Best for
Best for developers and law firms who build trademark search, screening and monitoring into their own software or AI assistants.
Trademark Search & Monitoring Comparison
At a glance
Best for
Best for developers and law firms who build trademark search, screening and monitoring into their own software or AI assistants.
Best for
Best for anyone who wants to check a US brand name or logo for free before filing it, and may want a law firm to file it afterwards.
Cataleo does not name a winner. Both statements come from the vendors themselves.
| Criterion | Signa | Trademarkia |
|---|---|---|
| Starting price | lower value From $99 / month Starter, billed yearly, with 20,000 credits a month (up to 2,000 searches) and $10 per 1,000 extra credits. Growth is $399 and Scale $999 a month, also billed yearly. The page offers monthly billing and says annual billing saves up to 25%, without stating the monthly amounts. A search costs 10 credits; credit costs for screening and watches are not yet announced. | Free search; reports from $199 Comprehensive search reports are $199 (Federal), $299 (Federal and Common Law) and $1,599 (Global). Brand monitoring is $99 a quarter after the month or year included in a filing package; standalone monitoring is quoted on request with monthly, quarterly or annual billing. |
| Free trial | Free tier with 10,000 credits on signup and 1,000 credits a month, up to 100 searches, no card required | Free trademark search |
| API | Yes, a REST API with webhooks, a TypeScript SDK, agent skills and a hosted MCP server at api.signa.so/mcp | Bulk data on request by email, which the vendor states it provides at no cost |
| Hosting | Cloud: a web app, a REST API, a hosted MCP server and agent skills | Not stated |
| Registers and countries covered | 13 production offices with more than 40 million records: USPTO, EUIPO, WIPO, CIPO (Canada), IP Australia, IPOS (Singapore), UKIPO, INPI (France), Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Spain and IMPI (Mexico), most synced daily and Canada and France weekly. DPMA, BOIP, JPO, KIPO, CNIPA and further offices are listed as planned. | Free search over 12 million+ US trademarks. The paid Global Comprehensive Search adds Canada, the United Kingdom, the European Community and WIPO, and filing is offered in 180+ countries. |
| Word, phonetic and image search | Text search through five similarity channels (identical, fuzzy, embedded, phonetic and look-alike characters), each hit labelled with its match tier and the channels that found it. Image search is listed as coming soon. | Free word search with wildcards, owner search and an image search that takes an uploaded logo or a URL; comprehensive searches look for similar names, logos and slogans, including phonetic similarities |
| Goods, services and Nice classes | Search and watches filter by Nice class, and classification endpoints list classes and goods and services and suggest and validate goods and services wording | Image search results can be filtered by class, status and filing date, and the site lists trademarks by class |
| Clearance and conflict screening | A documented knockout and full similarity search workflow for clearance, a Compare Marks endpoint that scores a candidate against up to 10 selected conflicts, and a Screening product open to design partners during beta. The vendor states the results are informational data and not legal advice. | Comprehensive search reports in three packages (Federal, Federal and Common Law, Global), covering registered, unregistered and dead marks, with common law results from Google, Yahoo, Facebook, Wikipedia and Instagram and domain results; the page describes an attorney's opinion on the results and a video consultation |
| Watch and alerts | In beta: five watch types (mark, portfolio, owner, class and similarity), alerts typically within a day of office publication by signed webhook or polling, and computed opposition deadlines on alerts in supported jurisdictions. Image watch is listed as coming soon. | Brand Monitoring scans trademark databases for new applications similar or identical to a monitored mark and sends a report naming the applicant, class and filing jurisdiction. Multiple marks can be monitored. |
| Reports and exports | JSON responses from every endpoint and a monthly proof-of-monitoring attestation per watch, as a PDF and a JSON file | Comprehensive search reports by email in PDF, RTF, Word, HTML or Excel |
| Integrations and API | REST API with webhooks, a TypeScript SDK, and a hosted MCP server for Claude, ChatGPT, Cursor and VS Code; Microsoft Copilot is listed as coming soon | Bulk data on request by email; the vendor asks requesters to email rather than scrape the site |
| AI features | Yes | Yes |
| MCP-ready | stated Yes | No |
| Deployment | more entries Cloud (SaaS), Browser-based | Cloud (SaaS) |
| Support | Not stated | Email helpdesk, Phone |
| Onboarding | Documentation and knowledge base | Not stated |
| Integrations | Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, Cursor, Visual Studio Code | Not stated |
Adds a column to the table, from the tools in this category.
Row where the values differ The small markers point at the lower number, the longer list or the stated feature. They describe the data, they are not a verdict.
The short version
Every line is one datapoint from the table above, picked automatically. Nothing here is written text.
The trade-offs
Signa
Strengths
Limitations
Trademarkia
Strengths
Limitations
Plans
Signa
Trademarkia
What users say
Signa
No reviews yet. Nothing has been published here yet, and no score is shown. How a review is checked before it appears is described below.
Trademarkia
No reviews yet. Nothing has been published here yet, and no score is shown. How a review is checked before it appears is described below.
Before sending, the author has to confirm three things: that they have used the product themselves, that they work neither for the vendor nor for a competitor, and that nobody is paying them for the review. We also ask whether the vendor invited them to write it. That answer is required, either answer is accepted, and it stays with the review.
Every review is read by a person before it appears. An email address is required and is confirmed: we send a link to it, and a review does not reach us until the author opens that link, so a review has a sender who was reachable at least once rather than being anonymous. Where what somebody writes needs backing, we ask them for evidence that they used the product, and a review that does not get it is not published. We publish positive and negative reviews alike, we pay nothing and offer nothing for a review, and we accept none that was bought or incentivised.
What we cannot do is verify a purchase. There is no shop here and no account, so whether the author really used the tool rests on their own declaration, on whatever we ask them for, and on the plausibility of what they write. We say so rather than implying a check that does not exist.
A vendor cannot buy a review, and cannot have one removed or changed because they dislike it. We remove or edit a review only if it breaks our rules or the law, for example a false statement of fact. Paid placement has no effect on which reviews appear or on any score.
Where this comes from
Signa https://signa.so/ · checked against the official source on 2026-11-05
Trademarkia https://www.trademarkia.com/ · checked against the official source on 2026-11-05
This table lists factual criteria taken from information the vendors publish themselves. For how we put it together, see the methodology.