.