91062 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Patent and Trademark Office 

37 CFR Parts 2 and 7 

[Docket No. PTO–T–2022–0034] 

RIN 0651–AD65 

Setting and Adjusting Trademark Fees 

During Fiscal Year 2025 

AGENCY: United States Patent and 

Trademark Office, Department of 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The United States Patent and 

Trademark Office (USPTO) sets or 

adjusts trademark fees, as authorized by 

the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act 

(AIA), as amended by the Study of 

Underrepresented Classes Chasing 

Engineering and Science Success Act of 

2018 (SUCCESS Act). The fee 

adjustments will provide the USPTO 

sufficient aggregate revenue to recover 

the aggregate costs of trademark 

operations in future years (based on 

assumptions and estimates found in the 

agency’s Fiscal Year 2025 Congressional 

Justification (FY 2025 Budget)), 

including implementing the USPTO 

2022–2026 Strategic Plan (Strategic 

Plan). 

DATES: This rule is effective on January 

18, 2025. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brendan Hourigan, Director, Office of 

Planning and Budget, at 571–272–8966 

or Brendan.Hourigan@uspto.gov; or C. 

Brett Lockard, Director, Forecasting and 

Analysis Division, at 571–272–0928 or 

Christopher.Lockard@uspto.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Executive Summary 

A. Introduction 

The USPTO publishes this final rule 

under section 10 of the AIA (section 10), 

Public Law 112–29, 125 Stat. 284, 

available at https://www.congress.gov/ 

112/plaws/publ29/PLAW112publ29.pdf, as amended by the 

SUCCESS Act, Public Law 115–273, 132 

Stat. 4158, available at https://

www.congress.gov/115/plaws/publ273/ 

PLAW-115publ273.pdf, which 

authorizes the Under Secretary of 

Commerce for Intellectual Property and 

Director of the USPTO (Director) to set 

or adjust by rule any trademark fee 

established, authorized, or charged 

under the Trademark Act of 1946 (the 

Trademark Act), 15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq., 

as amended, for any services performed 

or materials furnished by the agency. 35 

U.S.C. 41 note. Section 10 prescribes 

that trademark fees may be set or 

adjusted only to recover the aggregate 

estimated costs to the USPTO for 

processing, activities, services, and 

materials relating to trademarks, 

including administrative costs of the 

agency with respect to such trademark 

fees. Section 10 authority includes 

flexibility to set individual fees in a way 

that furthers key policy factors, while 

considering the cost of the respective 

services. Section 10 also establishes 

certain procedural requirements for 

setting or adjusting fee regulations, such 

as public hearings and input from the 

Trademark Public Advisory Committee 

(TPAC), a public comment period, and 

congressional oversight. 

B. Purpose of This Action 

Based on a biennial review of fees, 

costs, and revenues that began in fiscal 

year (FY) 2021, the USPTO concluded 

that fee adjustments are necessary to 

provide the agency with sufficient 

financial resources to facilitate the 

effective administration of the U.S. 

trademark system, including 

implementing the Strategic Plan, 

available on the agency website at 

https://www.uspto.gov/StrategicPlan. 

The individual fees set or adjusted in 

this rule align with the USPTO’s fee 

structure philosophy, including the 

agency’s four key fee setting policy 

factors: (1) promote innovation 

strategies, (2) align fees with the full 

cost of trademark services, (3) set fees to 

facilitate the effective administration of 

the trademark system, and (4) offer 

application processing options. The fee 

adjustments will enable the USPTO to 

accomplish its mission to drive U.S. 

innovation, inclusive capitalism, and 

global competitiveness by delivering 

high-quality and timely trademark 

examination and review proceedings 

that produce accurate and reliable 

trademark rights for domestic and 

international stakeholders. 

C. Summary of Provisions Impacted by 

This Action 

The USPTO sets or adjusts 28 

trademark fees, including the 

introduction of seven new fees in this 

rule. The agency is also discontinuing 

four fees. 

Under the fee schedule in this rule, 

the routine fees to obtain and maintain 

a trademark registration (e.g., 

application filings, intent-to-use/use 

(ITU) filings, and post-registration 

maintenance fees) will increase relative 

to the current fee schedule, in order to 

ensure financial sustainability and 

provide for improvements needed 

relative to trademark filings and 

registration. Additional information 

describing the fee adjustments is 

included in Part V: Individual Fee 

Rationale in this rulemaking and in the 

‘‘Table of Trademark Fees: Current, 

Final Trademark Fee Schedule, and 

Unit Cost’’ (Table of Trademark Fees), 

available on the fee setting section of the 

USPTO website at https://

www.uspto.gov/ 

FeeSettingAndAdjusting. 

II. Background 

Section 10(a) of the AIA, available at 

https://www.congress.gov/112/plaws/ 

publ29/PLAW-112publ29.pdf, 

authorizes the Director to set or adjust 

by rule any fee established, authorized, 

or charged under the Trademark Act for 

any services performed or materials 

furnished by the agency. Section 10 

provides that trademark fees may be set 

or adjusted only to recover the aggregate 

estimated costs to the USPTO for 

processing, activities, services, and 

materials relating to trademarks, 

including administrative costs of the 

agency with respect to such trademark 

fees. Provided that the fees in the 

aggregate achieve overall aggregate cost 

recovery, the Director may set 

individual fees under section 10 at, 

below, or above their respective cost. 

Section 10(e) requires the Director to 

publish the final fee rule in the Federal 

Register and the USPTO’s Official 

Gazette at least 45 days before the final 

fees become effective. 

Section 4 of the SUCCESS Act, 

available at https://www.congress.gov/ 

115/plaws/publ273/PLAW115publ273.pdf, amended section 

10(i)(2) to provide that the Director’s 

authority to set or adjust any fee under 

section 10 will end on September 16, 

2026. While the fees established by this 

rule will remain in effect in perpetuity 

or until adjusted by a future rulemaking, 

the Director’s authority to initiate new 

rulemakings to set or adjust fees will 

expire on that date. 

When adopting fees under section 10 

of the AIA, the Director must provide 

the proposed fees to TPAC, which 

advises the Director on the management, 

policies, goals, performance, budget, 

and user fees of trademark operations, at 

least 45 days prior to publishing the 

proposed fees in the Federal Register. 

TPAC then has 30 days within which to 

deliberate, consider, and comment on 

the proposal, as well as hold a public 

hearing on the proposed fees. Then, 

TPAC must publish a written report 

setting forth in detail the comments, 

advice, and recommendations of the 

committee regarding the proposed fees. 

The USPTO must consider and analyze 

any comments, advice, or 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 91063 

recommendations received from TPAC 

before setting or adjusting fees. 

Accordingly, on May 8, 2023, the 

Director notified TPAC of the USPTO’s 

intent to set and adjust trademark fees 

and submitted a preliminary trademark 

fee proposal with supporting materials. 

The preliminary trademark fee proposal 

and associated materials are available 

on the fee setting section of the USPTO 

website at https://www.uspto.gov/ 

FeeSettingAndAdjusting. 

TPAC held a public hearing at the 

USPTO’s headquarters in Alexandria, 

Virginia, on June 5, 2023, and members 

of the public were given an opportunity 

to provide oral testimony. Transcripts of 

the hearing are available for review on 

the USPTO website at https://

www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/ 

documents/TPAC-Fee-Setting-HearingTranscript-20230605.pdf. Members of 

the public were also given an 

opportunity to submit written 

comments for TPAC to consider, and 

these comments are available on 

Regulations.gov at https://

www.regulations.gov/docket/PTO-T2023-0016. On August 14, 2023, TPAC 

issued a written report setting forth their 

comments, advice, and 

recommendations regarding the 

preliminary proposed fees. The report is 

available on the USPTO website at 

https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/ 

files/documents/TPAC-Report-on-2023- 

Fee-Proposal.docx. 

The USPTO considered and analyzed 

all comments, advice, and 

recommendations received from the 

TPAC before publishing the notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM), ‘‘Setting 

and Adjusting Trademark Fees during 

Fiscal Year 2025,’’ in the Federal 

Register on March 26, 2024, at 89 FR 

20897. The NPRM and associated 

materials are available on the fee setting 

section of the USPTO website at https:// 

www.uspto.gov/ 

FeeSettingAndAdjusting. Likewise, 

before issuing this final rule, the agency 

considered and analyzed all comments, 

advice, and recommendations received 

from the public during the 60-day 

comment period on the NPRM that 

closed on May 28, 2024. The agency’s 

response to comments received is 

available in Part VI: Discussion of 

Comments. 

III. Estimating Aggregate Costs and 

Revenue 

Section 10 of the AIA provides that 

trademark fees may be set or adjusted 

only to recover the aggregate estimated 

costs to the USPTO for processing, 

activities, services, and materials 

relating to trademarks, including 

administrative costs with respect to 

such trademark fees. The following is a 

description of how the agency estimates 

aggregate costs and revenue. 

Step 1: Estimating Aggregate Costs 

Estimating prospective aggregate costs 

is accomplished primarily through the 

annual budget formulation process. The 

annual budget is a five-year plan for 

carrying out base programs and new 

initiatives to deliver on the USPTO’s 

statutory mission and implement the 

agency’s strategic goals and objectives. 

First, the USPTO projects the level of 

demand for trademark services, which 

depends on many factors that are 

subject to change, including domestic 

and global economic activity. The 

agency also considers non-US 

trademark-related activities, policies, 

and legislation, and known process 

efficiencies. The number of trademark 

application filings (i.e., incoming work 

to the USPTO) drives examination costs, 

which make up the largest share of 

trademark operating costs. The USPTO 

looks at indicators including the 

expected growth in real gross domestic 

product (RGDP), a leading indicator of 

incoming trademark applications, to 

estimate prospective workloads. The 

RGDP is reported quarterly by the 

Bureau of Economic Analysis and 

forecasted each February by the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) in 

the Economic and Budget Analyses 

section of the Analytical Perspectives, 

and twice annually by the Congressional 

Budget Office in the Budget and 

Economic Outlook. 

The expected workload is then 

compared to the current examination 

capacity to determine any required 

staffing and operating costs (e.g., 

salaries, workload processing contracts, 

and publication) adjustments. The 

agency uses a trademark pendency 

model that estimates trademark 

production output based on actual 

historical data and input assumptions, 

such as incoming trademark 

applications, number of examining 

attorneys on board, and overtime hours. 

Key statistics regarding pendency, 

application filings, and current 

inventory used to inform the model can 

be viewed on the data visualization 

center section of the USPTO website at 

https://www.uspto.gov/dashboard/ 

trademarks. 

Next, the USPTO calculates budgetary 

spending requirements based on the 

prospective aggregate costs of trademark 

operations. First, the agency estimates 

the costs of status quo operations (base 

requirements), then adjusts that figure 

for anticipated pay increases and 

inflationary increases for the budget 

year and four out years. The USPTO 

then estimates the prospective costs for 

expected changes in production 

workload and new initiatives over the 

same period. The agency then reduces 

cost estimates for completed initiatives 

and known cost savings expected over 

the same five-year horizon. A detailed 

description of budgetary requirements, 

aggregate costs, and related assumptions 

for the Trademarks program is available 

in the FY 2025 Budget. 

The USPTO estimates that trademark 

operations will cost $594 million in FY 

2025, including $293 million for 

trademark examining; $24 million for 

trademark trials and appeals; $50 

million for trademark information 

resources; $22 million for activities 

related to intellectual property (IP) 

protection, policy, and enforcement; 

and $204 million for general support 

costs necessary for trademark operations 

(e.g., the trademark share of rent, 

utilities, legal, financial, human 

resources, other administrative services, 

and agency-wide information 

technology (IT) infrastructure and 

support costs). See Appendix II of the 

FY 2025 Budget. In addition, the agency 

will transfer $280 thousand to the 

Department of Commerce, Inspector 

General, for audit support for the 

Trademarks program. 

Table 1 below provides key 

underlying production workload 

projections and assumptions from the 

FY 2025 Budget used to calculate 

aggregate costs. Table 2 (see Step 2) 

presents the total budgetary 

requirements (prospective aggregate 

costs) for FY 2025 through FY 2029 and 

the estimated collections and operating 

reserve balances that would result from 

the adjustments contained in this final 

rule. These projections are based on 

point-in-time estimates and 

assumptions that are subject to change. 

There is considerable uncertainty in 

outyear budgetary requirements. There 

are risks that could materialize over the 

next several years (e.g., adjustments to 

examination capacity, time allotted to 

examining attorneys and other 

personnel to perform their work, higher 

contracting costs, changes in workload, 

and other inflationary increases, etc.) 

that could increase the USPTO’s 

budgetary requirements. These 

estimates are refreshed annually during 

the formulation of USPTO’s budget. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
91064 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1—TRADEMARK PRODUCTION WORKLOAD PROJECTIONS, FY 2025–2029 

Production measures FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 

Applications .......................................................................... 774,000 817,000 863,000 912,000 964,000 

Application growth rate ........................................................ 4.6% 5.5% 5.6% 5.7% 5.7% 

Balanced disposals .............................................................. 1,552,600 1,680,000 1,740,000 1,850,000 1,930,000 

Unexamined trademark application inventory ..................... 463,756 442,627 418,438 402,622 401,645 

Examination capacity * ......................................................... 806 841 876 913 948 

Performance measures: 

Avg. first action pendency (months) ............................. 7.5 6.3 5.9 5.5 4.9 

Avg. total pendency (months) ....................................... 13.5 11.3 10.9 9.5 8.9 

* In this table, examination capacity is the number of examining attorneys on board at end of year, as described in the FY 2025 Budget. 

Step 2: Estimating Prospective 

Aggregate Revenue 

As described above in Step 1, the 

USPTO’s prospective aggregate costs (as 

presented in the FY 2025 Budget) 

include budgetary requirements related 

to planned production, anticipated 

initiatives, and a contribution to the 

trademark operating reserve required for 

the agency to maintain trademark 

operations and realize its strategic goals 

and objectives for the next five years. 

Prospective aggregate costs become the 

target aggregate revenue level that the 

new fee schedule must generate in a 

given year and over the five-year 

planning horizon. To estimate aggregate 

revenue, the USPTO uses the same 

production models used to estimate 

aggregate costs and also analyzes 

relevant factors and indicators to 

calculate prospective fee workloads (i.e., 

number of times each fee for a service 

or product will be paid). 

The same economic indicators used to 

forecast incoming workloads also 

provide insight into market conditions 

and the management of IP portfolios, 

which influence application processing 

requests and post-registration decisions 

to maintain trademark protection. When 

developing fee workload forecasts, the 

USPTO also considers other factors 

including fraud and scams impacting 

trademark filings, overseas activity, 

policies and legislation, court decisions, 

process efficiencies, and anticipated 

applicant behavior. 

As required by law, the USPTO 

collects fees for trademark-related 

services and products at different points 

in time within the application 

examination process and over the life of 

the pending trademark application and 

resulting registration to finance the 

associated work for providing those 

services. Trademark application filings 

are a key driver of trademark fee 

collections, as initial filing fees account 

for more than half of total trademark fee 

collections. Changes in application 

filing levels immediately impact current 

year fee collections. Fewer application 

filings mean the USPTO collects fewer 

fees to devote to production-related 

costs in the current pipeline. The 

resulting reductions also create an 

outyear revenue impact because less 

output in one year leads to fewer ITUs 

and maintenance fee payments in future 

years. Historically, fee collections from 

ITUs and maintenance fees account for 

about one third of total trademark fee 

collections, which the agency uses to 

subsidize costs for filing and 

examination activities not fully covered 

by initial filing fees. 

The USPTO’s five-year estimated 

aggregate trademark fee revenue (see 

table 2) is based on, for each fiscal year, 

the number of trademark applications it 

expects to receive, work it expects to 

process (an indicator of the ITU fee 

workloads), expected examination and 

process requests, and the expected 

number of post-registration filings to 

maintain trademark registrations. The 

USPTO forecasts the same number of 

future year applications filed under the 

final fee schedule compared to the 

current fee schedule because outside 

research suggests that demand for 

trademark applications is inelastic. See 

Gae ́tan De Rassenfosse, ‘‘On the Price 

Elasticity of Demand for Trademarks,’’ 

Social Science Research Network, Jan. 

28, 2018, https://doi.org/10.2139/ 

ssrn.2628646; Benedikt Herz and 

Malwina Mejer, ‘‘On the Fee Elasticity 

of the Demand for Trademarks in 

Europe,’’ Oxford Economic Papers, Jul. 

3, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1093/oep/ 

gpw035. The USPTO does anticipate a 

larger share of filers will take measures 

to avoid the surcharges compared to the 

share of filers that take advantage of the 

Trademark Electronic Application 

System (TEAS) Plus option under the 

current fee schedule. The USPTO’s 

Office of the Chief Economist 

periodically conducts economic studies 

and may, in the future, develop 

trademark fee price elasticity estimates 

for use in rulemakings. 

Within the iterative process for 

estimating aggregate revenue, the 

USPTO adjusts individual fee rates up 

or down based on cost and policy 

decisions, estimates the effective dates 

of new fee rates, and then multiplies the 

resulting fee rates by appropriate 

workload volumes to calculate a 

revenue estimate for each fee. Using 

these figures, the USPTO sums the 

individual fee revenue estimates, and 

the result is a total aggregate revenue 

estimate for a given year (see table 2). 

The aggregate revenue estimate also 

includes collecting $10 million annually 

in other income associated with 

recoveries and reimbursements from 

other Federal agencies (offsets to 

spending). The aggregate revenue 

estimates presented below are based on 

assumptions and data found in the FY 

2025 Budget including assuming that all 

final rule fee rates would take effect on 

November 15, 2024. The effective date 

of the final rule fee rates has since been 

changed from that original assumption 

to January 18, 2025, except the 

increased fee for Madrid applications 

will be owed on applications with a 

receipt date on or after February 18, 

2025, and the increased fee for renewing 

an international registration at the 

World Intellectual Property 

Organization (WIPO) will be owed on 

requests made on or after February 18, 

2025, as well. 

TABLE 2—TRADEMARK FINANCIAL OUTLOOK, FY 2025–2029 

Dollars in millions 

FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 

Projected fee collections ...................................................... 583 642 668 697 725 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 91065 

TABLE 2—TRADEMARK FINANCIAL OUTLOOK, FY 2025–2029—Continued 

Dollars in millions 

FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 

Other income ....................................................................... 10 10 10 10 10 

Total projected fee collections and other income ................ 593 652 678 707 735 

Budgetary requirements ....................................................... 594 611 635 664 690 

Funding to (+) and from (¥) operating reserve .................. (1) 41 43 43 45 

End-of-year operating reserve balance ............................... 85 126 169 213 258 

Over/(under) minimum level ................................................ (51) (14) 23 60 99 

Over/(under) optimal level ................................................... (212) (179) (148) (119) (87) 

IV. Rulemaking Goals and Strategies 

A. Fee Setting Strategy 

The strategy of this final rule is to 

establish a fee schedule that generates 

sufficient multiyear revenue to recover 

the aggregate costs of maintaining 

USPTO trademark operations as 

required by law. The overriding 

principles behind this strategy are to 

operate within a sustainable funding 

model that supports the USPTO’s 

strategic goals and objectives, such as 

optimizing trademark application 

pendency through the promotion of 

efficient operations and filing behaviors, 

issuing accurate and reliable trademark 

registrations, and encouraging access to 

the trademark system for all 

stakeholders. 

The USPTO assessed this final rule’s 

alignment with four key fee setting 

policy factors that promote important 

aspects of the U.S. trademark system: (1) 

promoting innovation strategies seeks to 

ensure barriers to entry into the U.S. 

trademark system remain low, 

encourage high-growth and innovationbased entrepreneurship, and incentivize 

innovation and entrepreneurship by 

issuing registrations to stimulate 

additional entrepreneurial activity; (2) 

aligning fees with the full costs of 

products and services recognizes that 

some applicants may use particular 

services in a more costly manner than 

other applicants (e.g., trademark 

applications cost more and take longer 

to examine when identifications of 

goods and services include thousands of 

characters) and charges those applicants 

appropriately rather than sharing the 

costs among all applicants; (3) 

facilitating the effective administration 

of the trademark system seeks to 

encourage efficient prosecution of 

trademark applications, reducing the 

time it takes to obtain a registration; and 

(4) offering application processing 

options provides multiple paths, where 

feasible, in recognition that trademark 

applications and their prosecution are 

not a one-size-fits-all process. The 

reasoning for setting and adjusting 

individual fees is described in Part V: 

Individual Fee Rationale. 

In the event any provision is 

invalidated or held to be impermissible 

as a result of a legal challenge, the 

‘‘remainder of the regulation could 

function sensibly without the stricken 

provision.’’ Belmont Mun. Light Dep’t v. 

FERC, 38 F.4th 173, 187 (D.C. Cir. 2022) 

(quoting MD/DC/DE Broad. Ass’n v. 

FCC, 236 F.3d 13, 22 (D.C. Cir. 2001)). 

The USPTO views each fee in this final 

rule as able to stand on its own and to 

‘‘function sensibly’’ without the others. 

This means that in the event that a 

reviewing court were to find that any 

one fee setting or fee adjustment was 

invalid, that finding would not affect 

the fees or adjustments enacted 

elsewhere in the rule. Therefore, in the 

event that any portion of this final rule 

is held to be invalid or impermissible, 

the USPTO intends that the remaining 

aspects of the regulatory provisions, and 

fees set and adjusted therein, remain 

valid. 

B. Fee Setting Considerations 

The balance of this subsection 

presents the specific fee setting 

considerations the USPTO reviewed in 

developing the final trademark fee 

schedule: (1) historical cost of providing 

individual services; (2) the balance 

between projected costs and revenue to 

meet the USPTO’s operational needs 

and strategic goals; (3) ensuring 

sustainable funding; and (4) the 

comments, advice, and 

recommendations offered by TPAC on 

the agency’s initial fee setting proposal 

and the public comments received in 

response to the March 2024 NPRM. The 

USPTO carefully considered the 

comments, advice, and 

recommendations offered by TPAC and 

the public. Collectively, these 

considerations informed the agency’s 

chosen rulemaking strategy. 

1. Historical Cost of Providing 

Individual Services 

The USPTO sets individual fee rates 

to ensure recovery of aggregate costs and 

to further key policy considerations 

while considering the cost of a 

particular service. For instance, the 

USPTO has a longstanding practice of 

setting application filing fees below the 

actual cost of processing and examining 

applications to encourage brand owners 

to take advantage of the protections and 

rights offered by trademark registration; 

these costs are subsidized by aggregate 

trademark revenues elsewhere. 

The USPTO considers unit cost 

accounting data provided by its Activity 

Based Information (ABI) program to 

evaluate the cost to provide specific 

services and then decide how to best 

align fees for particular services to 

recover the aggregate costs of all 

products and services. Using historical 

cost data, the USPTO can align fees to 

the costs of specific trademark products 

and services. When the USPTO 

implements a new process or service, 

historical activity-based information 

data is typically not available. However, 

the USPTO will use the historical cost 

of a similar process or procedure as a 

starting point to estimate the full cost of 

a new activity or service. 

The document titled ‘‘Setting and 

Adjusting Trademark Fees During Fiscal 

Year 2025: Activity Based Information 

and Trademark Fee Unit Expense 

Methodology,’’ available on the fee 

setting section of the USPTO website at 

https://www.uspto.gov/ 

FeeSettingAndAdjusting, provides 

additional information on the agency’s 

costing methodology in addition to the 

last three years of historical cost data. 

Part V: Individual Fee Rationale of this 

final rule describes the reasoning and 

anticipated benefits for setting some 

individual fees at cost, below cost, or 

above cost such that the USPTO 

recovers the aggregate cost of providing 

services through fees. 

2. Balancing Projected Costs and 

Revenue 

In developing the final trademark fee 

schedule, the USPTO considered its 

current estimates of future year 

workload demands, fee collections, and 

costs to maintain core USPTO 

operations and meet its strategic goals, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
91066 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

as found in the FY 2025 Budget and the 

Strategic Plan. The USPTO’s strategic 

goals include driving inclusive U.S. 

innovation and global competitiveness, 

promoting the efficient delivery of 

reliable IP rights, promoting the 

protection of IP against new and 

persistent threats, bringing innovation 

to impact, and generating impactful 

employee and customer experiences by 

maximizing agency operations. The 

following subsections provide details 

regarding updated revenue and cost 

estimates, cost saving efforts taken by 

the USPTO, and planned strategic 

improvements. 

a. Updated Revenue and Cost Estimates 

Projected revenue from the current fee 

schedule is expected to fall below future 

budgetary requirements (costs) due 

largely to lower-than-expected demand 

for trademark services compared to 

prior forecasts and higher-than-expected 

inflation in the broader U.S. economy in 

recent years that has increased the 

USPTO’s operating costs. Consequently, 

aggregate operating costs will exceed 

aggregate revenue for the Trademarks 

program under the current fee schedule. 

The USPTO is required by law to 

finance operations by recovering fees for 

the services offered by the agency. Not 

implementing the final rule would 

result in insufficient fee collections to 

process the anticipated work volumes, 

impacting stakeholders and failing to 

deliver on the USPTO mission. 

Forecasts for aggregate revenue using 

current demand estimates are lower 

than prior forecasts. This lower-thanexpected demand has coincided with 

changes to trademark owners’ filing and 

renewal patterns, resulting in 

imbalances in the overall fee structure. 

The USPTO sets application filing fees 

below its examination costs to maintain 

a low barrier to entry into the trademark 

registration system and relies on fees 

collected for post-registration 

maintenance and ITU extensions to 

subsidize the agency’s losses on each 

application examined. However, 

changes in the mix of filers and their 

preferences have upset the traditional 

balance of the trademark fee structure. 

The share of applicants filing ITU 

applications is declining. Also, the 

percentage of registrants that choose to 

maintain their trademark registration is 

declining as a larger share of filers are 

groups that are historically less likely to 

renew their registrations at a rate that 

would be sufficient to recover 

examination costs. The USPTO believes 

these changes in the mix of filers are 

systemic and will continue. 

Following an unprecedented 

application surge in FY 2021, trademark 

application filings declined and began 

returning to historic filing levels in FY 

2022, in line with the USPTO’s 

expectations. Application filings were 

largely unchanged in FY 2023. Given 

the current economic outlook for the 

broader economy and filing activity over 

the past two years, the USPTO projects 

trademark application filings to decline 

slightly in FY 2024 and increase in line 

with historic growth rates in FY 2025. 

Higher-than-expected inflation in the 

broader U.S. economy starting in 2021 

increased the USPTO’s operating costs 

above previous estimates for labor and 

nonlabor activities such as benefits, 

service contracts, and equipment. 

Salaries and benefits comprise about 

two-thirds of all trademark-related costs, 

and employee pay raises enacted across 

all U.S. government agencies in FY 

2023–24—including the USPTO—were 

much larger than previously budgeted. 

Federal General Schedule (GS) pay was 

raised by 4.6% in 2023 and 5.2% in 

2024; before 2023 the last time GS pay 

was raised by at least 4.0% was in 2004. 

The FY 2025 Budget includes an 

estimated 2.0% civilian pay raise 

planned in calendar year (CY) 2025 and 

assumed 3.0% civilian pay raises in CY 

2026–29, as well as inflationary 

increases for other labor and nonlabor 

activities. 

b. Cost-Saving Measures 

The USPTO recognizes that fees 

cannot simply increase for every 

improvement deemed desirable. The 

agency has a responsibility to 

stakeholders to pursue strategic 

opportunities for improvement in an 

efficient, cost-conscious manner. 

Likewise, the USPTO recognizes its 

obligation to reduce spending when 

appropriate. 

The USPTO’s FY 2025 Budget 

submission includes cost reducing 

measures such as giving up leased space 

in Northern Virginia. In FY 2025, the 

USPTO estimates $4,569 million in total 

spending for patent and trademark 

operations. This is a $122 million net 

increase from the agency’s FY 2024 

estimated spending level of $4,447 

million. The net increase includes a 

$224 million upward adjustment for 

prescribed inflation and other 

adjustments and a $102 million 

downward adjustment in program 

spending and other realized efficiencies. 

This estimate builds on the $40 million 

in annual real estate savings assumed in 

the FY 2024 Budget submission to 

include additional annual cost savings 

of $12 million through releasing more 

leased space in Northern Virginia. The 

combined reduction in real estate space 

amounts to almost 1 million square feet 

and an estimated annual cost savings of 

approximately $52 million. Also, the 

USPTO is actively pursuing IT cost 

containment. The FY 2025 budget 

includes a relatively flat IT spending 

profile despite upward pressure from 

inflation, supply chain disruptions, and 

government-wide pay raises; ongoing IT 

improvements that offer business value 

to fee-paying customers; and data 

storage costs increasing proportionally 

with the USPTO’s forecasted growth in 

patent and trademark applications. 

c. Efficient Delivery of Reliable IP 

Rights: Quality, Unexamined Inventory, 

and Pendency 

The USPTO’s strategic goal to 

‘‘promote the efficient delivery of 

reliable IP rights’’ recognizes the 

importance of innovation as the 

foundation of American economic 

growth and global competitiveness. 

Toward this end, the USPTO is 

committed to continuously improving 

trademark quality, as well as the 

accuracy and reliability of the trademark 

register. The agency will continue 

equipping trademark examining 

attorneys with updated tools, 

procedures, and clarifying guidance to 

effectively examine all applications. The 

USPTO will also retire legacy systems 

and integrate the use of emerging 

technologies to streamline work 

processes for greater efficiencies, adjust 

staffing levels, and refine core duties to 

ensure its ability to meet significant 

changes in filing volumes and a variety 

of improper filing behaviors. 

Also, the USPTO is committed to 

improving trademark application 

pendency. The agency recognizes that 

applying for trademark registration is a 

key step for creators, entrepreneurs, and 

established brand owners as they move 

from generating ideas for new products 

and services to commercializing the 

resulting innovations in the 

marketplace. The USPTO is focused on 

incentivizing creativity and product 

innovation by removing unnecessary 

impediments or delays in securing IP 

rights, thereby bringing goods and 

services to impact for the public good 

more quickly. 

The agency’s recent trademark 

pendency challenge is the result of 

several years of sustained increases in 

trademark application filings 

punctuated by an unprecedented, yearlong influx during FY 2021 that created 

a significant increase in unexamined 

inventory. In addressing these 

challenges, the USPTO will continue to 

reevaluate its operating posture to 

maximize efficiency, set data-driven 

pendency goals, realign the trademark 

workforce to maintain stability during 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 91067 

workload fluctuations and optimize 

pendency goals, and use available 

technology solutions to streamline and 

automate trademark work processes. 

The agency is working diligently to 

balance timely examination with 

trademark quality. Improvements 

include the deployment of a new 

browser-based, end-to-end examination 

system (TM Exam) designed to improve 

examination quality and efficiency and 

establishment of a dedicated Trademark 

Academy to improve the training 

experience for new examiners. 

Also, the USPTO is developing and 

implementing several strategies to 

combat trademark scams, address 

fraudulent filings, and protect the 

trademark register. For example, the 

agency is implementing robotic process 

automation to validate trademark 

application addresses against the U.S. 

Postal Service’s database, mitigating a 

key fraud risk. In addition, the USPTO 

recently formed the Register Protection 

Office (RPO), a new organization within 

the Office of the Deputy Commissioner 

for Trademark Examination Policy 

dedicated to register protection and 

fraud risk management through efforts 

like scam education and prevention. 

The USPTO is also leveraging the 

Trademark Modernization Act (TMA) 

cancellation provisions to help clear the 

trademark register of registrations not in 

use. See Public Law 116–260, available 

at https://www.congress.gov/116/plaws/ 

publ260/PLAW-116publ260.pdf. The 

agency implemented the TMA nonuse 

cancellation provisions in December 

2021 and in December 2022 

implemented additional provisions that 

shortened the applicant response period 

for Office actions from six to three 

months. See ‘‘Changes To Implement 

Provisions of the Trademark 

Modernization Act of 2020,’’ 86 FR 

64300 (Nov. 17, 2021). 

3. Sustainable Funding 

The USPTO’s five-year forecasts of 

aggregate trademark costs, aggregate 

trademark revenue, and the trademark 

operating reserve are inherently 

uncertain. The Government 

Accountability Office (GAO) 

recommends operating reserves as a best 

practice for fee-funded agencies like the 

USPTO, and the trademark operating 

reserve allows the agency to align longterm fees and costs and manage 

fluctuations in actual fee collections and 

spending. 

The USPTO manages the trademark 

operating reserve within a range of 

acceptable balances and assesses 

options when projected balances fall 

either below or above the range. The 

agency develops minimum planning 

targets to address immediate, unplanned 

changes in the economic or operating 

environment as the reserve builds 

toward the optimal level. The USPTO 

reviews both its minimum and optimal 

planning targets every three years to 

ensure the reserve’s operating range 

mitigates an array of financial risks. 

Based on the current risk environment, 

including various factors such as 

economic and funding uncertainty and 

the Trademarks program’s high 

percentage of fixed costs, the agency 

recently established a minimum 

operating reserve planning level at 23% 

of total spending—about three months’ 

operating expenses (estimated at $137 

million and $159 million from FY 2025 

through FY 2029)—and an optimal longrange target of 50% of total spending— 

about six months’ operating expenses 

(estimated at $297 million and $345 

million from FY 2025 through FY 2029). 

Based on cost and revenue 

assumptions in the FY 2025 Budget, the 

USPTO forecasts that aggregate 

trademark costs will exceed aggregate 

trademark revenue during FY 2024. The 

agency will finance the shortfall in 

trademark operations via the trademark 

operating reserve. The USPTO projects 

that the fee adjustments contained in 

this final rule will increase trademark 

fee collections to sufficiently recover 

budgeted spending requirements; 

modest fee collections above budgeted 

spending requirements will replenish 

and grow the operating reserve each 

year from FY 2025 to FY 2029. 

These projections are point-in-time 

estimates and subject to change. For 

example, the FY 2025 Budget includes 

assumptions regarding filing levels, 

renewal rates, federally mandated 

employee pay raises, workforce 

productivity, and many other factors. A 

change in any one of these variables 

could have a significant cumulative 

impact on the trademark operating 

reserve balance. As shown in table 2, 

presented in Part III: Estimating 

Aggregate Costs and Revenue, the 

operating reserve balance can change 

significantly over a five-year planning 

horizon. This variation highlights the 

agency’s financial vulnerability to 

various risk factors and the importance 

of its fee setting authority. 

The USPTO will continue assessing 

the trademark operating reserve balance 

against its target balance annually, and 

at least every three years, the agency 

will evaluate whether the minimum and 

optimal target balances remain 

sufficient to provide stable funding. Per 

USPTO policy, the agency will consider 

fee reductions if projections show the 

operating reserve balance will exceed its 

optimal level by 25% for two 

consecutive years. In addition, the 

USPTO will continue to regularly 

review its operating budgets and longrange plans to ensure the prudent use of 

trademark fees. 

4. Comments, Advice, and 

Recommendations From TPAC and the 

Public 

As detailed in the NPRM, in the 

report prepared in accordance with AIA 

fee setting authority, TPAC conveyed 

overall support for the USPTO’s efforts 

to secure adequate revenue to recover 

the aggregate estimated costs of 

trademark operations, stating ‘‘[w]e have 

no doubt that overall increases are 

needed to ensure that the USPTO 

complies with its statutory mandate to 

set fees at a level commensurate with 

anticipated aggregate costs.’’ TPAC 

Report at 3. The agency considered and 

analyzed the comments, advice, and 

recommendations received from TPAC 

before publishing this final rule. 

Likewise, the USPTO considered and 

analyzed the comments, advice, and 

recommendations received from the 

public during the 60-day comment 

period before publishing this final rule. 

The agency’s response to comments 

received is available in Part VI: 

Discussion of Comments. 

C. Summary of Rulemaking Goals and 

Strategies 

The USPTO estimates that the final 

trademark fee schedule will produce 

sufficient aggregate revenue to recover 

the aggregate costs of trademark 

operations and ensure financial 

sustainability for effective 

administration of the trademark system. 

This final rule aligns with the USPTO’s 

four key fee setting policy factors and 

supports the agency’s mission-focused 

strategic goals. 

V. Individual Fee Rationale 

Where data is available, the USPTO 

sets some fees at, above, or below unit 

cost to balance the agency’s four key fee 

setting policy factors as described in 

Part IV: Rulemaking Goals and 

Strategies. The USPTO does not 

maintain individual historical cost data 

for all fees; therefore, it sets some fees 

based solely on policy factors. For 

example, the USPTO sets initial filing 

fees below unit cost to promote 

innovation strategies by reducing 

barriers to entry for applicants. To 

balance the aggregate revenue loss of 

fees set below cost, the USPTO must set 

other fees above unit cost in areas less 

likely to impact entrepreneurship (e.g., 

renewal fees). By setting fees at 

particular levels to facilitate effective 

administration of the trademark system, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
91068 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

the USPTO aims to foster an 

environment where examining attorneys 

can provide, and applicants can receive, 

prompt, high-quality examination 

decisions while the agency recovers 

costs for workload-intensive activities. 

This final rule maintains existing cost 

differentials for all paper filings; their 

processing is generally more costly than 

electronic submissions, and current fees 

do not recover these costs. 

1. Trademark Application Filing Fees 

TABLE 3—TRADEMARK APPLICATION FILING FEES

Description Current 

fee 

Final rule 

fee 

Dollar 

change 

Percent 

change 

FY 2023 

unit cost 

Application (paper), per class .................................................................. $750 $850 $100 13 $1,457 

Base application (electronic), per class ................................................... n/a 350 n/a n/a n/a 

Application (TEAS Plus), per class .......................................................... 250 Discontinue n/a n/a 402 

Application (TEAS Standard), per class .................................................. 350 Discontinue n/a n/a 532 

Fee for failing to meet TEAS Plus requirements, per class .................... 100 Discontinue n/a n/a 4 

Application fee filed with WIPO (section 66(a)), per class ...................... 500 600 100 20 890 

Subsequent designation fee filed with WIPO (section 66(a)), per class 500 600 100 20 863 

The USPTO is changing application 

filing fees to incentivize more complete 

and timely filings and improve 

prosecution. Trademark applicants 

currently have two filing options via the 

Trademark Electronic Application 

System (TEAS): TEAS Plus and TEAS 

Standard. TEAS Plus is the lowest-cost 

filing option currently provided by the 

USPTO but comes with more stringent 

initial filing requirements. These 

applications reduce manual processing 

and potential for data entry errors, 

making them more efficient and 

complete for both the filer and the 

agency. The USPTO incurs fewer costs 

and impediments during their 

examination, thereby expediting 

processing and reducing pendency. 

About half of all trademark applications 

are filed using TEAS Plus. Fees for 

TEAS Standard are higher than those for 

TEAS Plus and offer applicants more 

options during filing; the higher fees 

relate to the USPTO’s higher processing 

and examination costs. 

The USPTO is implementing a single 

electronic application filing option that 

will discontinue both TEAS Plus and 

TEAS Standard filing options, as well as 

the processing fee for failing to meet the 

requirements of a TEAS Plus 

application. This final rule will replace 

TEAS Plus and TEAS Standard fees 

with a single electronic filing option 

and corresponding base application fee 

plus new surcharges based on 

application attributes. Similar to TEAS, 

applicants choosing to comply with the 

requirements detailed in this final rule 

in their initial filing (comparable to 

TEAS Plus) will pay the lowest fees 

under the final fee schedule, compared 

to applicants who choose not to comply 

with all requirements (comparable to 

TEAS Standard). The USPTO does not 

anticipate the total number of 

applications filed each year to change 

under the final schedule compared to 

the current schedule. The agency does 

anticipate that a larger share of 

applicants will take measures to avoid 

the surcharges in this rule as compared 

to the share of applicants who use the 

TEAS Plus option under the current fee 

schedule. Applications that do not meet 

all requirements for the lowest cost 

electronic filing option are discussed 

below. 

The final fee schedule sets the fee for 

a base application filed electronically at 

$350, $100 more than a TEAS Plus 

application, to help the agency recover 

its costs. The USPTO anticipates a base 

application will have a unit cost similar 

to a TEAS Plus application for the 

agency. The USPTO is increasing the 

paper application fee by $100 to 

maintain the existing cost differential 

between a paper filing and the lowest 

cost electronic application. 

As part of the final fee schedule, the 

USPTO is discontinuing the processing 

fee for failing to meet the requirements 

of a TEAS Plus application on the 

effective date of the final rule. 

Therefore, on or after that date, any 

pending TEAS Plus applications that 

would have been subject to the TEAS 

Plus processing fee will be subject to the 

insufficient information surcharge fee if 

the application fails to satisfy any of the 

requirements for a base application in 

paragraphs (a)(1) through (19) of § 2.22. 

These requirements are the same as the 

requirements for a valid TEAS Plus 

application under the current TEAS 

system, and the fee rate for the 

insufficient information surcharge is 

identical to the processing fee for failing 

to meet the requirements of a TEAS Plus 

application, i.e., $100 per class. 

The USPTO is making revisions to the 

regulatory text in 37 CFR to incorporate 

the base application fee and 

discontinuation of TEAS application 

fees. These revisions include replacing 

references to ‘‘TEAS’’ and ‘‘ESTTA’’ 

with ‘‘electronically’’ in sections 2.6 and 

7.6 to reflect the discontinuation of 

TEAS fees under this final rule. These 

generalized references for electronic 

filings are more dynamic and will more 

easily accommodate any future changes 

to the USPTO’s electronic filing system. 

In the NPRM, the USPTO also 

proposed using this system for filing an 

application under section 66(a) (Madrid 

Protocol) of the Trademark Act. 

However, this final rule alters that 

proposal. Article 8(2) of the Madrid 

Protocol and rule 10 of the Madrid 

regulations require the payment of all 

application fees before the International 

Bureau may record an international 

registration or subsequent designation. 

Due to technological and administrative 

limitations, WIPO is currently unable to 

collect surcharges prior to recordation 

and has requested delayed 

implementation of any surcharges for 

Madrid filers. 

In this final rule, the USPTO is 

dropping the proposed structure for 

66(a) filings and instead adjusting the 

existing flat application fee for Madrid 

applications to $600 per class, as paid 

in Swiss francs to WIPO. Article 8(7) of 

the Madrid Protocol permits individual 

countries to establish their own fee for 

Madrid applications, subject to the 

Protocol’s requirement that the fee for 

Madrid filers does not exceed that for 

domestic filers. The $600 fee is 

commensurate with what Madrid 

applicants would expect to pay, on 

average, if filing directly under the base 

application and surcharge system. 

The approach enacted in this final 

rule conforms with feedback received 

from WIPO and other commenters. The 

USPTO will reconsider a base filing and 

surcharge system for Madrid 

applications in the future after WIPO 

develops the capacity to implement 

surcharges. 

The increased fee will be owed on 

Madrid applications with a receipt date 

on or after February 18, 2025, because 

the Madrid Agreement Concerning the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 91069 

International Registration of Marks 

requires three months’ advance notice to 

WIPO before an increase in the amount 

of the international application or 

subsequent designation fee may enter 

into force. 

2. Trademark Application Filing 

Surcharge Fees 

TABLE 4—TRADEMARK APPLICATION FILING SURCHARGE FEES

Description Current 

fee 

Final rule 

fee 

Dollar 

change 

Percent 

change 

FY 2023 

unit cost 

Fee for insufficient information (sections 1 and 44), per class ............... n/a $100 n/a n/a n/a 

Fee for using the free-form text box to enter the identification of goods/ 

services (sections 1 and 44), per class ............................................... n/a 200 n/a n/a n/a 

For each additional group of 1,000 characters beyond the first 1,000 

(sections 1 and 44), per class .............................................................. n/a 200 n/a n/a n/a 

The USPTO is implementing 

surcharges to the base application filing 

fee in this final rule to enhance the 

quality of incoming applications, 

encourage efficient application 

processing, ensure additional 

examination costs are paid by those 

submitting more time-consuming 

applications, and reduce pendency. 

Only those applicants submitting 

applications that do not comply with 

the base filing requirements would pay 

the surcharges. The system set by this 

final rule would impose individual 

surcharges for unmet application 

requirements, as compared to the 

current TEAS Standard fee and TEAS 

Plus processing fee for applications with 

one or more unmet TEAS Plus 

requirements. As discussed above, 

applications filed under section 66(a) 

(Madrid Protocol) will not be subject to 

these surcharges and will instead be 

assessed a higher flat fee commensurate 

with what Madrid applicants would 

expect to pay, on average, if filing 

directly under the base application and 

surcharge system. 

(i) Insufficient Information Fee 

Trademark applications that include 

the information listed below allow for 

more efficient prosecution. Accordingly, 

applicants who submit more complete 

applications benefit from the final fee 

schedule by avoiding this surcharge, as 

the USPTO and its stakeholders benefit 

from efficient delivery of reliable IP 

rights. This final rule sets a $100 fee per 

class, in addition to the base fee, on 

applications under sections 1 and 44 

that do not include required information 

at the time of filing. As discussed above, 

applications filed under section 66(a) 

(Madrid Protocol) will not be subjected 

to this surcharge. 

The information required for a base 

application is the same as current TEAS 

Plus requirements; therefore, applicants 

are not expected to expend more than a 

de minimis amount of additional 

resources compared to the current 

system. The USPTO is reordering and 

retitling these requirements as 

‘‘Requirements for a base application,’’ 

as provided in § 2.22(1) through (20): 

• The applicant’s name and domicile 

address; 

• The applicant’s legal entity; 

• The citizenship of each individual 

applicant, or the state or country of 

incorporation or organization of each 

juristic applicant; 

• If the applicant is a domestic 

partnership, the names and citizenship 

of the general partners, or if the 

applicant is a domestic joint venture, 

the names and citizenship of the active 

members of the joint venture; 

• If the applicant is a sole 

proprietorship, the state of organization 

of the sole proprietorship and the name 

and citizenship of the sole proprietor; 

• One or more bases for filing that 

satisfy all the requirements of § 2.34. If 

more than one basis is set forth, the 

applicant must comply with the 

requirements of § 2.34 for each asserted 

basis; 

• If the application contains goods 

and/or services in more than one class, 

compliance with § 2.86; 

• A filing fee for each class of goods 

and/or services, as required by 

§ 2.6(a)(1)(ii) or (iii); 

• A verified statement that meets the 

requirements of § 2.33, dated and signed 

by a person properly authorized to sign 

on behalf of the owner pursuant to 

§ 2.193(e)(1); 

• If the applicant does not claim 

standard characters, the applicant must 

attach a digitized image of the mark. If 

the mark includes color, the drawing 

must show the mark in color; 

• If the mark is in standard 

characters, a mark comprised only of 

characters in the Office’s standard 

character set, typed in the appropriate 

field of the application; 

• If the mark includes color, a 

statement naming the color(s) and 

describing where the color(s) appears on 

the mark, and a claim that the color(s) 

is a feature of the mark; 

• If the mark is not in standard 

characters, a description of the mark; 

• If the mark includes non-English 

wording, an English translation of that 

wording; 

• If the mark includes non-Latin 

characters, a transliteration of those 

characters; 

• If the mark includes an individual’s 

name or likeness, either (1) a statement 

that identifies the living individual 

whose name or likeness the mark 

comprises and written consent of the 

individual, or (2) a statement that the 

name or likeness does not identify a 

living individual (see section 2(c) of the 

Act); 

• If the applicant owns one or more 

registrations for the same mark, and the 

owner(s) last listed in Office records of 

the prior registration(s) for the same 

mark differs from the owner(s) listed in 

the application, a claim of ownership of 

the registration(s) identified by the 

registration number(s), pursuant to 

§ 2.36; 

• If the application is a concurrent 

use application, compliance with § 2.42; 

• An applicant whose domicile is not 

located within the United States or its 

territories must designate an attorney as 

the applicant’s representative, pursuant 

to § 2.11(a), and include the attorney’s 

name, postal address, email address, 

and bar information; and 

• Correctly classified goods and/or 

services, with an identification of goods 

and/or services from the Office’s 

Acceptable Identification of Goods and 

Services Manual within the electronic 

form. 

The insufficient information 

surcharge will apply if an application 

fails to satisfy any of the first 19 

requirements in this list. See Part VII: 

Discussion of Specific Rules for more 

information. 

The agency will not impose this fee 

on applications denied a filing date for 

failure to satisfy the requirements under 

§ 2.21. 

As discussed above, any previously 

filed TEAS Plus applications that 

remain pending on or after the effective 

date of this final rule will be subject to 

the insufficient information surcharge 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
91070 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

fee if the application fails to satisfy any 

of the above requirements because the 

requirements for a base application 

under the final rule are the same as the 

requirements for a TEAS Plus 

application. Under either system, TEAS 

or base plus surcharges, affected 

applications would be subject to a fee of 

$100 per class for failing to meet the 

requirements. 

(ii) Entering Identifications of Goods 

and/or Services in the Free-Form Text 

Box Fee 

Section 2.22(a)(20) requires applicants 

to identify goods and/or services using 

identifications from the agency’s 

Acceptable Identification of Goods and 

Services Manual (ID Manual) within the 

electronic form. Applicants may choose 

goods and/or services identifications by 

selecting directly from the ID Manual in 

the electronic application or entering 

manually in a free-form text box. The 

USPTO is setting a new $200 fee per 

class for applicants who choose to enter 

descriptions of goods and services in the 

free-form text box. To avoid the 

surcharge, applicants may use the ID 

Manual within the electronic 

application, which includes thousands 

of identifications. As discussed above, 

applications filed under section 66(a) 

(Madrid Protocol) will not be subject to 

this surcharge. 

Generally, examining attorneys do not 

need to review identifications of goods 

and/or services selected directly from 

the ID Manual within the electronic 

application form. Conversely, 

examining attorneys must carefully 

consider identifications entered in a 

free-form text box to determine whether 

the descriptions are acceptable as 

written or require amendment to 

sufficiently specify the nature of the 

goods and/or services. Examining 

attorneys must review each entry to 

determine its acceptability, even in 

situations where an applicant types or 

pastes the ID Manual identification, 

because they do not know if wording in 

the free-form text box came from the ID 

Manual. 

Identifying an applicant’s goods and/ 

or services with sufficient specificity is 

necessary to provide adequate notice to 

third parties regarding the goods and/or 

services in connection with which the 

applicant intends to use, or is using, the 

mark. It also ensures the applicant pays 

the corresponding fee for each class of 

goods and/or services. Examining 

attorneys often spend substantial time 

reviewing identifications provided in 

the free-form text box and may initiate 

multiple communications with the 

applicant before determining an 

acceptable identification and collecting 

appropriate fees. This surcharge will 

help recover the additional costs 

associated with these more extensive 

reviews. 

(iii) Each Additional 1,000 Characters 

Beyond the First 1,000 Fee 

When entering identifications in the 

free-form text box, some applicants 

submit extensive lists of goods and/or 

services. In more egregious cases, a list 

may comprise multiple pages and 

include goods and/or services in 

multiple classes. To ensure that 

applicants who submit lengthy 

identifications pay the costs of their 

review, the USPTO is setting a new fee 

of $200 for each additional group of 

1,000 characters beyond the first 1,000 

characters in the free-form text box, 

including punctuation and spaces. 

Currently, less than 5% of directly filed 

applications contain custom 

identifications of goods and/or services 

that exceed 1,000 characters per class. 

Applicants who enter identifications 

directly from the ID Manual within the 

electronic application will not incur this 

fee, even if the identification exceeds 

1,000 characters. As discussed above, 

applications filed under section 66(a) 

(Madrid Protocol) will not be subject to 

this surcharge for now. 

The USPTO selected a characterbased limit for operational efficiency, as 

the electronic application system can 

perform character counts in real time 

and alert the applicant when they 

exceed the limit. A limit based on other 

criteria, such as a count of separate 

goods and/or services, would require 

examiner review, as automating such 

counts is not technologically feasible. 

Such reviews by an examining attorney 

would increase the cost of examination 

and counteract the purpose of the fee, 

which is to ensure that applicants who 

submit lengthy identifications pay the 

costs of reviewing them. 

After review and consideration of the 

comments, the USPTO will not apply 

this fee to amended identifications that 

exceed the character limit in a response 

to an Office action. 

3. Amendment to Allege Use (AAU) and 

Statement of Use (SOU) Fees 

TABLE 5—AAU AND SOU FEES

Description Current 

fee 

Final rule 

fee 

Dollar 

change 

Percent 

change 

FY 2023 

unit cost 

Amendment to allege use (AAU), per class (paper) ............................... $200 $250 $50 25 n/a 

Statement of use (SOU), per class (paper) ............................................. 200 250 50 25 n/a 

Amendment to allege use (AAU), per class (electronic) ......................... 100 150 50 50 $152 

Statement of use (SOU), per class (electronic) ...................................... 100 150 50 50 129 

The USPTO is increasing fees for the 

AAUs and SOUs to $150 per class for 

electronic filings and $250 per class for 

paper filings. The agency has not 

adjusted the AAU and SOU fees since 

2002, even as processing costs increased 

during the subsequent two decades. The 

examination time for the AAUs and 

SOUs has grown due to the increased 

submission of questionable specimens, 

resulting in the issuance of more Office 

actions. These final fees will improve 

cost recovery and help rebalance the fee 

structure. 

4. Post-Registration Maintenance Fees 

TABLE 6—POST-REGISTRATION MAINTENANCE FEES

Description Current 

fee 

Final rule 

fee 

Dollar 

change 

Percent 

change 

FY 2023 

unit cost 

Section 9 registration renewal application, per class (paper) ................. $500 $525 $25 5 n/a 

Section 8 declaration, per class (paper) .................................................. 325 425 100 31 $95 

Section 15 declaration, per class (paper) ................................................ 300 350 50 17 n/a 

Section 71 declaration, per class (paper) ................................................ 325 425 100 31 n/a 

Section 9 registration renewal application, per class (electronic) ........... 300 325 25 8 $24 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 91071 

TABLE 6—POST-REGISTRATION MAINTENANCE FEES—Continued 

Description Current 

fee 

Final rule 

fee 

Dollar 

change 

Percent 

change 

FY 2023 

unit cost 

Section 8 declaration, per class (electronic) ........................................... 225 325 100 44 48 

Section 15 declaration, per class (electronic) ......................................... 200 250 50 25 11 

Section 71 declaration, per class (electronic) ......................................... 225 325 100 44 48 

Renewal fee filed at WIPO ...................................................................... 300 325 25 8 n/a 

In the NPRM, the USPTO proposed 

increasing the section 9 registration 

renewal fee to $350 per class and the 

section 8 and 71 declaration fees to $300 

per class. After further consideration in 

light of public comments and the 

USPTO’s financial outlook, the agency 

is reallocating some of the section 9 

renewal fee increase to section 8 and 71 

declaration fees. This final rule aligns 

these fees at $325 per class for 

electronic filings. 

The percentage of trademark 

registrants choosing to maintain their 

registrations has declined, as the share 

of applications from groups that have 

been historically less likely to maintain 

their registrations has increased. The 

USPTO expects these trends to 

continue. Additionally, costs to process 

maintenance filings have increased due 

to higher inflationary costs, postregistration audits, and elevated legal 

review to address potential fraud or 

improper filing behaviors. 

The USPTO has an obligation to 

recover the aggregate costs of trademark 

operations through user fees. The abovecost post-registration maintenance fees 

recover costs incurred by the USPTO 

during examination. Given changes in 

demand and filing behaviors, the agency 

is rebalancing aggregate revenue derived 

from renewals and post-registration 

maintenance fees to keep barriers to 

entry low for new applicants. 

The increased fee for renewing an 

international registration at WIPO will 

be owed on requests made on or after 

February 18, 2025, because the Madrid 

Agreement Concerning the International 

Registration of Marks requires three 

months’ advance notice to WIPO before 

an increase in the amount of the 

international renewal fee may enter into 

force. 

5. Letter of Protest Fee 

TABLE 7—LETTER OF PROTEST FEE

Description Current 

fee 

Final rule 

fee 

Dollar 

change 

Percent 

change 

FY 2023 

unit cost 

Letter of protest ....................................................................................... $50 $150 $100 200 $893 

The USPTO is increasing the fee for 

filing a letter of protest from $50 to 

$150. The cost to process a letter of 

protest exceeds the adjusted fee, and the 

agency will continue subsidizing this 

service from aggregate trademark fee 

collections, setting the fee rate to 

encourage the filing of relevant, wellsupported letters of protest and 

discourage frivolous filings. Letters of 

protest allow a third party to bring 

evidence to the USPTO on the 

registrability of a mark in a pending 

application without filing an opposition 

with the Trademark Trial and Appeal 

Board (TTAB). The letter of protest 

procedure is not a substitute for the 

statutory opposition and cancellation 

procedures available to third parties 

who believe they would be damaged by 

registration of the involved mark. 

Instead, it is intended to assist 

examination without causing undue 

delay or compromising the integrity and 

objectivity of the ex parte examination 

process, which involves only the 

applicant and the USPTO. 

The USPTO’s estimated FY 2023 costs 

for reviewing and processing each letter 

of protest were $893, $843 more than 

the current $50 fee. The agency’s costs 

are high because of the specialized staff 

who review letters of protest and the 

time required to determine whether: (1) 

the letters comply with submission 

requirements and (2) should be 

forwarded to an examining attorney. In 

addition, under the TMA, the USPTO is 

required to review and act on letters of 

protest within 60 days of receipt. The 

total subsidy for performing this service 

has grown due to a substantial increase 

in letters of protest forwarded to the 

USPTO each year. Letters of protest 

have risen from about 2,300 in FY 2016 

to nearly 4,000 in FY 2023. The agency 

estimates this volume will grow to more 

than 5,000 letters annually by FY 2029, 

resulting in more cost to the USPTO. 

When viewed in the context of 

USPTO actions due to letters of protest, 

the agency’s costs are considerable, 

while the letters have a minor impact on 

examination outcomes. During FY 2022, 

the USPTO decided 4,557 letters of 

protest, of which 1,433 (31%) were not 

in compliance with § 2.149 and 

therefore not included in the record of 

examination. Of the letters entered into 

the record, examining attorneys issued a 

refusal based on the asserted ground(s) 

in 1,213 cases (27% of letters decided). 

Examining attorneys likely would have 

issued a refusal in these cases even 

without a letter of protest. The USPTO 

identified only 27 (0.59%) letters in FY 

2022 that corresponded to an error in 

publishing a mark for opposition, 

similar to historical shares of letters 

decided each year. 

TABLE 8—LETTERS OF PROTEST FILED AND LETTERS CORRESPONDING TO SITUATIONS WHERE THE USPTO PUBLISHED A

MARK FOR OPPOSITION IN ERROR, BY FISCAL YEAR

Fiscal year Letters of protest 

decided 

Letters corresponding 

to a mark published 

in error 

Share of total 

letters decided 

(%) 

2016 ......................................................................................................... 2,258 17 0.75 

2017 ......................................................................................................... 2,726 13 0.48 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
91072 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 8—LETTERS OF PROTEST FILED AND LETTERS CORRESPONDING TO SITUATIONS WHERE THE USPTO PUBLISHED A

MARK FOR OPPOSITION IN ERROR, BY FISCAL YEAR—Continued 

Fiscal year Letters of protest 

decided 

Letters corresponding 

to a mark published 

in error 

Share of total 

letters decided 

(%) 

2018 ......................................................................................................... 3,386 28 0.83 

2019 ......................................................................................................... 4,106 43 1.05 

2020 ......................................................................................................... 3,534 22 0.62 

2021 ......................................................................................................... 3,756 39 1.04 

2022 ......................................................................................................... 4,557 27 0.59 

In accordance with the USPTO’s fee 

setting policy factors, this adjustment 

recovers more of the costs associated 

with letters of protest, although the 

agency’s full costs for this service will 

continue to be subsidized by aggregate 

trademark revenues. 

6. Other Petition Fees 

TABLE 9—OTHER PETITION FEES

Description Current fee Final rule 

fee 

Dollar 

change 

Percent 

change 

FY 2023 

unit cost 

Petition to the Director (paper) ................................................................ $350 $500 $150 43 n/a 

Petition to revive an application (paper) .................................................. 250 350 100 40 n/a 

Petition to the Director (electronic) .......................................................... 250 400 150 60 $3,300 

Petition to revive an application (electronic) ............................................ 150 250 100 67 61 

Optional petitions are a valuable, 

though costly, part of the trademark 

registration process, and other 

trademark fees subsidize the optional 

petition processing costs. The new fee 

amounts would recover more costs 

associated with the extensive and 

lengthy review these services require. 

VI. Discussion of Comments 

In response to the March 26, 2024, 

NPRM, the USPTO received comments 

from 27 associations and individuals 

including intellectual property 

organizations, law firms, attorneys, and 

others. These comments are available on 

Regulations.gov at https://

www.regulations.gov/docket/PTO-T2022-0034. 

The summaries of comments and the 

agency’s responses to the written 

comments follow. 

General Fee Setting Approach 

Comment 1: Commenters recognized 

the need for the USPTO to set fees at a 

level necessary to recover aggregate 

costs and ensure financial 

sustainability. 

Response: The USPTO appreciates the 

commenters’ feedback. 

Comment 2: In principle, commenters 

supported fee increases needed to 

maintain effective and efficient 

operations, including efforts to lower 

pendency, combat fraud, and ensure the 

accuracy and reliability of the trademark 

register. 

Response: The USPTO appreciates the 

commenters’ feedback and is committed 

to pursuing the goals and objectives in 

the Strategic Plan in a fiscally 

responsible manner. 

Comment 3: Commenters expressed 

appreciation for the USPTO’s 

receptivity to feedback given during the 

public hearing and making adjustments 

to the fee proposals in response to that 

feedback. 

Response: The USPTO appreciates the 

commenters’ feedback and remains 

committed to analyzing, considering, 

and incorporating feedback from our 

stakeholder community. 

Comment 4: One commenter noted 

that it was important for the USPTO to 

strike a balance between financial 

sustainability and accessibility to the 

trademark system in setting fees. 

Response: The USPTO agrees that 

financial sustainability and stakeholder 

accessibility are crucial fee setting 

considerations. The overriding principle 

behind this rulemaking is to provide the 

agency with a sustainable funding 

model that supports the USPTO’s 

strategic goals and objectives, including 

providing affordable access to the 

trademark system for all stakeholders. 

Comment 5: Commenters emphasized 

that the fee schedule should be clear 

and transparent. 

Response: The USPTO strives to 

ensure that the costs associated with 

obtaining a federal trademark 

registration are clear and that 

examination is consistent for all 

applicants. Similar to a TEAS Plus 

application, the base application 

established by this final rule will 

indicate what information is required 

for a complete application, as well as 

the addition of indicators meant to alert 

applicants of additional surcharges 

based on information provided on the 

application at the time of filing. The 

USPTO expects that, in most cases, any 

incurred surcharges will be assessed 

and known to the applicant upon 

submission of the initial application. 

Comment 6: Commenters noted there 

should be greater agency transparency 

surrounding the budget, particularly 

around increased IT costs. Commenters 

asserted that the public is entitled to 

know more details about scheduled and 

upcoming IT improvements and why 

costs and delays have escalated over 

previous projections. 

Response: The USPTO is committed 

to providing stakeholders with financial 

and performance data that are complete, 

reliable, accurate, and consistent. The 

USPTO posts congressional budget 

justifications, agency financial reports, 

and annual performance plan and 

annual performance reports on the 

financial and performance section of the 

USTPO website at https://

www.uspto.gov/about-us/financial-andperformance. Also, the General Services 

Administration’s ITDashboard.gov 

enables stakeholders to understand the 

health of IT investments, the impact of 

IT portfolios, and other key IT 

indicators. Finally, the TPAC holds 

quarterly public meetings to review 

USPTO policies, goals, performance, 

budget, and user fees. During these 

meetings the USPTO presents the latest 

plans and updates regarding IT 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 91073 

improvements and other administrative 

matters. 

Although the USPTO strives to 

provide the most accurate cost and 

revenue estimates in the five-year 

forecast summary of each congressional 

budget submission, these forecasts 

reflect point-in-time planning 

assumptions and budget priorities. The 

agency routinely updates forecasts, 

tracks operational and financial 

performance, and monitors changes in 

the economy to mitigate uncertainty. 

The USPTO has earned 31 consecutive 

years of unmodified (clean) audit 

opinions on its annual financial 

statements. 

Comment 7: Commenters asserted that 

it was too soon to raise trademark fees 

because fees were raised in 2021, and 

new fees were also introduced as part of 

the Trademark Modernization Act. One 

commenter suggested these actions raise 

concerns about the ability of the USPTO 

to establish effective budgetary 

frameworks, project future operational 

outcomes, and maintain efficient 

operations. 

Response: The USPTO decided to 

adjust trademark fees at this time after 

conducting a deliberate and thorough 

review of fees, costs, and revenues. 

Based on this review, the agency 

concluded that fee adjustments are 

necessary to generate sufficient financial 

resources to facilitate the effective 

administration of the U.S. trademark 

system. 

The USPTO’s budget projections 

reflect point-in-time estimates and 

assumptions that are subject to change, 

with considerable uncertainty in 

outyear forecasts and risks that could 

materialize. Fee collections and 

operational costs are affected by internal 

factors, including changes in 

examination processes and procedures, 

and also by external factors outside the 

USPTO’s control, such as legislation, 

court decisions, and changes to the 

broader economy. As detailed in the 

Updated Revenue and Cost Estimates 

section of this rule, the USPTO has 

experienced a number of unanticipated 

circumstances since the current fee 

schedule took effect in January 2021. 

These factors include higher-thanexpected inflation in the broader U.S. 

economy leading to higher costs for 

supplies and contract services and 

employee pay raises enacted across all 

U.S. government agencies in FY 2023– 

24—including the USPTO—that were 

larger than previously planned for 

during the January 2021 fee change. 

Comment 8: One commenter asserted 

that previous fee increases have not 

improved operations, as processing 

times for applications have risen 

sharply since the last time fees were 

increased in 2021; therefore, the USPTO 

should not increase fees, as a fee 

increase is unlikely to improve agency 

efficiency. 

Response: The USPTO acknowledges 

that processing times and pendency 

have increased for trademark 

applications. These delays are the result 

of several years of sustained increases in 

trademark application filings, 

punctuated by an unprecedented yearlong influx during FY 2021 that created 

a significant unexamined application 

inventory. The cost of processing and 

examining applications is subsidized by 

other fees, so this surge has further 

stressed the USPTO’s finances. 

Addressing this unexamined inventory 

has required and will continue to 

require significant investments in time 

and agency resources, making fee 

increases necessary to effectively 

administer the trademark system. 

Comment 9: One commenter stated 

that trademark registration costs have 

historically disproportionately affected 

minority-owned small businesses and 

the proposed increases will make 

matters worse. The commenter urged 

the USPTO to petition Congress to 

appropriate taxpayer funding rather 

than raising fees paid by small 

businesses and innovators. 

Response: The USPTO acknowledges 

that a growing body of research has 

revealed unequal innovation 

participation rates for women, people of 

color, veterans, and other underserved 

individuals. Working to address these 

concerns, the agency is developing its 

own equity initiatives and programs and 

is also partnering with organizations in 

both the public and private sectors to 

collectively advance inclusion in 

innovation. For more information on the 

USPTO’s inclusive innovation 

initiatives, visit https://www.uspto.gov/ 

Equity. 

Comment 10: One commenter 

asserted that the Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (IRFA) analysis did not 

sufficiently describe or estimate the 

number of small entities the rule would 

affect and every small business in the 

United States is impacted by the 

proposed fee changes. 

Response: The USPTO disagrees that 

this rulemaking would impact every 

small business in the United States. 

Many small businesses do not hold any 

trademarks or may choose not to register 

their trademarks with the USPTO for 

reasons unrelated to the agency’s fees. 

The USPTO does not collect or 

maintain statistics in trademark cases on 

small- versus large-entity applicants, 

and this information would be required 

to determine the number of small 

entities affected by this rule. However, 

the agency does not anticipate that the 

final rule will have a disproportionate 

impact on any particular class of small 

or large entities. The USPTO chose the 

fee schedule in the final rule because it 

will enable the agency to achieve its 

goals effectively and efficiently without 

unduly burdening small entities, 

erecting barriers to entry, or stifling 

incentives to innovate. 

Comment 11: Commenters 

recommended that the USPTO include 

an exception or reduce fees for small 

and micro businesses, similar to the 

small and micro entity discounts offered 

for patent applicants and holders. 

Response: Section 10(a) of the AIA 

authorizes the Director to set or adjust 

any fee established, authorized, or 

charged under the Trademark Act, but it 

does not include the authority to 

provide entity discounts for trademark 

fees. 

Comment 12: The Office of Advocacy 

for the Small Business Administration 

(SBA) recommended that the USPTO 

create more clear and accessible 

guidance for small businesses seeking to 

apply for or renew a trademark. 

Response: The USPTO is committed 

to improving the resources offered to 

small businesses and entrepreneurs, 

including expanding our partner pro 

bono services and IP law school clinic 

programs. Resources for inventors and 

entrepreneurs are available on the 

USPTO website at https://

www.uspto.gov/Inventors. The USPTO’s 

Trademark Assistance Center (TAC), 

https://www.uspto.gov/ 

TrademarkAssistance can answer 

questions on a variety of trademark 

topics for first-time filers. 

Comment 13: The SBA commented 

that the unit cost recovery or across-theboard adjustment alternatives analyzed 

in the IRFA were better options than the 

proposed fee structure. 

Response: The USPTO is adopting the 

fee schedule detailed in this rulemaking 

because it will enable the agency to 

achieve its goals effectively and 

efficiently without unduly burdening 

small entities, erecting barriers to entry, 

or stifling incentives to innovate. 

The unit cost recovery alternative 

would produce a structure in which 

application and processing fees would 

increase significantly for all applicants, 

and post-registration maintenance filing 

fees would decrease dramatically when 

compared with current fees. The USPTO 

rejected this alternative because it does 

not reflect improvements in fee design 

to accomplish the agency’s stated 

objectives of encouraging broader use of 

IP rights-protection mechanisms and 

participation by more trademark 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
91074 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

owners, as well as practices that 

improve process efficiency. In contrast, 

the fee schedule in the final rule sets 

application filing fees below the unit 

cost of those services to encourage 

broader use of IP rights-protection 

mechanisms and participation by more 

trademark owners, including small 

businesses and individual filers. 

The USPTO also considered a 27% 

across-the-board increase for all fees. 

This fee schedule would have continued 

to promote innovation strategies and 

allow applicants to gain access to the 

trademark system through fees set below 

cost, while registrants pay maintenance 

fees above cost to subsidize the belowcost front-end fees. However, the agency 

ultimately rejected this proposal 

because, unlike the fee schedule 

outlined in the final rule, it would not 

enhance the efficiency of trademark 

processing and offers no new incentives 

for users to file more efficient and 

complete applications. 

Comment 14: One commenter 

suggested that before raising fees, the 

USPTO should assess the impact of 

recent agency measures like the U.S. 

counsel rule, the requirement for filers 

to log in with myUSPTO.gov, the 

TTAB’s expedited cancellation program, 

the Trademark Modernization Act, and 

the three-month response deadline for 

Office actions. 

Response: The agency implemented 

the measures identified in the comment 

to improve the quality of both trademark 

applications and the trademark register 

and to reduce trademark pendency. In 

developing the most judicious fee 

adjustments possible, the USPTO 

followed its fee setting process that 

includes a comprehensive review that 

identifies, assesses, and integrates fraud 

risk controls, recent initiatives and 

measures (including those identified in 

the comment), and trends. Thus, the 

USPTO incorporated the impact of these 

initiatives into the new fee structure by 

considering filing patterns, capacity, 

and financial implications. 

Comment 15: Commenters expressed 

opposition to the fee proposals and 

claimed any problems the USPTO faces 

are the result of ‘‘bad trademark 

applications being filed by the 

incompetent automated trademark 

service ‘mills’ and the unethical 

trademark attorneys.’’ In lieu of the 

proposed fee changes, commenters 

stated the USPTO should require 

comprehensive legal research before 

filing. 

Response: The USPTO enforces 

compliance with the Trademark Act’s 

requirements for applications through a 

number of methods. Both the Trademark 

Act and the rules of practice require a 

verified statement alleging that ‘‘to the 

best of the signatory’s knowledge and 

belief, the facts recited in the 

application are accurate.’’ 15 U.S.C. 

1051(a)(3), (b)(3), and 1126; 37 CFR 2.33 

and 2.34. If the filing basis is section 

1(b), section 44(d), or section 44(e), the 

statement must also assert that the 

verifier believes the applicant is entitled 

to, and has a bona fide intent to, use the 

mark in commerce on or in connection 

with the goods or services specified in 

the application, and that to the best of 

the signatory’s knowledge and belief, no 

other person has the right to use the 

mark in commerce, either in the 

identical form or in such near 

resemblance as to be likely, used on or 

in connection with the goods or services 

of such other person, to cause confusion 

or mistake, or to deceive. If the filing 

basis is section 1(a), the verification 

must also state that the applicant 

believes it is the owner of the mark and 

that it is in use in commerce. 

In addition, the USPTO is currently 

working to combat fraudulent 

applications through the recently 

created Register Protection Office (RPO). 

For example, in FY 2024, the RPO 

increased its capacity and improved its 

workflow to monitor and shutter 

USPTO.gov accounts for user agreement 

violations. 

Comment 16: One commenter stated 

the best course of action the USPTO can 

take to promote efficiency and reduce 

pendency is to better train examining 

attorneys. The commenter suggested 

that the USPTO instruct their examining 

attorneys that the ID Manual is not 

binding, and there is no need for 

conformity if an identification is 

acceptable as written. The commenter 

also stated that the USPTO should teach 

its examining attorneys not to issue 

unnecessary refusals. 

Response: The USPTO agrees that 

custom identifications may be 

acceptable as written, and that the 

agency should not issue unnecessary 

refusals. The new surcharge for entering 

identifications manually in a free-form 

text box is not an indication that custom 

identifications are unacceptable but 

reflects the extra work required by 

examining attorneys (and costs to the 

USPTO) to review each entry to 

determine its acceptability. 

As part of objective 2.2 in the 2022– 

2026 Strategic Plan, issuing and 

maintaining accurate and reliable 

trademark registrations, the agency is 

continuously enhancing training 

programs to keep pace with changing 

filing demands and with emerging 

issues and challenges. 

Comment 17: Commenters requested 

clarification on whether the proposed 

application and filing surcharge fees 

would apply to existing applications or 

only to applications filed after the 

effective date of the final rule. 

Response: In general, the proposed 

fees would apply only to applications 

filed after the effective date of the final 

rule. However, as discussed in Part IV: 

Individual Fee Rationale of this rule, 

any previously filed TEAS Plus 

applications that remain pending on or 

after the effective date of this final rule 

will be subject to the insufficient 

information surcharge fee if the 

application fails to satisfy any of the 

above requirements because the 

requirements for a base application are 

the same as the requirements for a TEAS 

Plus application. Under either system 

(TEAS or base plus surcharges), affected 

applications would be subject to a fee of 

$100 per class for failing to meet the 

requirements. 

Comment 18: One commenter noted 

the fee proposal would require a 

significant learning curve for legal and 

non-legal parties involved in the 

trademark registration process and will 

likely lead to more applicants seeking 

out legal assistance at law clinics. The 

commenter suggested that the USPTO 

establish clinical relationships with 

more Historically Black Colleges and 

Universities (HBCUs). 

Response: As part of objective 1.2 in 

the 2022–2026 Strategic Plan, the 

agency is continuing to expand its 

partner pro bono services and IP law 

school clinic programs to ensure greater 

access to counsel and to assist in 

procuring IP protection. Currently, 

about one third of law schools 

accredited by the American Bar 

Association (ABA), including three of 

six of HBCU law schools, participate in 

the USPTO’s Law School Clinic 

Certification Program. All three HBCU 

law schools participating have both 

patent and trademark clinics. 

Participating clinics provide legal 

services pro bono to the public, 

including to inventors, entrepreneurs, 

and small businesses. More information 

on the program is available on the 

USPTO’s website at https://

www.uspto.gov/LawSchoolClinic. 

Regarding the learning curve, the 

required information for a base 

application is the same as required for 

TEAS Plus applications. The new base 

filing plus surcharge filing solution will 

flag all information required for filing, 

much like the TEAS Plus application 

today. 

Comment 19: Commenters expressed 

concern that the fee increases will 

disproportionately affect lower-income 

filers such as small businesses, startups, 

and pro se filers, many of whom may be 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 91075 

sensitive to cost changes and lack the 

means to secure legal counsel. One 

commenter suggested that the proposed 

free-form text box surcharge, in 

particular, will negatively impact small 

businesses. 

Response: The agency strives to keep 

front-end initial filing fees below cost to 

encourage broader participation and 

open access to the trademark system. 

The new fees reflect higher inflationary 

costs but will remain below the net cost 

of examination and further minimize 

undue burdens by shifting higher fee 

requirements to applicants who trigger 

higher examination costs due to lengthy 

or less clear identifications of goods and 

services or missing information. The 

USPTO expects that a majority of filers 

will avoid the surcharges and pay only 

the base application fee because they 

will provide all required information, 

select their identifications from the ID 

Manual, and not exceed the 1,000- 

character limit for each class. 

Comment 20: One commenter 

expressed concern that higher fees may 

push more applicants to file pro se and 

cause applicants to unknowingly give 

up their rights or to file in a manner that 

does not reflect their actual use, thereby 

damaging the accuracy of the trademark 

register. 

Response: As noted in response to 

comment 12, the USPTO provides 

resources for applicants and registrants 

that explain trademark rights on the 

agency’s website at https://

www.uspto.gov/Inventors. Applicants 

and registrants may find these resources 

helpful in understanding their rights 

and how to file in a manner that best 

reflects their actual use. In addition, 

although the USPTO cannot provide 

legal advice, the TAC, https://

www.uspto.gov/TrademarkAssistance, 

can answer questions on a variety of 

trademark topics. 

The USPTO’s Law School Clinic 

Certification Program, https://

www.uspto.gov/LawSchoolClinic, 

includes over 60 participating law 

school clinics that provide patent or 

trademark legal services pro bono to 

qualified members of the public who are 

accepted as a client of a clinic. Each 

participating law school has 

requirements for accepting new clients 

and accepts new clients at their 

discretion. The agency is continuing to 

expand its partner pro bono services 

and IP law school clinic programs to 

ensure greater access to counsel and to 

assist in procuring IP protection. 

Comment 21: The SBA suggested that 

the introduction of surcharges will make 

it harder for applicants and legal 

counsel to accurately predict the overall 

cost associated with trademark 

applications. The SBA asserted that 

surcharges will negatively impact small 

businesses, which may lack resources 

for legal counsel or the ability to absorb 

unexpected costs. 

Response: The agency expects that the 

majority of filers will avoid surcharges 

and pay only the base application fee 

because they will provide all required 

information, select their identifications 

from the ID Manual, and not exceed the 

1,000-character limit for each class. The 

USPTO further believes that applicants 

and legal counsel should be able to 

anticipate which applications will 

require custom identifications or excess 

characters based on their knowledge of 

the complexity of the application and 

the covered classes. Prior to submitting 

their application, applicants will be 

presented with the entire application 

cost—including surcharges—and have 

the opportunity to provide complete 

information and identifications from the 

ID manual or custom identifications that 

are 1,000 characters or fewer in length, 

thus avoiding the surcharges. 

As discussed above, the USPTO 

endeavors to keep front-end initial filing 

fees below cost to encourage broader 

participation and open access to the 

trademark system. The new fees reflect 

higher costs but will remain below the 

net cost of examination and further 

minimize undue burdens by shifting 

higher fee requirements to applicants 

who trigger higher examination costs 

due to lengthy or less clear 

identifications of goods and services or 

missing information. 

The USPTO’s Law School Clinic 

Certification Program, https://

www.uspto.gov/LawSchoolClinic, 

includes over 60 participating law 

school clinics that provide patent or 

trademark legal services pro bono to 

qualified members of the public who are 

accepted as a client of a clinic. Each 

participating law school has 

requirements for accepting new clients 

and accepts new clients at their 

discretion. The agency is continuing to 

expand its partner pro bono services 

and IP law school clinic programs to 

ensure greater access to counsel and to 

assist in procuring IP protection. 

Targeted Fee Adjustments 

Trademark Application Filing Fees 

Comment 22: One commenter 

suggested that any increase to basic 

filing fees should be limited to 

budgetary changes for inflation and cost 

of living. 

Response: Projected revenue from the 

current fee schedule is insufficient to 

meet future budgetary requirements 

(costs), due largely to higher-thanexpected inflation in the broader U.S. 

economy that has increased the agency 

operating costs. Consequently, the 

USPTO’s aggregate operating costs will 

exceed aggregate revenue for the 

Trademarks program under the current 

schedule. 

The USPTO chose the adjustments 

established in this final rule, including 

application filing fees, because they will 

enable the agency to achieve its goals 

effectively and efficiently without 

unduly burdening small entities, 

erecting barriers to entry, or stifling 

incentives to innovate. If the USPTO 

were to set the fee rate for a base 

application lower than prescribed in the 

final rule, the lower application filing 

fee would need to be offset by raising 

other fees, reducing spending on core 

mission and strategic priorities, or 

depleting the operating reserves, thereby 

significantly increasing agency financial 

risk. 

Comment 23: Commenters expressed 

concern that higher application fees 

may deter many potential applicants 

from filing for trademarks, reducing the 

overall number of applications and 

registrations. 

Response: The USPTO raised 

trademark fees in 2017 and 2021, with 

effective dates of January 14, 2017, and 

January 2, 2021, respectively. From FY 

2016 to FY 2017, filings increased by 

about 60,000. During the fourth quarter 

of FY 2020 and the first quarter of FY 

2021, the agency experienced a surge in 

filings in advance of the fee increase. 

Outside of that surge, the USPTO notes 

that filings in each of the last three 

quarters of FY 2021 (after the new fees 

took effect) were higher than filings in 

the third quarter of FY 2020 or any prior 

quarter. Therefore, the data indicate that 

fee increases have not impacted the 

long-term trend of growth in trademark 

filings. 

As noted in the NPRM, outside 

research also suggests that demand for 

trademark applications is inelastic. See 

Gae ́tan De Rassenfosse, ‘‘On the Price 

Elasticity of Demand for Trademarks,’’ 

Social Science Research Network, Jan. 

28, 2018, https://doi.org/10.2139/ 

ssrn.2628646; Benedikt Herz and 

Malwina Mejer, ‘‘On the Fee Elasticity 

of the Demand for Trademarks in 

Europe,’’ Oxford Economic Papers, Jul. 

3, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1093/oep/ 

gpw035. 

Comment 24: One commenter 

expressed concern that increases to the 

base application fee, as compared to 

TEAS Plus and TEAS Standard fees, 

were too high and would be a 

significant burden for stakeholders, 

especially small businesses. The 

commenter noted that the effective fee 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
91076 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

increases range from 40% (base 

application fee compared to TEAS Plus 

application fee) to 114% (base 

application fee plus all three surcharge 

fees compared to TEAS Standard 

application fee), depending on whether 

the applicant incurs any additional 

surcharges. 

Response: The new fees reflect higher 

costs that have accumulated over the 

years and will remain below the net cost 

of examination, further minimizing 

undue burdens by shifting higher fee 

requirements to applicants who trigger 

higher examination costs. 

Individuals and small businesses 

comprise the majority of trademark 

filers, and many are one-time filers. The 

USPTO expects that the majority of 

these filers will avoid the surcharges 

and pay only the base application fee 

because they will provide all required 

information, select their identifications 

from the ID Manual, and not exceed the 

1,000-character limit for each class. 

Comment 25: Commenters disagreed 

with the USPTO’s decision to move 

away from the two-tiered TEAS system. 

These commenters suggested that the 

TEAS system allows customers to 

explore various options with different 

prices based on their needs and 

financial capacity. In contrast, 

commenters suggested that the proposed 

fees act as a barrier to entry by 

increasing application costs, removing 

other cost options from the process, and 

losing the advantage of an earlier filing 

date strategy because of the time 

required to comply. 

Response: The new system will allow 

customers to explore various options 

with different prices based on their 

needs and financial capacity. In 

addition, it is designed to make 

application fees more equitable by 

aligning filing costs with the work 

required for examination. It is similar to 

the existing system in that applicants 

who comply with the base requirements 

in their initial filing (comparable to 

TEAS Plus) will pay the lowest fees, as 

compared to applicants who fail to meet 

all requirements (comparable to TEAS 

Standard). The USPTO does not 

anticipate the total number of 

applications filed each year will change 

under the schedule enacted herein. The 

agency does anticipate that a larger 

share of applicants will seek to avoid 

the proposed surcharges, as compared to 

the share of applicants who used the 

TEAS Plus option under the existing fee 

schedule. 

Comment 26: Commenters expressed 

concern about the potential complexity 

and unpredictability of the new system, 

as it appears to create new procedures 

and requirements to apply for and 

obtain registration. 

Response: Although the new system 

introduces changes, as noted above it is 

similar to the prior system in that 

applicants complying with the base 

requirements in their initial filing 

(comparable to TEAS Plus) will pay the 

lowest fees under the new fee schedule, 

as compared to applicants who fail to 

meet all requirements (comparable to 

TEAS Standard). Prior to submitting 

their application, applicants will be 

presented with the entire cost, including 

surcharges. Applicants can avoid some 

or all of these surcharges by providing 

complete information and 

identifications from the ID Manual or 

custom identifications of 1,000 

characters or less per class. The 

information required to avoid the 

insufficient information surcharge fee is 

the same as that required for the TEAS 

Plus application. 

Comment 27: One commenter 

believed the fee for a base application is 

too high and should be set at the current 

rate for a TEAS Plus application ($250) 

because it has essentially the same 

requirements. 

Response: Maintaining the initial 

filing fee at $250 would not 

accommodate cost increases and would 

likely undermine the timeliness and the 

quality of the examination and 

registration processes. When the agency 

introduced the TEAS Plus option in 

2005, the fee was $275, and that costs 

for examination have risen significantly 

since that time. 

In addition, the USPTO is setting the 

fee for the base application at a rate 

greater than the current TEAS Plus fee 

to recover some additional examination 

costs earlier in the trademark life cycle. 

The new base application fee remains 

below the net cost of examination, and 

the new surcharges will further 

minimize undue burdens by shifting 

higher fee requirements to applicants 

who trigger higher examination costs. 

Comment 28: Commenters questioned 

why the USPTO did not include a 

greater increase to fees for paper 

applications, given the larger costs 

associated with these types of filings. 

Response: Under § 2.23, the USPTO 

requires electronic filing of all 

trademark correspondence, including 

applications. Filers may petition for 

special circumstances, but paper 

applications make up fewer than 1% of 

current filings. In addition to a higher 

filing fee, paper filers also incur an 

additional petition fee for requesting 

acceptance of a paper submission. 

Because the vast majority of filings are 

electronic, the higher cost of processing 

paper applications has little marginal 

impact on the USPTO’s overall costs. 

Comment 29: One commenter 

suggested that if the USPTO’s intent is 

to generate publication-ready 

applications to improve pendency, it 

should evaluate why pendency has 

increased rather than raise fees. 

Response: The USPTO is working 

diligently to balance timely examination 

with trademark quality. 

As discussed in the NPRM and in Part 

IV: Rulemaking Goals and Strategies of 

this rule, the agency’s recent trademark 

pendency challenge is the result of 

several years of sustained increases in 

trademark application filings 

punctuated by an unprecedented, yearlong influx during FY 2021 that created 

a significant unexamined application 

inventory. In addressing these 

challenges, the USPTO will continue to 

reevaluate its operating posture to 

maximize efficiency, set data-driven 

pendency goals, realign the trademark 

workforce to maintain stability during 

workload fluctuations and optimize 

pendency goals, and use available 

technology solutions to streamline and 

automate trademark work processes. 

Although new trademark application 

filings have since softened and 

inventory is stabilizing, unexamined 

inventory remains high and will take 

several years to address. 

Promoting efficient delivery of 

reliable IP rights is just one of the 

USPTO’s goals; another is to recover the 

aggregate costs of trademark operations 

through user fees. Without raising fees, 

the agency projects that the trademark 

operating reserve will fall below 

minimum levels in the next few years 

with a consequent impact on timeliness, 

application quality, and the integrity of 

the trademark register. The USPTO 

designed the new fee structure to 

enhance application quality and 

streamline the examination process, 

resulting in lower pendency and greater 

cost recovery. 

Trademark Application Filing Surcharge 

Fees 

Comment 30: Commenters expressed 

concern that the new surcharges could 

make it difficult for attorneys to provide 

clients with an accurate estimate of 

costs. 

Response: The USPTO expects that 

the majority of filers will avoid 

surcharges and pay only the base 

application fee because they will 

provide all required information, select 

their identifications from the ID Manual, 

and not exceed the 1,000-character limit 

per class. The USPTO further believes 

that applicants and legal counsel should 

be able to anticipate which applications 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 91077 

will require custom identifications or 

excess characters based on their 

knowledge of the complexity of the 

application and the covered classes. 

Prior to submitting their application, 

applicants will be presented with the 

entire cost, including surcharges, and 

have the opportunity to update before 

filing to potentially avoid the 

surcharges. The electronic application 

system will clearly indicate the fields 

required to avoid the incomplete 

information surcharge, and there will be 

no surcharge for IDs selected from the 

ID Manual within the application. 

Attorneys should be aware that IDs 

entered within the free-form text box 

will generate a surcharge, as will those 

that exceed the 1,000-character limit if 

entered in that box, and advise their 

clients accordingly. 

Comment 31: Commenters sought 

clarification on whether use of the freeform text box will subject applicants to 

both the insufficient information 

surcharge and the free-form text 

surcharge. 

Response: Use of the free-form text 

box will not trigger the insufficient 

information surcharge. As detailed in 

Part VII: Discussion of Specific Rules, 

the insufficient information surcharge 

will apply if an application fails to 

satisfy any of the requirements in 

paragraphs (a)(1) through (19) in the list 

of requirements for a base application 

under § 2.22. Applicants will incur the 

free-form text surcharge when they enter 

identifications of goods and/or services 

in the free-form text box (paragraph 

(a)(20) under § 2.22), and there will be 

no surcharge for IDs selected from the 

ID Manual within the application. 

Comment 32: Commenters sought 

clarification on when the insufficient 

information surcharge would be 

assessed: at filing, when applications 

are acted upon by the USPTO, or when 

amended. 

Response: The USPTO expects that if 

the insufficient information surcharge is 

assessed, the vast majority of applicants 

will be assessed the surcharge at filing, 

and the electronic filing system will 

display total filing cost prior to 

submission. Some filers could be 

assessed the surcharge after filing if the 

examining attorney determines that 

required information was missing on the 

original application. 

Comment 33: One commenter 

requested clarification on whether the 

insufficient information surcharge will 

be assessed per class or on each piece 

of missing information per class. 

Response: The insufficient 

information surcharge is a per-class fee 

that applies to applications that do not 

include required information at the time 

of filing. The surcharge is not per 

requirement; it is $100 per class, 

regardless of the number of 

requirements an applicant fails to 

satisfy. 

Comment 34: One commenter 

requested clarification regarding 

whether an applicant who uses the ID 

Manual that requires a fill-in (e.g., 

software) will be charged the 

insufficient information fee if the 

examining attorney does not approve 

the language used to describe the nature 

and function of the goods and/or 

services. 

Response: As with TEAS Plus, the 

agency will not require an additional fee 

if the identification of goods or services 

has a fill-in-the-blank element and the 

applicant inserts information that 

reasonably attempts to satisfy 

requirements in accordance with the 

instructions but requires amendment 

because the inserted information: (1) 

sets forth goods and/or services in 

another class (e.g., headwear, namely, 

football helmets); (2) is indefinite (e.g., 

maternity clothing, namely, sportswear); 

(3) includes indefinite wording from the 

parenthetical guidance provided for 

instructional purposes (e.g., ‘‘specify,’’ 

‘‘indicate,’’ ‘‘etc.’’); or (4) is inaccurate. 

Applicants will incur the free-form 

text surcharge if they leave the fill-inthe-blank element empty, insert 

information that is clearly inappropriate 

for the selected identification, or insert 

additional goods and/or services 

unrelated to the selected identification. 

For example, applicants also will incur 

the additional fee if they identify the 

goods and/or services in the original 

application as ‘‘processed meat, namely, 

laptop computers’’; ‘‘bicycle parts, 

namely, bicycle parts’’; or ‘‘sound 

recordings featuring music, and 

sunglasses.’’ In these situations, the 

applicant has, in effect, failed to submit 

an identification from the ID Manual, 

and the additional fee will apply even 

if the applicant deletes the unacceptable 

terminology. 

Comment 35: One commenter 

requested clarification regarding 

whether applicants will be assessed the 

insufficient information surcharge for 

not satisfying ‘‘all of the requirements of 

§ 2.34’’ in an application filing basis if 

the specimen of use is deemed 

unacceptable in a use-based application. 

Response: Similar to the guidance for 

TEAS Plus applications, as long as the 

specimen depicts the mark, the 

applicant will not incur an additional 

fee for registrations refused because the 

specimen is unacceptable. The 

insufficient information surcharge will 

apply if the mark on the specimen is 

materially different from the mark on 

the drawing. If the mark on the 

specimen and the drawing are 

materially different, the applicant has, 

in effect, failed to submit a specimen 

showing use of the mark sought to be 

registered. The surcharge will not apply 

if the difference between the mark on 

the specimen and the mark on the 

drawing is not material. 

Comment 36: Commenters, including 

the SBA, expressed concern regarding 

the difficulty of anticipating whether 

the insufficient information fee will 

apply for an applicant, given that many 

of the requirements are subjective to the 

examining attorney’s opinions and 

discretion, rather than objective factual 

standards. Commenters included color 

claim, description of a mark, 

identification of form of applicant, and 

translation of a mark as examples of 

subjective determinations where a fee 

could be imposed later in examination. 

Commenters suggested these questions 

will lead to accounting disputes, thus 

inhibiting the quality and timeliness of 

prosecution progress. 

Response: The USPTO acknowledges 

the commenters’ concerns and offers 

assurance that the agency strives to 

ensure consistent examination. An 

applicant may request that the USPTO 

review situations where, in their 

opinion, the agency has acted 

inconsistently in its treatment of their 

pending application(s) or recent 

registration(s). Applicants also may 

submit a request for review when a 

substantive or procedural issue has been 

addressed in a significantly different 

manner in different cases, subject to 

requirements on the Consistency 

Initiative page on the USPTO website at 

https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/ 

trademark-updates-andannouncements/consistency-initiative. 

If the applicant believes that the agency 

incorrectly imposed an insufficient 

information fee and has discussed the 

issue with the examining attorney, they 

may also contact the managing or senior 

attorney in the examining attorney’s law 

office. 

Comment 37: One commenter 

expressed concern that the list of 

criteria that would impose an 

insufficient information surcharge fee is 

not in line with the Trademark Manual 

of Examining Procedure. 

Response: The current Trademark 

Manual of Examining Procedure (May 

2024) provides guidance regarding 

TEAS Plus and TEAS Standard 

applications, including guidance 

regarding the processing fee for 

applications that do not meet the 

requirements for a TEAS Plus 

application under § 2.22(a). The 

information required to avoid the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
91078 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

insufficient information surcharge fee is 

the same as that required for the TEAS 

Plus application. After implementation 

of this final rule, the agency will update 

the manual in accordance with the 

requirements enacted herein. 

Comment 38: Commenters questioned 

why the insufficient information fee 

will be imposed on a per class basis 

when most basic information 

requirements are not class-based. 

Response: The USPTO has a 

longstanding practice of charging 

trademark fees on a per-class basis. The 

insufficient information surcharge 

mirrors the per-class processing fee for 

TEAS Plus applications that do not meet 

filing requirements. Any unmet 

requirements in a submitted application 

complicate the examination of every 

class claimed in the application. 

Comment 39: One commenter 

expressed concern regarding the 

insufficient information surcharge, 

given what they assert are the current 

application system’s limitations. 

Response: The new TM Center 

electronic filing system is capable of 

meeting the demands of the new fee 

structure and will clearly indicate the 

fields required to avoid the incomplete 

information surcharge. The agency also 

notes that prior to submitting their 

application, applicants will be 

presented with the entire cost, including 

surcharges, and have the opportunity to 

update their application before filing to 

potentially avoid the surcharges. 

Comment 40: One commenter 

suggested that the USPTO consider 

whether the insufficient information fee 

is appropriate in instances where an 

applicant makes a good-faith effort to 

supply required information, such as 

when they have no knowledge of a 

term’s non-English meaning. 

Response: Requiring the fee is 

appropriate in the situation described in 

the comment because § 2.32(a)(9) 

requires an applicant to research a mark 

that is comprised of or includes nonEnglish wording to determine whether 

there is a transliteration or translation of 

the wording. If there is, and the 

applicant omits the translation or 

transliteration, the examining attorney 

will issue an Office action requiring the 

insufficient information surcharge and 

submission of the translation and/or 

transliteration, as appropriate. If the 

initial application includes a translation 

or transliteration, the surcharge will not 

apply for later amendment of the 

translation or transliteration. The 

surcharge will apply if the translation or 

transliteration comprises or contains 

inappropriate material. 

Comment 41: Commenters noted that 

it is often in an applicant’s best interests 

to submit an application without 

signing the supporting verified 

statements or providing every piece of 

information in order to get the earliest 

possible filing date. They suggested that 

if the information is provided after filing 

but before examination, there has been 

no inconvenience to the USPTO, and 

therefore the insufficient information 

fee will be strategically restrictive and 

needlessly burdensome to applicants. 

Response: To qualify for the reduced 

base application fee, applicants must 

include all required information at 

filing, as with TEAS Plus and TEAS 

Standard. Applicants also must 

individually assess when to file their 

applications and what information they 

wish to provide at filing beyond the 

requirements for receipt of a filing date 

in § 2.21. 

Comment 42: One commenter 

expressed concern that there is no 

avenue to appeal or refund the 

insufficient information surcharge fee in 

cases where an applicant could prove 

their provided information was, in fact, 

sufficient. 

Response: If an examining attorney 

issues an Office action requiring 

payment of the surcharge for 

insufficient information, the applicant 

may respond with arguments and proof 

that the information was sufficient or 

that no information was required in that 

particular field. In such cases, the 

agency would not have collected the 

surcharge at filing. Therefore, no refund 

would be necessary for applicants who 

successfully overcome the surcharge 

requirement. 

Comment 43: Commenters requested 

clarification regarding when applicants 

will be assessed the free-form text 

surcharge: at filing, when the USPTO 

acts upon an application, or when 

amended. 

Response: The agency will assess the 

free-form text surcharge at any of the 

following points: at filing, when the 

application is amended to add a 

class(es) that was included in the freefrom text box and not paid for, or when 

it is determined upon examination that 

the applicant has, in effect, failed to 

submit an identification from the ID 

Manual. See the response to comment 

34 and Part V: Individual Fee Rationale 

for more information. 

Comment 44: One commenter 

requested clarification regarding how 

the USPTO will address amendments to 

descriptions selected from the ID 

Manual that are later modified to 

incorporate exclusionary language to 

differentiate from the goods or services 

of third parties, including prior 

registrants, whether in the context of 

agency refusals for an alleged likelihood 

of confusion under section 2(d), or 

opposition, cancellation, litigation, or 

other inter partes proceedings. 

Response: If the applicant originally 

selected the identification from the ID 

Manual within the electronic 

application, the addition of 

exclusionary language will not trigger 

the insufficient information or character 

count surcharges. 

Comment 45: One commenter 

requested clarification on whether use 

of the ID Manual drop-downs will result 

in the character limit surcharge. 

Response: Items selected from the ID 

Manual will not be subject to the 

character limit surcharge. 

Comment 46: One commenter 

requested clarification on the difference 

in substance between the agency’s 

Acceptable Identification of Goods and 

Services Manual and the Trademark 

Next Generation ID Manual. 

Response: There is no difference in 

substance between the two versions of 

the ID Manual. 

Comment 47: One commenter 

acknowledged that additional work is 

involved in examining free-form text 

identifications but questioned whether 

the fee is proportionate to the work 

performed by the USPTO. 

Response: The USPTO appreciates the 

commenter’s acknowledgement that 

examining free-form text identifications 

requires additional work. Examining 

attorneys often spend substantial time 

reviewing identifications provided in 

the free-form text box and may initiate 

multiple communications with the 

applicant before determining an 

acceptable identification. The USPTO 

believes this surcharge is proportionate 

to the additional costs associated with 

these more extensive reviews. 

Comment 48: Commenters, including 

the SBA, expressed concern that the 

free-form text surcharge may result in 

lower quality applications, as the ID 

Manual options for many industries are 

insufficient or too inaccurate to define 

their goods or services. Commenters 

asserted that this issue may cause some 

applicants to mistakenly narrow their 

goods and/or services identifications, 

choose the wrong goods and/or services 

identifications, or abandon their 

applications and rely on common law 

protections. They suggest that a review 

and cleanup of the ID Manual would 

make it more useful. 

Response: The USPTO currently has 

no plans for a comprehensive review of 

the ID Manual, but if it does not contain 

options relevant to applicants, they may 

submit new entries as described on the 

USPTO website at https://

www.uspto.gov/trademarks/guides-andmanuals/trademark-identificationVerDate Sep<11>2014 18:57 Nov 15, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\18NOR4.SGM 18NOR4

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 91079 

goods-and-services-manual-suggestions. 

As noted on the website, after the 

agency receives a proposed 

identification or recitation, it is 

reviewed by the Administrator for 

Trademark Classification Policy and 

Practice. The Administrator will 

determine whether to include the 

proposed identification or recitation, or 

a modified version, in the ID Manual. In 

addition, the Administrator will inform 

the submitting party whether the 

suggestion is accepted, rejected, or 

accepted in a modified form, typically 

within one to two business days. If 

accepted, the ID generally will appear in 

the next available weekly update. 

Comment 49: Commenters expressed 

concern regarding the process for 

updating the ID Manual. Specifically, 

they note that the free-form text box 

surcharge will likely cause an influx of 

requests and expressed concern that the 

USPTO may not have the capacity to 

address the requests in a timely manner. 

Additionally, these commenters 

believed the process to update the ID 

manual is slow and lacks transparency. 

The commenters expressed concern that 

the surcharge will negatively impact 

innovation and originality, while 

imposing a burden on applicants whose 

goods and services cannot accurately be 

described through standardized 

descriptions. 

Response: The USPTO is committed 

to timely and transparent updates to the 

ID manual. The Administrator for 

Trademark Classification Policy and 

Practice will, typically within one to 

two business days, inform the 

submitting party whether the suggestion 

is accepted, rejected, or accepted in a 

modified form. If accepted, the ID 

generally will appear in the next 

available weekly update. Should an 

influx of requests occur, the USPTO will 

monitor the requests to ensure that 

responses remain timely. 

Comment 50: One commenter 

suggested that it is more efficient for an 

applicant to copy and paste an ID 

Manual entry into the free-form text box 

than to individually search each entry 

from the drop-down menu. The 

commenter believed the surcharge will 

increase the time and legal costs 

charged to clients. 

Response: As discussed in the NPRM 

and in Part V: Individual Fee Rationale 

of this rule, examining attorneys 

generally do not need to review 

identifications of goods and/or services 

selected directly from the ID Manual 

within the electronic application form. 

Conversely, examining attorneys must 

carefully consider identifications 

entered in the free-form text box to 

determine whether the descriptions are 

acceptable as written or require 

amendment to sufficiently specify the 

nature of the goods and/or services. 

Applicants will still have the option to 

copy and paste into the free-form text 

box rather than select from the ID 

Manual, but those who do so will pay 

the surcharge to help offset the 

increased costs of examination, similar 

to applicants who chose not to file via 

TEAS Plus in the legacy system. 

Applicants may conduct an advanced 

search of the ID Manual to narrow 

results by following instructions 

provided on the USPTO website at 

https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/ 

guides-and-manuals/searchingtrademark-id-manual. 

Comment 51: One commenter 

questioned the rationale for the freeform text box surcharge since examining 

attorneys use a feature that color codes 

free-text identifications that are 

identical to the ID Manual. 

Response: As discussed in the NPRM 

and in Part V: Individual Fee Rationale 

of this rule, examining attorneys must 

carefully consider identifications 

entered in the free-form text box to 

determine whether the descriptions are 

acceptable as written or require 

amendment to sufficiently specify the 

nature of the goods and/or services. This 

applies even in situations where an 

applicant types or pastes the ID Manual 

identification. The USPTO believes this 

surcharge is proportionate to the 

additional costs associated with these 

more extensive reviews. 

Comment 52: One commenter 

disagreed with the free-form text box 

surcharge on the basis that applicants 

have historically had the ability to 

identify goods and/or services in the 

TEAS Standard application. 

Response: The USPTO acknowledges 

that applicants may identify goods and 

services in the TEAS Standard 

application. In order to do so, these 

applicants have paid a higher filing fee 

than for a TEAS Plus application, in 

which the goods and/or services must 

be chosen from the ID Manual within 

the form. Therefore, the additional 

surcharge for listing goods and/or 

services in the free-form text box of the 

base application versus selecting from 

the ID Manual is consistent with the 

higher TEAS Standard filing fee. 

Comment 53: Commenters requested 

clarification regarding when the 

character count surcharge will apply: at 

filing, when applications are acted upon 

by the agency, or when amended. Other 

commenters asked specifically about a 

USPTO-imposed requirement to further 

specify goods and/or services and the 

addition of exclusionary language to 

differentiate from the goods and/or 

services of third parties whose 

registrations or applications are cited 

during examination or asserted in an 

inter partes proceeding. 

Response: As discussed in Part V: 

Individual Fee Rationale of this rule, the 

character count surcharge will apply 

only at filing. A requirement to amend 

the identification to ensure it is 

sufficiently specific to provide adequate 

notice to third parties regarding the 

goods and/or services in connection 

with which the applicant intends to use 

or is using the mark will not trigger the 

surcharge, even if the amended 

identification exceeds 1,000 characters. 

The amendment of an identification to 

add exclusionary language also will not 

trigger the character count surcharge. 

Comment 54: Commenters requested 

clarification whether the character 

count surcharge will apply only to freeform descriptions or also to preapproved descriptions from the ID 

Manual. 

Response: The character count 

surcharge will apply to free-form 

descriptions only. It will not apply to 

items selected from the ID Manual 

within the electronic application, 

including fill-ins. 

Comment 55: One commenter 

suggested that the surcharge for 

exceeding the 1,000-character limit, per 

class, would shift the burden of 

application examination from the 

examining attorney to the applicant at 

the preliminary filing stage. 

Response: As discussed in the NPRM, 

some identifications comprise many 

pages and include goods and/or services 

in multiple classes. In some cases, the 

applicant has paid the fee for only one 

class, although the listed goods and/or 

services are classified in multiple 

classes. Even when the goods and/or 

services are separated into classes, the 

examining attorney must carefully 

review the entire identification to 

ensure each item is sufficiently definite 

and properly classified. The surcharge 

does not shift any burden of proper 

examination from the examining 

attorney; rather, it ensures that 

applicants who submit lengthy 

identifications pay the costs of their 

review. 

Comment 56: Commenters, including 

the SBA, expressed concern that the 

character count surcharge may create 

inequities between applicants in 

different industries, with certain 

industries having easy-to-describe goods 

or services that will not trigger the 

character count surcharge, while 

applicants in newer, more innovative 

industries may claim only two to three 

goods or services before incurring the 

surcharge. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
91080 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

Response: As discussed above, 

applications with descriptions of goods 

and/or services comprising thousands of 

characters generate additional work for 

examining attorneys to determine 

whether the descriptions are acceptable 

as written or require amendment for 

sufficient specification. The increased 

costs of this additional work have 

historically been borne by all trademark 

owners, and the tiered system is 

designed to make application fees more 

equitable by aligning them with the 

required work. 

To avoid incurring the character 

count surcharge, applicants may submit 

new entries for inclusion in the ID 

Manual as described on the USPTO 

website at https://www.uspto.gov/ 

trademarks/guides-and-manuals/ 

trademark-identification-goods-andservices-manual-suggestions. As noted 

in responses to comments 48 and 49, the 

Administrator for Trademark 

Classification Policy and Practice will, 

typically within one to two business 

days, inform the submitting party 

whether the suggestion is accepted, 

rejected, or accepted in a modified form. 

If accepted, the ID generally will appear 

in the next available weekly update. If 

the entry is included in the ID Manual, 

the applicant may then choose it 

directly without incurring the character 

count surcharge, even it if exceeds 1,000 

characters. 

Comment 57: The SBA noted that 

since goods and/or services cannot be 

added after submission of an 

application, it is common practice to file 

with a broader list and then refine it 

later. Therefore, the character count 

surcharge could be strategically 

restrictive to applicants. 

Response: Under this final rule, 

applicants may still submit broad lists 

by selecting items from the ID Manual. 

Identifications chosen from the ID 

Manual within the electronic 

application are not subject to the 

character count surcharge even if they 

exceed 1,000 characters. Applicants 

may also submit broad lists in the freeform text box but must pay the 

associated surcharge plus the character 

count surcharge for lists exceeding 

1,000 characters to compensate for the 

additional time spent on those 

applications. To avoid these surcharges, 

applicants should make every effort to 

use the ID Manual within the electronic 

application, which includes thousands 

of identifications, or submit their 

custom identification for inclusion in 

the manual. 

Comment 58: One commenter 

suggested that the character limit 

surcharge may lead to more applications 

with less thorough descriptions, which 

could then result in more challenges 

related to the searching and clearing of 

marks. 

Response: The USPTO agrees that 

submitting indefinite or broad 

identifications could result in more 

Office actions that require sufficiently 

definite identifications and, in some 

cases, more likelihood-of-confusion 

refusals. Therefore, the agency 

encourages applicants to use 

identifications in clear, concise terms 

that the general public will easily 

understand and that accurately and 

completely describe the goods or 

services. Further, the USPTO notes that 

applicants may use the ID Manual 

within the electronic application, which 

includes thousands of identifications, to 

avoid the surcharge or submit their 

custom identification for inclusion in 

the manual. 

Comment 59: Commenters offered 

several alternatives for the USPTO to 

consider in place of the 1,000-character 

limit. The alternatives offered include a 

2,000-character limit, a 3,000-character 

limit, and a limit on the number of 

goods and/or services separated by 

semicolons. 

Response: Based on an internal 

analysis, the USPTO determined that 

the 1,000-character limit strikes the 

balance of assessing a surcharge on 

applications that require more resources 

to examine without impacting a 

majority of applicants. As noted in Part 

V: Individual Fee Rationale, less than 

5% of trademark applications contain 

custom identifications of goods and/or 

services that exceed 1,000 characters per 

class. 

Comment 60: One commenter 

suggested that if the USPTO institutes 

the free-form text box surcharge, then 

the character count surcharge is 

unnecessary. 

Response: Each surcharge serves a 

different purpose. As discussed in the 

NPRM and Part V: Individual Fee 

Rationale of this rule, examining 

attorneys generally do not need to 

review identifications of goods and/or 

services selected directly from the ID 

Manual within the electronic 

application. Conversely, examining 

attorneys must carefully consider 

identifications entered in the free-form 

text box to determine whether the 

descriptions are acceptable as written or 

require amendment to sufficiently 

specify the nature of the goods and/or 

services. In several cases, the 

identification comprised multiple pages 

and included goods and/or services in 

multiple classes. The character count 

surcharge ensures that applicants who 

submit lengthy identifications pay the 

costs of their review. 

Comment 61: One commenter 

expressed concern with spacing and 

punctuation being included in the 

character limit, suggesting that a word 

count would be a more equitable metric. 

Response: The USPTO considered 

both options and found that character 

counts are straightforward and 

predictable, and clearly reflect the 

customer’s actions. Word counts are 

more complex and variable. 

Madrid Application Filing Fees 

Comment 62: One commenter argued 

that it is not possible to implement the 

necessary operational, financial, and IT 

changes in a timely manner that would 

allow WIPO to determine if an 

international applicant should be 

charged the custom ID/free-form text 

surcharge. 

Response: Of the comments on 

various aspects of the Madrid 

Application Filing Fee system proposed 

in the NPRM, perhaps the most notable 

was regarding the inability of WIPO to 

institute a system to collect surcharges 

prior to recordation of the international 

registration or subsequent designation 

in the proposed timeframe. As a result, 

as discussed in Part V: Individual Fee 

Rationale, the USPTO will continue 

charging a flat application fee for 

Madrid applications. To align Madrid 

fees with domestic fees, per treaty 

obligations, the USPTO is adjusting the 

flat application fee to $600, which is 

commensurate with what applicants 

would expect to pay, on average, if 

filing directly under the base 

application and surcharge system. The 

USPTO will reconsider a base filing and 

surcharge system for Madrid 

applications when WIPO develops the 

capacity to implement surcharges. 

Comment 63: One commenter 

suggested an alternative way to 

implement the proposed application fee 

structure for Madrid applications, with 

applicants charged a flat application 

filing fee (that does not exceed the 

amount applicants would have paid to 

the USPTO) until WIPO is able to 

implement the necessary operational, 

financial, and IT changes required for 

the proposed fee structure. At that time, 

Madrid applicants would be charged a 

base application fee and the relevant 

surcharges, but the commenter 

suggested that the insufficient 

information surcharge is incompatible 

with the Madrid Protocol, and therefore 

applicants would not be charged this fee 

at any point. 

Response: The USPTO is 

implementing these suggestions in this 

final rule as discussed in the response 

to comment 62 and in Part V: Individual 

Fee Rationale. The USPTO will 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 91081 

reconsider a base filing and surcharge 

system for Madrid applications in the 

future when WIPO develops the 

capacity to implement surcharges. If so, 

the agency will ensure it complies with 

all treaty obligations when developing 

such a system. 

Comment 64: Commenters disagreed 

with charging Madrid applicants the 

insufficient information surcharge, 

claiming there is no legal basis for 

demanding any information beyond 

what is foreseen under Article 2 of the 

Madrid Protocol or for requiring 

additional payments for missing 

information. 

Response: As discussed in response to 

comment 62 and in Part V: Individual 

Fee Rationale, the agency is maintaining 

a flat application fee for Madrid 

applications at this time. The USPTO 

may reconsider a base filing and 

surcharge system for Madrid 

applications in the future if WIPO 

develops the capacity to implement 

surcharges. If so, the USPTO will ensure 

it complies with all treaty obligations 

when developing such a system. 

Comment 65: Commenters disagreed 

with the surcharge system on the basis 

that there are no provisions in the 

Madrid System legal framework that 

would allow either WIPO or the USPTO 

to require additional fees after the 

international registration or subsequent 

designation has been recorded. 

Response: As discussed in response to 

comment 62 and in Part V: Individual 

Fee Rationale, the agency is maintaining 

a flat application fee for Madrid 

applications at this time. The USPTO 

may reconsider a base filing and 

surcharge system for Madrid 

applications in the future if WIPO 

develops the capacity to implement 

surcharges. If so, the USPTO will ensure 

it complies with all treaty obligations 

when developing such a system. 

Comment 66: Commenters expressed 

concern about the burden application 

surcharges will place on foreign filers, 

asserting that the proposal could lead to 

unexpected charges for Madrid 

applicants who are unaware of USPTO 

guidelines. Commenters also suggested 

the surcharges could lead to 

unreasonable delays due to Office 

actions required to collect surcharge 

fees. 

Response: As discussed in response to 

comment 62 and in Part V: Individual 

Fee Rationale, the agency is maintaining 

a flat application fee for Madrid 

applications at this time. Thus, there 

will be no delay in prosecuting Madrid 

applications because an Office action 

will not be needed to collect any 

surcharges after application submission. 

The USPTO may reconsider a base filing 

and surcharge system for Madrid 

applications in the future if WIPO 

develops the capacity to implement 

surcharges. 

Comment 67: One commenter 

asserted that the character count 

surcharge is prejudiced against foreign 

applicants and will price them out of 

registering marks in the United States. 

Response: As discussed in response to 

comment 62 and in Part V: Individual 

Fee Rationale, the agency is maintaining 

a flat application fee for Madrid 

applications at this time. The USPTO 

may reconsider a base filing and 

surcharge system for Madrid 

applications in the future if WIPO 

develops the capacity to implement 

surcharges. Further, for applicants who 

file directly with the agency rather than 

using the Madrid Protocol, the character 

count surcharge will be applied to both 

foreign and domestic applicants. 

Comment 68: One commenter 

suggested that Madrid applicants should 

be given a clear and satisfactory method 

to satisfy the requirements of the 

proposed application system to avoid 

incurring any surcharges. 

Response: As discussed in response to 

comment 62 and in Part V: Individual 

Fee Rationale, the USPTO is 

maintaining a flat application fee for 

Madrid applications at this time. The 

USPTO may reconsider a base filing and 

surcharge system for Madrid 

applications in the future if WIPO 

develops the capacity to implement 

surcharges. 

Comment 69: Some commenters 

expressed concern that Madrid filers 

may be given an advantage over 

domestic filers with the proposed 

application system because it is unclear 

how and when the proposed fees will be 

collected from Madrid applicants. 

Response: As discussed in response to 

comment 62 and in Part V: Individual 

Fee Rationale, the agency is maintaining 

a flat application fee for Madrid 

applications at this time. In accordance 

with the Madrid Protocol’s requirement 

that the fee for Madrid filers does not 

exceed that for domestic filers, the 

USPTO set this flat application fee 

commensurate with what applicants 

would expect to pay, on average, if 

filing directly with the USPTO under 

the base application and surcharge 

system. The agency may reconsider a 

base filing and surcharge system for 

Madrid applications in the future if 

WIPO develops the capacity to 

implement surcharges. 

Comment 70: Commenters expressed 

support for higher fees for Madrid 

applications. One commenter suggested 

that a flat fee priced at or above the 

estimated unit cost is the best option in 

the interests of American innovators 

and that strong arguments exist for 

pricing fees higher across the board for 

foreign filers, regardless of filing basis. 

Another commenter based their support 

on their belief that Madrid applications 

are more complex and have historically 

had higher processing costs than 

domestic applications. 

Response: As discussed in response to 

comment 62 and in Part V: Individual 

Fee Rationale, the USPTO is 

maintaining a flat application fee for 

Madrid applications at this time. The 

agency may reconsider a base filing and 

surcharge system for Madrid 

applications in the future if WIPO 

develops the capacity to implement 

surcharges. 

The agency notes that the Agreement 

on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual 

Property Rights (TRIPS) requires that, 

with very limited exceptions, World 

Trade Organization (WTO) members 

provide national and most-favorednation treatment to the nationals of 

other WTO members with regard to the 

protection and enforcement of IP rights. 

Higher fees for international filers from 

WTO member countries may conflict 

with this obligation. 

Finally, while the adjusted fee for 

Madrid applications remains below the 

estimated unit cost, the USPTO believes 

the new fees will be a step toward 

addressing the higher costs for such 

applications. The agency expects that 

ongoing collaboration with WIPO and 

other stakeholders will help harmonize 

applications and better align fees with 

costs. 

Comment 71: One commenter offered 

suggestions to improve implementation 

of the proposed application fee 

structure, assuming the proposed fees 

are in compliance with the Madrid 

Protocol. They suggested amending the 

WIPO designation forms to include 

explicit notices that failure to provide 

the required information will incur 

additional fees. They also suggested 

allowing Madrid applicants an 

additional three months from time of 

filing to find and appoint a U.S. attorney 

to amend, supplement, or otherwise 

provide any additional information to 

avoid incurring the surcharges. 

Response: As discussed in response to 

comment 62 and in Part V: Individual 

Fee Rationale, the USPTO is 

maintaining a flat application fee for 

Madrid applications at this time. The 

agency may reconsider a base filing and 

surcharge system for Madrid 

applications in the future if WIPO 

develops the capacity to implement 

surcharges. The USPTO cannot make 

changes to forms submitted to WIPO but 

looks forward to ongoing collaboration 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
91082 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

with WIPO and other stakeholders to 

help harmonize applications. 

Comment 72: One commenter argued 

that, regarding the free-form text and 

character count surcharges, brand 

owners who hold marks in multiple 

countries should continue to have 

freedom to choose how to draft a 

description of goods and services, 

including the degree of 

comprehensiveness. 

Response: As discussed in response to 

comment 62 and in Part V: Individual 

Fee Rationale, the agency is maintaining 

a flat application fee for Madrid 

applications at this time. The USPTO 

may reconsider a base filing and 

surcharge system for Madrid 

applications in the future if WIPO 

develops the capacity to implement 

surcharges. 

Applicants filing directly with the 

USPTO will continue to have freedom 

to choose how to draft a description of 

goods and/or services, but the free-form 

text box and character count surcharges 

will help recover the additional costs 

associated with more extensive reviews. 

Comment 73: One commenter noted 

that the ID Manual is not integrated 

with either the Madrid Goods and 

Services Database (MGS) administered 

by WIPO or the Harmonized Database 

available via the European Union 

Intellectual Property Office’s (EUIPO) 

TMClass tool. The commenter asserted 

that it would be beneficial if these 

issues were addressed in the framework 

of global collaborative initiatives on 

classification. 

Response: This suggestion is outside 

the scope of this rulemaking. 

Amendment To Allege Use and 

Statement of Use Fees 

Comment 74: Commenters supported 

charging identical fees for filing an 

amendment to allege use (AAU) or a 

statement of use (SOU). 

Response: The USPTO appreciates the 

commenters’ support for this change. 

Comment 75: One commenter 

disagreed with the USPTO’s decision to 

charge identical fee rates for filing an 

AAU or SOU, arguing that these fees 

should be set closer to their individual 

processing costs. The commenter also 

asserted that the agency should charge 

less for an AAU to incentivize 

applicants, because the AAUs create a 

stronger application since they are filed 

before initial examination. 

Response: Fees for the AAUs and 

SOUs remain aligned under this 

rulemaking to continue longstanding 

practice and because the ABI data 

suggest the agency’s costs of examining 

the AAUs and SOUs are similar. The 

agency disagrees with the commenter’s 

statement that the AAUs create a 

stronger application prior to 

examination. Although, in some cases, 

an AAU may be filed prior to initial 

examination, it is generally filed during 

the examination process or in response 

to an Office action. An SOU is filed 

during a defined statutory period after 

publication. Further, it is not clear that 

a lower fee for the AAUs will 

incentivize their filing versus the SOUs. 

In many cases, applicants are not 

prepared to show use of their mark in 

commerce prior to publication and will 

not benefit from lower fees for filing an 

allegation of use during that time. 

Comment 76: Commenters supported 

the USPTO’s decision to not move 

forward with a proposal to increase the 

fees for a fourth or fifth request for an 

extension of time to file an SOU. 

Response: The USPTO appreciates the 

commenters’ support for this decision. 

Comment 77: Commenters asserted 

that the increase to fees for filing an 

AAU or SOU are too high, with one 

commenter suggesting any increases 

should be limited to an inflationary 

adjustment because the work involved 

in processing them has not changed. 

Response: The USPTO appreciates the 

commenters’ feedback. Examination 

time for the AAUs and SOUs has grown 

due to the increased submission of 

questionable specimens, resulting in the 

issuance of more Office actions. Further, 

the USPTO has not adjusted the AAU 

and SOU fees since 2002, and unit costs 

for these items continue to increase; the 

unit costs for FY 2023 are already close 

to or exceeding the adjusted rates. 

Comment 78: One commenter 

expressed concern that increasing the 

AAU and SOU fees may cause 

applicants to prematurely abandon their 

applications prior to registration, which 

would further decrease maintenance 

filings in the future. 

Response: The $50 increase in AAU 

and SOU fees is relatively small 

compared to both the overall costs of 

pursing trademark registration and the 

value of a registered trademark. 

Therefore, this fee increase should have 

little impact on the number of 

applicants who abandon their 

applications prior to registration. 

Comment 79: One commenter stated 

that fee increases for applications filed 

under section 1(b) of the Trademark Act 

were inappropriate and asserted that 

such applications save time during the 

initial examination compared to 

applications filed under section 1(a). 

Response: Applications filed under 

section 1(b) do not save time during the 

initial examination, as an AAU filed 

during the prosecution of a section 1(b) 

application (i.e., prior to publication) 

requires the examining attorney to, in 

essence, perform a second initial 

examination to ensure that the specimen 

of use submitted with the AAU shows 

use in commerce for the mark and goods 

and/or services identified in the 

application and that the dates of use and 

other required elements are acceptable. 

Similarly, an SOU filed after an issued 

notice of allowance requires the 

examining attorney to perform a similar 

review for acceptability. 

Post-Registration Maintenance Fees 

Comment 80: Commenters stated that 

the increases to maintenance fees are 

too high, and any increases should be 

more aligned with the cost of providing 

these services. 

Response: The agency has an 

obligation to recover the aggregate costs 

of trademark operations through user 

fees, and above-cost post-registration 

maintenance fees recover costs incurred 

by the USPTO during examination. If 

the agency were to set fee rates for 

maintenance fees lower than prescribed 

in this final rule, the change would need 

to be offset by raising other fees such as 

base application fees, reducing spending 

on core mission and strategic priorities, 

or depleting the operating reserves, 

significantly increasing financial risk to 

the agency. 

The share of applications from groups 

that have been historically less likely to 

maintain their registrations has 

increased. This shift in registration 

patterns generates less revenue. 

Therefore, the USPTO must adjust the 

balance between aggregate revenue 

derived from application fees and postregistration maintenance fees to sustain 

low barriers to filing new applications. 

Also, costs to process maintenance 

filings have increased due to higher 

inflationary costs, post-registration 

audits, and elevated legal review to 

address potential fraud or improper 

filing behaviors. 

Comment 81: Commenters suggested 

that the increases to application fees, 

including the new surcharges, should be 

sufficient to address the higher costs of 

processing applications without 

increasing maintenance fees. 

Response: The USPTO has 

purposefully maintained initial fees 

below cost to reduce barriers to entry, 

resulting in a shortfall. Fees for postregistration activities help recover that 

shortfall. The agency reviews fees on a 

biennial basis, allowing the agency to 

balance costs associated with the 

services it provides stakeholders. 

The USPTO is increasing the fees for 

section 8 and section 71 declarations of 

use because of the elevated level of 

effort and expertise involved in their 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 91083 

examination, which includes 

determining acceptability of their proof 

of use and whether the registration 

should be subject to audit. However, in 

light of comments raised by the public, 

the agency has reallocated some of the 

proposed fee increase from section 9 

renewal applications to section 8 and 

section 71 declarations by lowering the 

proposed section 9 renewal fee and 

aligning it with section 8 and section 71 

declarations, setting all of these fees at 

$325 per class when filed electronically. 

Comment 82: One commenter 

suggested that lowering maintenance 

fees could increase the number of 

maintained registrations, potentially 

lowering the number of incoming 

applications and reducing overall costs 

to the USPTO. 

Response: While the agency has not 

conducted a full elasticity study, 

experience indicates that long-term 

maintenance trends are not due to fee 

rate changes. Maintenance trends vary 

from year to year, but when the USPTO 

lowered section 9 renewal fees in FY 

2015, renewal rates decreased rather 

than increased. When the agency 

increased section 8 declaration of use 

fees in FY 2017 and FY 2021, there was 

not a noticeable impact on maintenance 

rates. 

Comment 83: Commenters expressed 

concern that increases to maintenance 

fees will result in fewer trademark 

owners maintaining their registrations, 

making the register less reliable and 

leading to more owners relying on their 

common law rights, which could be 

problematic. 

Response: As noted in response to 

comment 82, registration renewal rates 

did not appreciably change in response 

to previous changes to post-registration 

maintenance fees. 

Comment 84: One commenter 

suggested that the increases to section 8 

and section 9 fees could lead to 

registrants filing new applications, 

rather than maintaining their existing 

registrations. 

Response: Although this result could 

happen, the registrant would bear the 

risks of losing their registration and the 

legal presumptions that accompany 

registration. Further, as noted in 

response to comment 82, registration 

renewal rates did not appreciably 

change in response to the agency’s 

previous changes to post-registration 

maintenance fees. 

Comment 85: One commenter 

asserted that the USPTO provided no 

data in the NPRM to support the 

assertion that setting renewal fees above 

unit cost is ‘‘less likely to impact 

entrepreneurship.’’ 

Response: As noted in response to 

comment 82, registration renewal rates 

did not appreciably change in response 

to previous changes to post-registration 

maintenance fees. These fees are due at 

a time when the registrant has 

experienced several years of the benefits 

of registration. Further, fee collections 

from post-registration maintenance fees 

help the USPTO set initial filing fees 

below cost to encourage broader 

participation and open access to the 

trademark system. If the agency were to 

set fee rates for maintenance fees lower 

than prescribed in this final rule, the 

change would need to be offset by 

raising other fees such as base 

application fees, reducing spending on 

core mission and strategic priorities, or 

depleting the operating reserves, 

significantly increasing financial risk to 

the agency. The USPTO expects no 

negative impact on entrepreneurship 

from this rule. 

Letter of Protest Fee 

Comment 86: One commenter 

expressed support for the $150 fee for 

letters of protest proposed in the NPRM, 

and the USPTO’s responsiveness to the 

feedback from the public hearing after 

initially submitting to TPAC a fee of 

$250. The commenter suggested that the 

proposed smaller fee increase reflects 

the USPTO welcoming the public’s 

support of and enthusiasm for the 

agency and its work. 

Response: The USPTO appreciates the 

commenter’s support of its adjustment 

to the proposed fee. 

Comment 87: One commenter 

supported the proposed fee increase for 

letters of protest because they rarely 

alter an application’s outcome. 

Response: The USPTO appreciates the 

commenter’s support for the increased 

fee for letters of protest. 

Comment 88: Commenters suggested 

that the letters of protest fee should be 

either partially or fully refunded if the 

USPTO forwards the letter to an 

examining attorney. 

Response: The fee structure is 

designed to encourage the filing of 

relevant, well-supported letters of 

protest instead of frivolous filings. A 

relevant, well-supported letter of protest 

provides objective evidence bearing on 

the registrability of a mark. The unit 

costs for letters of protest are high 

because they are reviewed by 

specialized staff who must determine 

whether they comply with the 

requirements for submission and should 

be forwarded to the examining attorney. 

In addition, under the TMA, the USPTO 

must review and act on letters of protest 

within 60 days of receipt. The agency 

bears the costs of processing these 

letters regardless of whether they are 

forwarded to an examining attorney. In 

addition, the USPTO’s refund authority 

is generally limited to fees paid by 

mistake or in excess of requirements. 

Comment 89: Commenters, including 

the SBA, asserted that the proposed 

increase to the letter of protest fee is too 

high and will discourage valuable 

submissions. They noted that letters of 

protest are valuable for filers and the 

USPTO because they provide industry 

expertise to examining attorneys and 

preserve the integrity of the trademark 

register. Some commenters suggested 

that well-founded letters of protest are 

a useful tool to avoid additional costs to 

the USPTO and can result in fewer 

challenges to registrability decisions. 

Response: As noted in the response to 

comment 88, the fee increase reflects the 

resources required to consider letters of 

protest. Specialized staff must 

determine if a letter of protest complies 

with submission requirements and 

whether to forward the letter to an 

examining attorney. In addition, under 

the TMA, the agency must review and 

act on letters of protest within 60 days 

of receipt. 

On the other hand, the commenters’ 

statements regarding the value of letters 

of protest are not easily quantified. 

Many issues identified in letters of 

protest such as likelihood of confusion, 

descriptiveness, and non-use may have 

been identified independently without 

submission of the letter. Moreover, 

although examining attorneys may take 

into account evidence submitted in a 

letter of protest, they must still perform 

a complete examination of the relevant 

application. Finally, although the 

USPTO has not performed an elasticity 

analysis related to letters of protest, it 

notes that the number of letters decided 

has increased since it first introduced a 

letter of protest fee in 2021. 

Comment 90: One commenter stated 

the USPTO should create more detail 

positions for current USPTO employees 

to assist with the review of letters of 

protest and further automate the 

procedure for acceptance of these 

letters. The commenter asserted that this 

approach would reduce the overall 

processing costs for letters of protest. 

Response: Specialized staff must 

review and determine whether a letter 

of protest complies with submission 

requirements and whether to forward 

the letter of protest to the examining 

attorney, limiting opportunities for 

details or automation. 

Other Petition Fees 

Comment 91: One commenter 

expressed concern that the increase to 

the fee for petitions to the Director is 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
91084 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

unduly burdensome, because some 

petitions may be unavoidable due to 

actions outside of an applicant’s control 

or needed to correct an error made by 

the USPTO. The commenter noted that 

some filers use petitions to protect 

themselves from scams, such as keeping 

a home address off the public record or 

requesting the withdrawal of an 

unauthorized filing. The commenter 

suggested that the USPTO provide 

separate forms at no or reduced cost for 

correcting errors made by third parties 

that are outside of the applicant’s 

control. 

Response: If the need to file a petition 

is caused by the actions of a third party, 

such as a petition to withdraw an 

unauthorized filing, the agency does not 

require a petition fee, as long as the 

petitioner selects the appropriate option 

on the electronic form. If the petitioner 

pays the fee up front by mistake, the 

agency will refund it when the petition 

is granted. 

The fee is required for petitions to 

waive the domicile address requirement 

based on an extraordinary situation. 

However, if entered in the proper field, 

the domicile address is not part of the 

public record, and no petition would be 

required. Applicants and registrants 

may then designate a separate 

correspondence email address to receive 

information from the USPTO relating to 

their trademark. Applicants and 

registrants must always be cautious of 

communications regarding their 

application or registration. Scammers 

and private companies often use 

publicly viewable trademark 

information to call, mail, or email 

applicants and registrants with 

solicitations and scams, including 

posing as the USPTO. 

Comment 92: One commenter stated 

the increase to the fee for petitions to 

revive is too high because it is not 

proportional to the work being done, 

asserting that these petitions are 

automatically processed (i.e. processed 

without review) by the USPTO. The 

commenter further suggested that the 

USPTO should provide a refund in 

situations where the petition was 

required to correct an error made by the 

USPTO. 

Response: Only some petitions to 

revive an abandoned application under 

§ 2.66 are automatically processed. Also, 

in the case of agency error resulting in 

an abandoned application or a canceled 

or expired registration, the applicant or 

registrant may file a request to reinstate 

the application or registration under 

§ 2.64. There is no fee for a request for 

reinstatement. In addition, the USPTO’s 

refund authority is generally limited to 

fees paid by mistake or in excess of 

what is required. 

VII. Discussion of Specific Rules 

The following section describes the 

changes to the CFR for all fees set or 

adjusted in this final rule, including all 

fee amendments, fee discontinuations, 

and changes to the regulatory text. 

Section 2.6 

Section 2.6 is amended by revising 

paragraph (a) to set forth trademark 

process fees as authorized under section 

10 of the AIA. The changes to the fee 

amounts indicated in § 2.6 are shown in 

table 10. 

To clarify fees paid for filling 

applications under section 66(a) 

(Madrid Protocol) and renewing 

international registrations at WIPO, the 

USPTO adds paragraphs (a)(1)(ii)(A) and 

(B) and (a)(5)(iii). 

The USPTO amends paragraph 

(a)(1)(iii) to provide for filing ‘‘an 

application electronically’’ rather than 

filing ‘‘a TEAS Standard application.’’ 

The USPTO amends paragraph 

(a)(1)(iv) to add the surcharge for 

insufficient information. 

The USPTO amends paragraph 

(a)(1)(v) to add the surcharge for adding 

goods and/or services in the free-form 

text box. 

The USPTO adds paragraph (a)(1)(vi) 

to add the surcharge for each additional 

1,000 characters. 

The USPTO amends paragraphs 

(a)(2)(ii), (a)(3)(ii), (a)(4)(ii), (a)(5)(ii), 

(a)(6)(ii), (a)(7)(ii), (a)(8)(ii), (a)(9)(ii), 

(a)(10)(ii), (a)(11)(ii), (a)(12)(ii) and (iv), 

(a)(13)(ii), (a)(14)(ii), (a)(15)(ii) and (iv), 

(a)(16)(ii), (a)(17)(ii), (a)(18)(ii), (v), and 

(vii), (a)(19)(ii), (a)(20)(ii), (a)(21)(ii), 

(a)(22)(ii), (a)(23)(ii), (a)(27), and 

(a)(28)(ii) by replacing references to 

‘‘TEAS’’ or ‘‘ESTTA’’ with 

‘‘electronically.’’ 

To clarify fees paid for services 

provided by the TTAB, the USPTO 

amends paragraphs (a)(18)(i) and (ii) by 

removing references to the TTAB and 

adding references to the TTAB to 

paragraphs (a)(16) through (18). 

TABLE 10—§ 2.6 FEE CHANGES

CFR section Fee code Description Paper or 

electronic 

Current 

fee 

Final rule 

fee 

2.6(a)(1)(i) .............................................. 6001 ........ Application (paper), per class ................ Paper ................ $750 $850 

2.6(a)(1)(ii)(A) ......................................... 7931 ........ Application fee filed with WIPO (section 

66(a)), per class.

Electronic .......... 500 600 

2.6(a)(1)(ii)(A) ......................................... 7933 ........ Subsequent designation fee filed with 

WIPO (section 66(a)), per class.

Electronic .......... 500 600 

2.6(a)(1)(iii) ............................................. 7009 ........ Application (TEAS Standard), per class Electronic .......... 350 Discontinue 

2.6(a)(1)(iii) ............................................. New ......... Base application, per class .................... Electronic .......... n/a 350 

2.6(a)(1)(iv) ............................................. 7007 ........ Application (TEAS Plus), per class ........ Electronic .......... 250 Discontinue 

2.6(a)(1)(iv) ............................................. New ......... Fee for insufficient information (sections 

1 and 44), per class.

Paper ................ n/a 100 

2.6(a)(1)(iv) ............................................. New ......... Fee for insufficient information (sections 

1 and 44), per class.

Electronic .......... n/a 100 

2.6(a)(1)(v) ............................................. 6008 ......... Fee for failing to meet TEAS Plus requirements, per class.Paper ................ 100 Discontinue 

2.6(a)(1)(v) ............................................. 7008 ......... Fee for failing to meet TEAS Plus requirements, per class.Electronic .......... 100 Discontinue 

2.6(a)(1)(v) ............................................. New ......... Fee for using the free-form text box to 

enter the identification of goods/services (sections 1 and 44), per class.

Paper ................ n/a 200 

2.6(a)(1)(v) ............................................. New ......... Fee for using the free-form text box to 

enter the identification of goods/services (sections 1 and 44), per class.

Electronic .......... n/a 200 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 91085 

TABLE 10—§ 2.6 FEE CHANGES—Continued 

CFR section Fee code Description Paper or 

electronic 

Current 

fee 

Final rule 

fee 

2.6(a)(1)(vi) ............................................. New ......... For each additional group of 1,000 

characters beyond the first 1,000 

(sections 1 and 44), per class (paper).

Paper ................ n/a 200 

2.6(a)(1)(vi) ............................................. New ......... For each additional group of 1,000 

characters beyond the first 1,000 

(sections 1 and 44), per class.

Electronic .......... n/a 200 

2.6(a)(2)(i) .............................................. 6002 ........ Amendment to allege use (AAU), per 

class.

Paper ................ 200 250 

2.6(a)(2)(ii) .............................................. 7002 ........ Amendment to allege use (AAU), per 

class.

Electronic .......... 100 150 

2.6(a)(3)(i) .............................................. 6003 ........ Statement of use (SOU), per class ....... Paper ................ 200 250 

2.6(a)(3)(ii) .............................................. 7003 ........ Statement of use (SOU), per class ....... Electronic .......... 100 150 

2.6(a)(5)(i) .............................................. 6201 ........ Section 9 registration renewal application, per class.Paper ................ 500 525 

2.6(a)(5)(ii) .............................................. 7201 ........ Section 9 registration renewal application, per class.Electronic .......... 300 325 

2.6(a)(5)(iii)(A) ........................................ 7932 ........ Renewal fee filed at WIPO .................... Electronic .......... 300 325 

2.6(a)(12)(i) ............................................ 6205 ......... Section 8 declaration, per class ............ Paper ................ 325 425 

2.6(a)(12)(ii) ............................................ 7205 ......... Section 8 declaration, per class ............ Electronic .......... 225 325 

2.6(a)(13)(i) ............................................ 6208 ......... Section 15 declaration, per class .......... Paper ................ 300 350 

2.6(a)(13)(ii) ............................................ 7208 ......... Section 15 declaration, per class .......... Electronic .......... 200 250 

2.6(a)(15)(i) ............................................ 6005 ......... Petition to the Director ........................... Paper ................ 350 500 

2.6(a)(15)(ii) ............................................ 7005 ......... Petition to the Director ........................... Electronic .......... 250 400 

2.6(a)(15)(iii) ........................................... 6010 ........ Petition to revive an application ............. Paper ................ 250 350 

2.6(a)(15)(iv) ........................................... 7010 ......... Petition to revive an application ............. Electronic .......... 150 250 

2.6(a)(25) ................................................ 7011 ......... Letter of protest ...................................... Electronic .......... 50 150 

Section 2.22 

Section 2.22 is amended by revising 

the section heading and paragraph (a) to 

set forth the requirements for a base 

application fee. 

The USPTO is amending the section 

heading to read ‘‘Requirements for a 

base application.’’ 

The USPTO is amending the 

introductory text to paragraph (a) to 

reflect the requirements for an 

application for registration under 

section 1 or section 44 of the Act that 

meet the requirements for a filing date 

under § 2.21 to pay the base application 

fee. 

The USPTO removes paragraph (a)(7) 

and redesignates paragraphs (a)(8) 

through (20) as paragraphs (a)(7) 

through (19). 

The USPTO amends redesignated 

paragraph (a)(11) by replacing the 

reference to ‘‘TEAS Plus form’’ with 

‘‘application.’’ 

The USPTO amends paragraph (a)(17) 

by replacing references to ‘‘portrait’’ 

with ‘‘likeness’’ to maintain consistency 

within the paragraph. 

The USPTO adds paragraph (a)(20) 

which establishes the requirement of 

using correctly classified goods and/or 

services from the ID Manual. 

The USPTO amends paragraph (b) to 

provide that an applicant must pay the 

fee for insufficient information, per 

class, if the application fails to satisfy 

any of the requirements in paragraphs 

(a)(1) through (19). 

The USPTO amends paragraph (c) to 

provide that an applicant must pay the 

fee for using the free-form text box to 

enter the identification of goods/ 

services, per class, if the application 

fails to satisfy the requirements of 

paragraph (a)(20). 

The USPTO amends paragraph (d) to 

provide that an applicant must pay the 

fee for each additional group of 1,000 

characters beyond the first 1,000, per 

class, if the application fails to satisfy 

the requirements of paragraph (a)(20) 

and the identification of goods and/or 

services in any class exceeds 1,000 

characters. 

Section 7.6 

Section 7.6 is amended by revising 

paragraph (a) to set forth the schedule 

of U.S. process fees as authorized under 

section 10 of the AIA. The changes to 

the fee amounts in § 7.6 are shown in 

table 11. 

The USPTO amends paragraph 

(a)(1)(ii), (a)(2)(ii), (a)(3)(ii), (a)(4)(ii), 

(a)(5)(ii), and (a)(6)(ii) and (iv) by 

replacing references to ‘‘TEAS’’ or 

‘‘ESTTA’’ with ‘‘electronically.’’ 

TABLE 11—§ 7.6 FEE CHANGES

CFR section Fee code Description Paper or 

electronic 

Current 

fee 

Final rule 

fee 

7.6(a)(6)(i) ................................... 6905 ........ Section 71 declaration, per class ...................... Paper ................ $325 $425 

7.6(a)(6)(ii) .................................. 7905 ........ Section 71 declaration, per class ...................... Electronic .......... 225 325 

VIII. Rulemaking Considerations 

A. America Invents Act 

This final rule seeks to set and adjust 

fees under section 10(a) of the AIA as 

amended by the SUCCESS Act. Section 

10(a) authorizes the Director to set or 

adjust by rule any trademark fee 

established, authorized, or charged 

under the Trademark Act for any 

services performed by, or materials 

furnished by, the USPTO (see section 10 

of the AIA, Pub. L. 112–29, 125 Stat. 

284, 316–17, as amended by Pub. L. 

115–273, 132 Stat. 4158). Section 10 

authority includes flexibility to set 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
91086 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

individual fees in a way that furthers 

key policy factors, while taking into 

account the cost of the respective 

services. 

Section 10(e) sets forth the general 

requirements for rulemakings that set or 

adjust fees under this authority. In 

particular, section 10(e)(1) requires the 

Director to publish in the Federal 

Register any proposed fee change under 

section 10 and include in such 

publication the specific rationale and 

purpose for the proposal, including the 

possible expectations or benefits 

resulting from the proposed change. For 

such rulemakings, the AIA requires that 

the USPTO provide a public comment 

period of not less than 45 days. 

TPAC advises the Under Secretary of 

Commerce for Intellectual Property and 

Director of the USPTO on the 

management, policies, goals, 

performance, budget, and user fees of 

trademark operations. When adopting 

fees under section 10, the AIA requires 

the Director to provide TPAC with the 

proposed fees at least 45 days prior to 

publishing them in the Federal Register. 

TPAC then has at least 30 days within 

which to deliberate, consider, and 

comment on the proposal, as well as 

hold a public hearing(s) on the proposed 

fees. TPAC must make a written report 

available to the public of the comments, 

advice, and recommendations of the 

committee regarding the proposed fees 

before the USPTO issues any final fees. 

The USPTO is required to consider and 

analyze any comments, advice, or 

recommendations received from TPAC 

before finally setting or adjusting fees. 

Consistent with this framework, on 

May 8, 2023, the Director notified TPAC 

of the USPTO’s intent to set and adjust 

trademark fees and submitted a 

preliminary trademark fee proposal with 

supporting materials. The preliminary 

trademark fee proposal and associated 

materials are available on the fee setting 

section of the USPTO website at https:// 

www.uspto.gov/ 

FeeSettingAndAdjusting. TPAC held a 

public hearing at the USPTO’s 

headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia, on 

June 5, 2023, and members of the public 

were given the opportunity to provide 

oral testimony. A transcript of the 

hearing is available on the USPTO 

website at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/ 

default/files/documents/TPAC-FeeSetting-Hearing-Transcript20230605.pdf. Members of the public 

were also given the opportunity to 

submit written comments for TPAC to 

consider, and these comments are 

available on Regulations.gov at https:// 

www.regulations.gov/docket/PTO-T2023-0016. On August 14, 2023, TPAC 

issued a written report setting forth in 

detail its comments, advice, and 

recommendations regarding the 

preliminary proposed fees. The TPAC 

Report is available on the USPTO 

website at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/

default/files/documents/TPAC-Reporton-2023-Fee-Proposal.docx. The USPTO 

considered and analyzed all comments, 

advice, and recommendations received 

from TPAC before publishing the NPRM 

on March 26, 2024 (89 FR 20897). The 

NPRM comment period closed on May 

28, 2024. Section 10(e) of the Act 

requires the Director to publish the final 

fee rule in the Federal Register and the 

Official Gazette of the USPTO at least 45 

days before the final fees become 

effective. Pursuant to this requirement, 

this rule is effective on January 18, 

2025. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

The USPTO publishes this Final 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) 

as required by the RFA (5 U.S.C. 601 et 

seq.) to examine the impact of the 

USPTO’s changes to trademark fees on 

small entities. Under the RFA, 

whenever an agency is required by 5 

U.S.C. 553 (or any other law) to publish 

an NPRM, the agency must prepare and 

make available for public comment an 

initial regulatory flexibility analysis 

(IRFA), unless the agency certifies under 

5 U.S.C. 605(b) that the proposed rule, 

if implemented, will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities (see 

5 U.S.C. 603, 605). 

The agency published an IRFA, along 

with the NPRM, on March 26, 2024 (89 

FR 20897). Given that the final 

trademark fee schedule, based on the 

assumptions found in the FY 2025 

Budget, is projected to result in $696.8 

million in additional aggregate revenue 

over the current fee schedule (baseline) 

for the period including FY 2025 to FY 

2029, the USPTO acknowledges that the 

fee adjustments will impact all entities 

seeking or maintaining a trademark 

registration. The $696.8 million in 

additional aggregate revenue results 

from an additional $102.5 million in FY 

2025, $146.0 million in FY 2026, $143.2 

million in FY 2027, $149.5 million in 

FY 2028, and $155.7 million in FY 

2029. This implies annualized effects of 

$138.9 million using a 3% discount rate 

and $138.0 million using a 7% discount 

rate. 

Items 1–6 below discuss the six items 

specified in 5 U.S.C. 604(a)(1)–(6) to be 

addressed in an FRFA. Item 6 below 

discusses alternatives to this final rule 

that the agency considered. 

1. A Statement of the Need for, and 

Objectives of, the Rule 

Section 10 of the AIA authorizes the 

Director of the USPTO to set or adjust 

by rule any trademark fee established, 

authorized, or charged under title 35 

U.S.C., for any services performed, or 

materials furnished, by the USPTO. 

Section 10 prescribes that trademark 

fees may be set or adjusted only to 

recover the aggregate estimated costs for 

processing, activities, services, and 

materials relating to trademarks, 

including USPTO administrative costs 

with respect to such trademark fees. The 

final rule will recover the aggregate 

costs of trademark operations while 

enabling the USPTO to predictably 

finance the agency’s daily operations 

and mitigate financial risks. 

2. A Statement of the Significant Issues 

Raised by the Public Comments in 

Response to the Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis, a Statement of the 

Assessment of the Agency of Such 

Issues, and a Statement of Any Changes 

Made in the Final Rule as a Result of 

Such Comments 

The USPTO received two public 

comments in response to the IRFA. 

Details of those comments and the 

USPTO’s responses are discussed and 

analyzed above in Part VI: Discussion of 

Comments, specifically comments 10 

and 13. No changes were made in the 

final rule as a result of these comments. 

3. The Response of the Agency to Any 

Comments Filed by the Chief Counsel 

for Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration in Response to the 

Proposed Rule, and a Detailed 

Statement of Any Change Made to the 

Proposed Rule in the Final Rule as a 

Result of the Comments 

The Office of Advocacy for the Small 

Business Administration submitted a 

comment on the proposed rule on May 

28, 2024, and it is available on 

Regulations.gov at https://

www.regulations.gov/comment/PTO-T2022-0034-0025. Summaries of the 

SBA’s comments and the USPTO’s 

responses are detailed above in Part VI: 

Discussion of Comments, specifically 

comments 12, 13, 21, 36, 48, 56, 57, and 

89. No changes were made in the final 

rule as a result of these comments. 

4. A Description of and, Where Feasible, 

an Estimate of the Number of Small 

Entities to Which the Rule Will Apply 

or an Explanation of Why No Such 

Estimate Is Available 

The USPTO does not collect or 

maintain statistics in trademark cases on 

small- versus large-entity applicants, 

and this information would be required 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 91087 

to determine the number of small 

entities affected by this final rule. 

This final rule applies to any entity 

filing trademark documents with the 

USPTO. The USPTO estimates, based on 

the assumptions in the FY 2025 Budget, 

that during the first full fiscal year 

under the fees as proposed (FY 2026), 

the USPTO would collect approximately 

$146 million more in trademark 

processing and TTAB fees compared to 

projected fee collections under the 

current fee schedule. The USPTO would 

receive an additional $100 million in 

application filing fees, including 

applications filed through the Madrid 

Protocol and application surcharges; $4 

million more from petitions, letters of 

protest, and requests for 

reconsideration; $7 million more from 

SOU and AAU fees; and $35 million 

more for post-registration maintenance 

fees, including sections 9 and 66 

renewals and sections 8, 71, and 15 

declarations. 

The USPTO collects fees for 

trademark-related services at different 

points in the trademark application 

examination process and over the 

registration life cycle. In FY 2023, 

application filing fees made up about 

54% of all trademark fee collections. 

Fees for proceedings and appeals before 

the TTAB comprised 3% of revenues. 

Fees from other trademark activities, 

petitions, assignments and 

certifications, and Madrid processing 

totaled approximately 5% of revenues. 

Fees for post-registration and intent-touse filings, which subsidize the costs of 

filing, search, examination, and the 

TTAB, comprised 38%. 

The USPTO bases its five-year 

estimated aggregate trademark fee 

revenue on the number of trademark 

applications and other fee-related filings 

it expects for a given fiscal year, work 

it expects to process in a given fiscal 

year (an indicator of fees paid after the 

agency performs work, such as SOU 

fees), expected examination and process 

requests in a given fiscal year, and the 

expected number of post-grant decisions 

to maintain trademark protection in a 

given fiscal year. Within its iterative 

process for estimating aggregate 

revenue, the USPTO adjusts individual 

fee rates up or down based on policy 

and cost considerations and then 

multiplies the resulting fee rates by 

appropriate workload volumes to 

calculate a revenue estimate for each 

fee, which is then used to calculate 

aggregate revenue. Additional details 

about the USPTO’s aggregate revenue, 

including projected workloads by fee, 

are available on the fee setting section 

of the USPTO website at https://

www.uspto.gov/about-us/performanceand-planning/fee-setting-and-adjusting. 

5. A Description of the Projected 

Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 

Compliance Requirements of the Rule, 

Including an Estimate of the Classes of 

Small Entities Which Will Be Subject to 

the Requirement and the Type of 

Professional Skills Necessary for 

Preparation of the Report or Record 

This final rule imposes no new 

reporting or recordkeeping 

requirements. The main purpose of this 

final rule is to set and adjust trademark 

fees. 

6. A Description of the Steps the 

Agency Has Taken To Minimize the 

Significant Economic Impact on Small 

Entities Consistent With the Stated 

Objectives of Applicable Statutes, 

Including a Statement of the Factual, 

Policy, and Legal Reasons for Selecting 

the Alternative Adopted in the Final 

Rule and Why Each One of the Other 

Significant Alternatives to the Rule 

Considered by the Agency Which Affect 

the Impact on Small Entities Was 

Rejected 

The USPTO considered several 

alternative approaches to this final rule 

based on the assumptions found in the 

FY 2025 Budget. These alternatives are: 

(1) a description of the fee schedule 

adopted in this final rule; (2) fees set at 

the unit cost of providing individual 

services based on FY 2022 costs; (3) an 

across-the-board fee adjustment of 27%; 

and (4) no change to the baseline of 

current fees. The four alternatives are 

explained here with additional 

information regarding the development 

of each proposal and aggregate revenue 

estimate. A description of the Aggregate 

Revenue Estimating Methodology is 

available on the fee setting section of the 

USPTO website at http://

www.uspto.gov/about-us/performanceand-planning/fee-setting-and-adjusting. 

a. Alternative 1: Final Trademark Fee 

Schedule—Setting and Adjusting 

Trademark Fees During Fiscal Year 2025 

The USPTO is setting or adjusting 

trademark fees codified in 37 CFR parts 

2 and 7. Fees are adjusted for all 

application filing types (i.e., paper 

applications, electronic applications, 

and requests for extension of protection 

under section 66(a) of the Trademark 

Act (15 U.S.C. 1141f)), including new 

surcharge fees. The USPTO also is 

increasing other trademark fees to 

promote effective administration of the 

trademark system, including fees for 

post-registration maintenance under 

sections 8, 9, and 71, certain petitions 

to the Director, and filing a letter of 

protest. 

The USPTO chose the adjustments 

established in this final rule because 

they will enable the agency to achieve 

its goals effectively and efficiently 

without unduly burdening small 

entities, erecting barriers to entry, or 

stifling incentives to innovate. The 

alternative established here finances the 

USPTO’s objectives for meeting its goals 

outlined in the Strategic Plan. These 

goals include optimizing trademark 

application pendency through the 

promotion of efficient operations and 

filing behaviors, issuing accurate and 

reliable trademark registrations, and 

encouraging access to the trademark 

system for all stakeholders. All 

applicants and registrants will benefit 

under this final rule because it will 

allow the agency to grant registrations 

sooner and more efficiently. All 

trademark applicants should benefit 

from the efficiencies realized under the 

final rule. 

The USPTO anticipates that the 

impact of an increased fee on letter of 

protest filers would be small. The fee of 

$150 is set at a level low enough to 

enable the filing of relevant, wellsupported letters, but high enough to 

recover some additional processing 

costs. The USPTO enacted the current 

fee for letters of protest on November 

17, 2020, (85 FR 73197) and 

implemented it on January 2, 2021. 

Despite this fee, the USPTO received 

almost 4,000 letters in each of the last 

two fiscal years and expects the volume 

will grow to more than 5,000 letters per 

year by FY 2029. 

The fee schedule under this final rule 

is available on the fee setting section of 

the USPTO website at https://

www.uspto.gov/ 

FeeSettingAndAdjusting, in the 

document titled ‘‘Setting and Adjusting 

Trademark Fees During Fiscal Year 

2025: Final Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Tables.’’ 

b. Other Alternatives Considered 

In addition to the final fee schedule 

set forth in Alternative 1, the USPTO 

considered three other alternative 

approaches. The agency calculated 

proposed fees and the resulting revenue 

derived from each alternative scenario. 

The proposed fees and their 

corresponding revenue tables are 

available on the fee setting section of the 

USPTO website at https://

www.uspto.gov/ 

FeeSettingAndAdjusting. Please note, 

only the fees outlined in Alternative 1 

are set or adjusted in this final rule; 

other alternative scenarios are shown 

only to demonstrate the analysis of 

other options. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
91088 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

Alternative 2: Unit Cost Recovery 

The USPTO considered an alternative 

that would set all trademark fees to 

recover 100% of unit costs associated 

with each service, based on historical 

unit costs. The USPTO uses the ABI to 

determine the unit costs of activities 

that contribute to the services and 

processes associated with individual 

fees. It is common practice in the 

Federal Government to set a particular 

fee at a level that recovers the cost of a 

given good or service. OMB Circular A– 

25, User Charges, states that user 

charges (fees) should be sufficient to 

recover the full cost to the Federal 

Government of providing the particular 

service, resource, or good when the 

Government is acting in its capacity as 

sovereign. Under the USPTO’s unit cost 

recovery alternative, fees are generally 

set in line with the FY 2022 costs of 

providing the service. The agency 

recognizes that this approach does not 

account for changes in the fee structure 

or inflationary factors that could likely 

increase the costs of certain trademark 

services and necessitate higher fees in 

the outyears. However, the USPTO 

contends that FY 2022 data is the best 

available to inform this analysis. 

This alternative does not align well 

with the strategic and policy goals of 

this final rule. It would produce a 

structure in which application and 

processing fees would increase 

significantly for all applicants, and postregistration maintenance filing fees 

would decrease dramatically when 

compared with current fees. The USPTO 

rejected this alternative because it does 

not address improvements in fee design 

to accomplish the agency’s stated 

objectives of encouraging broader usage 

of IP rights-protection mechanisms and 

participation by more trademark 

owners, as well as practices that 

improve process efficiency. 

The fee schedule for this alternative is 

available on the fee setting section of the 

USPTO website at https://

www.uspto.gov/ 

FeeSettingAndAdjusting, in the 

document titled ‘‘Setting and Adjusting 

Trademark Fees During Fiscal Year 

2025: Final Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Tables.’’ 

Alternative 3: Across-the-Board 

Adjustment 

The USPTO considered a 27% acrossthe-board increase for all fees. This 

alternative would maintain the status 

quo structure of cost recovery, where 

processing and examination costs are 

subsidized by fees for ITU extensions 

and post-registration maintenance 

filings (which exceed the cost of 

performing these services), given that all 

fees would be adjusted by the same 

escalation factor. This fee schedule 

would continue to promote innovation 

strategies and allow applicants to gain 

access to the trademark system through 

fees set below cost, while registrants pay 

maintenance fees above cost to 

subsidize the below-cost front-end fees. 

This alternative would also generate 

sufficient aggregate revenue to recover 

aggregate operating costs. 

The USPTO ultimately rejected this 

proposal. Unlike the final fee schedule, 

it would not enhance the efficiency of 

trademark processing and offer no new 

incentives for users to file more efficient 

and complete applications. 

The proposed fee schedule for this 

alternative is available in the document 

titled ‘‘Setting and Adjusting Trademark 

Fees During Fiscal Year 2025: Final 

Regulatory Flexibility Act Tables’’ at 

http://www.uspto.gov/about-us/ 

performance-and-planning/fee-settingand-adjusting. 

Alternative 4: Baseline (Current Fee 

Schedule) 

The final alternative the USPTO 

considered would leave all trademark 

fees as currently set. The USPTO 

rejected this alternative because, due to 

changes in demand for certain services 

and rising costs, a fee increase is 

necessary to meet future budgetary 

requirements as described in the FY 

2025 Budget. Under this alternative, the 

USPTO would expect to collect 

sufficient revenue to continue executing 

only some, but not all, trademark 

priorities. This approach would not 

provide sufficient aggregate revenue to 

accomplish the USPTO’s rulemaking 

goals as stated in Part IV: Rulemaking 

Goals and Strategies. Improvement 

activities, including better protecting 

the trademark register, enhanced IT, and 

tactical management programs would 

continue, but at a significantly slower 

rate as increases in core trademark 

examination costs crowd out funding for 

other improvements. Likewise, without 

a fee increase, the USPTO would 

deplete its trademark operating reserve, 

leaving the agency vulnerable to fiscal 

and economic events. This alternative 

would expose core operations to 

unacceptable levels of financial risk and 

position the USPTO to return to making 

inefficient, short-term funding 

decisions. 

The fee schedule for this alternative is 

available on the fee setting section of the 

USPTO website at https://

www.uspto.gov/ 

FeeSettingAndAdjusting, in the 

document titled ‘‘Setting and Adjusting 

Trademark Fees During Fiscal Year 

2025: Final Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Tables.’’ 

C. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review) 

This rulemaking has been determined 

to be significant for purposes of 

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (Sept. 30, 

1993), as amended by E.O. 14094 (April 

6, 2023), Modernizing Regulatory 

Review. 

D. Executive Order 13563 (Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review) 

The USPTO has complied with E.O. 

13563 (Jan. 18, 2011). Specifically, the 

USPTO has, to the extent feasible and 

applicable: (1) made a reasoned 

determination that the benefits justify 

the costs of this final rule; (2) tailored 

this final rule to impose the least burden 

on society consistent with obtaining the 

regulatory objectives; (3) selected a 

regulatory approach that maximizes net 

benefits; (4) specified performance 

objectives; (5) identified and assessed 

available alternatives; (6) involved the 

public in an open exchange of 

information and perspectives among 

experts in relevant disciplines, affected 

stakeholders in the private sector, and 

the public as a whole, and provided 

online access to the rulemaking docket; 

(7) attempted to promote coordination, 

simplification, and harmonization 

across government agencies and 

identified goals designed to promote 

innovation; (8) considered approaches 

that reduce burdens and maintain 

flexibility and freedom of choice for the 

public; and (9) ensured the objectivity of 

scientific and technological information 

and processes. 

E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

This rulemaking does not contain 

policies with federalism implications 

sufficient to warrant preparation of a 

Federalism Assessment under E.O. 

13132 (Aug. 4, 1999). 

F. Executive Order 13175 (Tribal 

Consultation) 

This rulemaking will not: (1) have 

substantial direct effects on one or more 

Indian Tribes; (2) impose substantial 

direct compliance costs on Indian Tribal 

governments; or (3) preempt Tribal law. 

Therefore, a Tribal summary impact 

statement is not required under E.O. 

13175 (Nov. 6, 2000). 

G. Executive Order 13211 (Energy 

Effects) 

This rulemaking is not a significant 

energy action under E.O. 13211 because 

this final rulemaking is not likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 91089 

Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects 

is not required under E.O. 13211 (May 

18, 2001). 

H. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice 

Reform) 

This rulemaking meets applicable 

standards to minimize litigation, 

eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden 

as set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) 

of E.O. 12988 (Feb. 5, 1996). 

I. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of 

Children) 

This rulemaking does not concern an 

environmental risk to health or safety 

that may disproportionately affect 

children under E.O. 13045 (Apr. 21, 

1997). 

J. Executive Order 12630 (Taking of 

Private Property) 

This rulemaking will not affect a 

taking of private property or otherwise 

have taking implications under E.O. 

12630 (Mar. 15, 1988). 

K. Congressional Review Act 

Under the Congressional Review Act 

provisions of the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996 (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), the USPTO 

will submit a report containing the rule 

and other required information to the 

United States Senate, the United States 

House of Representatives, and the 

Comptroller General of the GAO. The 

changes in this final rule are expected 

to result in an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more, a 

major increase in costs or prices, or 

significant adverse effects on 

competition, employment, investment, 

productivity, innovation, or the ability 

of United States-based enterprises to 

compete with foreign-based enterprises 

in domestic and export markets. 

Therefore, this final rule meets the 

criteria in 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

L. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

The changes set forth in this 

rulemaking do not involve a Federal 

intergovernmental mandate that will 

result in the expenditure by State, local, 

and Tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, of $100 million (as adjusted) 

or more in any one year, or a Federal 

private sector mandate that will result 

in the expenditure by the private sector 

of $100 million (as adjusted) or more in 

any one year and will not significantly 

or uniquely affect small governments. 

Therefore, no actions are necessary 

under the provisions of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995. See 2 

U.S.C. 1501 et seq. 

M. National Environmental Policy Act 

This rulemaking will not have any 

effect on the quality of the environment 

and is thus categorically excluded from 

review under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969. See 

42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. 

N. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

The requirements of section 12(d) of 

the National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) are not applicable because this 

rulemaking does not contain provisions 

that involve the use of technical 

standards. 

O. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) requires that the 

USPTO consider the impact of 

paperwork and other information 

collection burdens imposed on the 

public. The collection of information 

involved in this final rule has been 

reviewed and previously approved by 

OMB under control numbers 0651– 

0009, 0651–0050, 0651–0051, 0651– 

0054, 0651–0055, and 0651–0061. In 

addition, updates to the aforementioned 

information collections as a result of 

this final rule will be submitted to the 

OMB as non-substantive change 

requests. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of law, no person is required to respond 

to nor shall any person be subject to a 

penalty for failure to comply with a 

collection of information subject to the 

requirements of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act unless that collection of 

information displays a currently valid 

OMB control number. 

P. E-Government Act Compliance 

The USPTO is committed to 

compliance with the E-Government Act 

to promote the use of the internet and 

other information technologies, to 

provide increased opportunities for 

citizen access to government 

information and services, and for other 

purposes. 

List of Subjects 

37 CFR Part 2 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Courts, Lawyers, 

Trademarks. 

37 CFR Part 7 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Trademarks. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, and under the authority 

contained in section 10(a) of the AIA, 15 

U.S.C. 1113, 1123, and 35 U.S.C. 2, as 

amended, 37 CFR parts 2 and 7 are 

amended as follows: 

PART 2—RULES OF PRACTICE IN 

TRADEMARK CASES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 2 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1113, 1123; 35 U.S.C. 

2; sec. 10, Pub. L. 112–29, 125 Stat. 284; Pub. 

L. 116–260, 134 Stat. 1182, unless otherwise 

noted. Sec. 2.99 also issued under secs. 16, 

17, 60 Stat. 434; 15 U.S.C. 1066, 1067. 

■ 2. Section 2.6 is amended by revising 

paragraphs (a)(1), (2), and (3), (a)(4)(ii), 

(a)(5), (a)(6)(ii), (a)(7)(ii), (a)(8)(ii), 

(a)(9)(ii), (a)(10)(ii), (a)(11)(ii), (a)(12)(i), 

(ii), and (iv), (a)(13), (a)(14)(ii), (a)(15), 

(a)(16) heading, (a)(16)(ii), (a)(17) 

heading, (a)(17)(ii), (a)(18) heading, 

(a)(18)(i), (ii), (v), and (vii), (a)(19)(ii), 

(a)(20)(ii), (a)(21)(ii), (a)(22)(ii), 

(a)(23)(ii), (a)(25) and (27), and (a)(28)(ii) 

to read as follows: 

§ 2.6 Trademark fees. 

(a) * * * 

(1) Application filing fees. (i) For 

filing an application on paper, per 

class—$850.00 

(ii) For filing an application under 

section 66(a) of the Act, per class: 

(A) For an international application 

having a receipt date that is on or after 

February 18, 2025—$600 

(B) For an international application 

having a receipt date that is before 

February 18, 2025—$500.00 

(iii) For filing an application 

electronically, per class—$350.00 

(iv) Additional fee under § 2.22(b), per 

class—$100.00 

(v) Additional fee under § 2.22(c), per 

class—$200.00 

(vi) Additional fee under § 2.22(d) for 

each additional 1,000 characters in 

identifications of goods/services beyond 

the first 1,000 characters, per class— 

$200.00 

(2) Amendment to allege use. (i) For 

filing an amendment to allege use under 

section 1(c) of the Act on paper, per 

class—$250.00 

(ii) For filing an amendment to allege 

use under section 1(c) of the Act 

electronically, per class—$150.00 

(3) Statement of use. (i) For filing a 

statement of use under section 1(d)(1) of 

the Act on paper, per class—$250.00 

(ii) For filing a statement of use under 

section 1(d)(1) of the Act electronically, 

per class—$150.00 

(4) * * * 

(ii) For filing a request under section 

1(d)(2) of the Act for a six-month 

extension of time for filing a statement 

of use under section 1(d)(1) of the Act 

electronically, per class—$125.00 

(5) Application for renewal of a 

registration fees. (i) For filing an 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
91090 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

application for renewal of a registration 

on paper, per class—$525.00 

(ii) For filing an application for 

renewal of a registration electronically, 

per class—$325.00 

(iii) For filing an application for 

renewal of a registration electronically, 

pursuant to § 7.41 of this chapter: 

(A) On or after February 18, 2025, per 

class—$325.00 

(B) Before February 18, 2025, per 

class—$300.00 

(6) * * * 

(ii) Additional fee for filing a renewal 

application during the grace period 

electronically, per class—$100.00 

(7) * * * 

(ii) For filing to publish a mark under 

section 12(c), per class electronically— 

$100.00 

(8) * * * 

(ii) For issuing a new certificate of 

registration upon request of registrant, 

request filed electronically—$100.00 

(9) * * * 

(ii) For a certificate of correction of 

registrant’s error, request filed 

electronically—$100.00 

(10) * * * 

(ii) For filing a disclaimer to a 

registration electronically—$100.00 

(11) * * * 

(ii) For filing an amendment to a 

registration electronically—$100.00 

* * * * * 

(12) * * * 

(i) For filing an affidavit under section 

8 of the Act on paper, per class— 

$425.00 

(ii) For filing an affidavit under 

section 8 of the Act electronically, per 

class—$325.00 

* * * * * 

(iv) For deleting goods, services, and/ 

or classes after submission and prior to 

acceptance of an affidavit under section 

8 of the Act electronically, per class— 

$250.00 

(13) Affidavit under section 15. (i) For 

filing an affidavit under section 15 of 

the Act on paper, per class—$350.00 

(ii) For filing an affidavit under 

section 15 of the Act electronically, per 

class—$250.00 

(14) * * * 

(ii) Additional fee for filing a section 

8 affidavit during the grace period 

electronically, per class—$100.00 

(15) Petitions to the Director. (i) For 

filing a petition under § 2.146 or § 2.147 

on paper—$500.00 

(ii) For filing a petition under § 2.146 

or § 2.147 electronically—$400.00 

(iii) For filing a petition under § 2.66 

on paper—$350.00 

(iv) For filing a petition under § 2.66 

electronically—$250.00 

(16) Petition to cancel to the 

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. 

* * * 

(ii) For filing a petition to cancel 

electronically, per class—$600.00 

(17) Notice of opposition to the 

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. 

* * * 

(ii) For filing a notice of opposition 

electronically, per class—$600.00 

(18) Ex parte appeal to the Trademark 

Trial and Appeal Board. (i) For filing an 

ex parte appeal on paper, per class— 

$325.00 

(ii) For filing an ex parte appeal 

electronically, per class—$225.00 

* * * * * 

(v) For filing a second or subsequent 

request for an extension of time to file 

an appeal brief electronically, per 

application—$100.00 

* * * * * 

(vii) For filing an appeal brief 

electronically, per class—$200.00 

(19) * * * 

(ii) Request to divide an application 

filed electronically, per new application 

created—$100.00 

(20) * * * 

(ii) For correcting a deficiency in a 

section 8 affidavit via electronic filing— 

$100.00 

(21) * * * 

(ii) For correcting a deficiency in a 

renewal application via electronic 

filing—$100.00 

(22) * * * 

(ii) For filing a request for an 

extension of time to file a notice of 

opposition under § 2.102(c)(1)(ii) or 

(c)(2) electronically—$200.00 

(23) * * * 

(ii) For filing a request for an 

extension of time to file a notice of 

opposition under § 2.102(c)(3) 

electronically—$400.00 

* * * * * 

(25) Letter of protest. For filing a letter 

of protest, per subject application— 

$150.00 

* * * * * 

(27) Extension of time for filing a 

response to a non-final Office action 

under § 2.93(b)(1). For filing a request 

for extension of time for filing a 

response to a non-final Office action 

under § 2.93(b)(1) electronically— 

$125.00 

(28) * * * 

(ii) For filing a request for an 

extension of time for filing a response to 

an Office action under § 2.62(a)(2) 

electronically—$125.00 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 2.22 is revised and 

republished to read as follows: 

§ 2.22 Requirements for a base 

application. 

(a) An application for registration 

under section 1 and/or section 44 of the 

Act that meets the requirements for a 

filing date under § 2.21 will be subject 

only to the filing fee under 

§ 2.6(a)(1)(iii) if it includes: 

(1) The applicant’s name and 

domicile address; 

(2) The applicant’s legal entity; 

(3) The citizenship of each individual 

applicant, or the state or country of 

incorporation or organization of each 

juristic applicant; 

(4) If the applicant is a domestic 

partnership, the names and citizenship 

of the general partners, or if the 

applicant is a domestic joint venture, 

the names and citizenship of the active 

members of the joint venture; 

(5) If the applicant is a sole 

proprietorship, the state of organization 

of the sole proprietorship and the name 

and citizenship of the sole proprietor; 

(6) One or more bases for filing that 

satisfy all the requirements of § 2.34. If 

more than one basis is set forth, the 

applicant must comply with the 

requirements of § 2.34 for each asserted 

basis; 

(7) If the application contains goods 

and/or services in more than one class, 

compliance with § 2.86; 

(8) A filing fee for each class of goods 

and/or services, as required by 

§ 2.6(a)(1)(ii) or (iii); 

(9) A verified statement that meets the 

requirements of § 2.33, dated and signed 

by a person properly authorized to sign 

on behalf of the owner pursuant to 

§ 2.193(e)(1); 

(10) If the applicant does not claim 

standard characters, the applicant must 

attach a digitized image of the mark. If 

the mark includes color, the drawing 

must show the mark in color; 

(11) If the mark is in standard 

characters, a mark comprised only of 

characters in the Office’s standard 

character set, typed in the appropriate 

field of the application; 

(12) If the mark includes color, a 

statement naming the color(s) and 

describing where the color(s) appears on 

the mark, and a claim that the color(s) 

is a feature of the mark; 

(13) If the mark is not in standard 

characters, a description of the mark; 

(14) If the mark includes non-English 

wording, an English translation of that 

wording; 

(15) If the mark includes non-Latin 

characters, a transliteration of those 

characters; 

(16) If the mark includes an 

individual’s name or likeness, either: 

(i) A statement that identifies the 

living individual whose name or 

likeness the mark comprises and written 

consent of the individual; or 

(ii) A statement that the name or 

likeness does not identify a living 

individual (see section 2(c) of the Act); 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 91091 

(17) If the applicant owns one or more 

registrations for the same mark, and the 

owner(s) last listed in Office records of 

the prior registration(s) for the same 

mark differs from the owner(s) listed in 

the application, a claim of ownership of 

the registration(s) identified by the 

registration number(s), pursuant to 

§ 2.36; 

(18) If the application is a concurrent 

use application, compliance with § 2.42; 

(19) An applicant whose domicile is 

not located within the United States or 

its territories must designate an attorney 

as the applicant’s representative, 

pursuant to § 2.11(a), and include the 

attorney’s name, postal address, email 

address, and bar information; and 

(20) Correctly classified goods and/or 

services, with an identification of goods 

and/or services from the Office’s 

Acceptable Identification of Goods and 

Services Manual within the electronic 

form. 

(b) If an application fails to satisfy any 

of the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) 

through (19) of this section, the 

applicant must pay the fee required by 

§ 2.6(a)(1)(iv). 

(c) If an application fails to satisfy the 

requirements of paragraph (a)(20) of this 

section, the applicant must pay the fee 

required by § 2.6(a)(1)(v). 

(d) If an application fails to satisfy the 

requirements of paragraph (a)(20) of this 

section, and the identification of goods 

and/or services in any class exceeds 

1,000 characters, the applicant must pay 

the fee required by § 2.6(a)(1)(vi) for 

each affected class. 

PART 7—RULES OF PRACTICE IN 

FILINGS PURSUANT TO THE 

PROTOCOL RELATING TO THE 

MADRID AGREEMENT CONCERNING 

THE INTERNATIONAL REGISTRATION 

OF MARKS 

■ 4. The authority citation for part 7 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1123, 35 U.S.C. 2, 

Pub. L. 116–260, 134 Stat. 1182, unless 

otherwise noted. 

■ 5. Section 7.6 is amended by revising 

paragraphs (a)(1)(ii), (a)(2)(ii), (a)(3)(ii), 

(a)(4)(ii), (a)(5)(ii), (a)(6)(i), (ii), and (iv), 

(a)(7)(ii), and (a)(8)(ii) to read as follows: 

§ 7.6 Schedule of U.S. process fees. 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(ii) For certifying an international 

application based on a single basic 

application or registration filed 

electronically, per class—$100.00 

(2) * * * 

(ii) For certifying an international 

application based on more than one 

basic application or registration filed 

electronically, per class—$150.00 

(3) * * * 

(ii) For transmitting a subsequent 

designation under § 7.21, filed 

electronically—$100.00 

(4) * * * 

(ii) For transmitting a request to 

record an assignment or restriction, or 

release of a restriction, under § 7.23 or 

§ 7.24 filed electronically—$100.00 

(5) * * * 

(ii) For filing a notice of replacement 

under § 7.28 electronically, per class— 

$100.00 

(6) * * * 

(i) For filing an affidavit under section 

71 of the Act on paper, per class— 

$425.00 

(ii) For filing an affidavit under 

section 71 of the Act electronically, per 

class—$325.00 

* * * * * 

(iv) For deleting goods, services, and/ 

or classes after submission and prior to 

acceptance of an affidavit under section 

71 of the Act electronically, per class— 

$250.00 

(7) * * * 

(ii) Surcharge for filing an affidavit 

under section 71 of the Act during the 

grace period electronically, per class— 

$100.00 

(8) * * * 

(ii) For correcting a deficiency in a 

section 71 affidavit filed 

electronically—$100.00 

* * * * * 

Katherine K. Vidal, 

Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual 

Property and Director of the United States 

Patent and Trademark Office. 

[FR Doc. 2024–26644 Filed 11–15–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–16–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES4