Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 241 / Tuesday, December 16, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 74633 

submit the information in a way that 

will permit its public disclosure. 

Dated: December 10, 2014. 

Michelle K. Lee, 

Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for 

Intellectual Property and Deputy Director of 

the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office. 

[FR Doc. 2014–29414 Filed 12–15–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–16–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

United States Patent and Trademark 

Office 

37 CFR Part 2 

[Docket No. PTO–T–2014–0011] 

RIN 0651–AC94 

Reduction of Fees for Trademark 

Applications and Renewals 

AGENCY: United States Patent and 

Trademark Office, Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The United States Patent and 

Trademark Office (‘‘Office’’ or 

‘‘USPTO’’) is amending its regulations 

to reduce certain trademark fees, as 

authorized by the Leahy-Smith America 

Invents Act (‘‘AIA’’). The reductions 

will reduce total trademark fee 

collections and promote efficiency for 

the USPTO and customers. The 

reductions also will further USPTO 

strategic objectives to increase the endto-end electronic processing of 

trademark applications by offering 

additional electronic application 

processing. 

DATES: The changes in this final rule are 

effective on January 17, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Cynthia C. Lynch, Office of the Deputy 

Commissioner for Trademark 

Examination Policy, by email at 

TMPolicy@uspto.gov, or by telephone at 

(571) 272–8742. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Executive 

Summary: Purpose: Section 10 of the 

AIA authorizes the Director of the 

USPTO (‘‘Director’’) to set or adjust by 

rule any fee established, authorized, or 

charged under the Trademark Act of 

1946 (15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq.) for any 

services performed by, or materials 

furnished by, the Office. See Section 10 

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

316–17. 

Section 10(c) of the AIA authorizes 

the Director to consult with the 

Trademark Public Advisory Committee 

(‘‘TPAC’’) on the advisability of 

reducing trademark fees and, following 

the required consultation, to reduce 

such fees. See Section 10(c) of the AIA, 

Pub. L. 112–29, 125 Stat. at 317. The 

Director consulted with the TPAC and 

thereafter determined that, in order to 

both improve the alignment of Office 

costs with revenues and incentivize 

electronic communications, it was 

advisable to propose reductions in the 

filing fees for: (1) Trademark, 

certification mark, collective 

membership mark, and collective 

trademark applications for registration 

on the Principal or Supplemental 

Register that are filed using the 

Trademark Electronic Application 

System (‘‘TEAS’’), if applicants 

authorize email communication and file 

specified documents electronically 

throughout the application process; (2) 

TEAS Plus applications for registration; 

and (3) TEAS applications for renewal 

of a registration. In addition, the 

reduction would also apply to TEAS 

requests for transformation of an 

extension of protection to the United 

States into a U.S. application, filed 

pursuant to 37 CFR 7.31. 

Thereafter, a proposed rule was 

published in the Federal Register on 

May 9, 2014, at 79 FR 26664, and in the 

Official Gazette on June 3, 2014. The 

USPTO received comments from three 

intellectual property organizations and 

three attorneys and/or law firms. These 

comments are posted on the USPTO’s 

Web site at http://www.uspto.gov/

trademarks/notices/TEAS_RF_

comments.jsp and are addressed below. 

Prior to consulting with the TPAC, the 

USPTO also published a notice of 

inquiry to provide the public, including 

user groups, with an opportunity to 

comment on possible adjustments to 

trademark application fees (77 FR 49426 

(Aug. 16, 2012)). The public comments 

overwhelmingly favored a fee reduction, 

and many expressed a desire for a 

lower-cost electronic filing option 

without any restrictions on the nature of 

the identification of goods and services, 

as is required under TEAS Plus. 

The reduced fees will help to: (1) 

Continue with an appropriate and 

sustainable funding model; (2) support 

strategic objectives relating to online 

filing, electronic file management, and 

workflow; and (3) improve efficiency for 

USPTO operations and customers. The 

reductions will benefit the public by 

lowering the costs of seeking and 

renewing federal registration, including 

advantages to individual and pro se 

filers, who make greater use of lowercost filing options. In addition, the rule 

includes an additional filing option for 

meeting applicants’ needs and 

preferences. 

General Comments 

Comment: All commenters expressed 

support of the USPTO’s efforts to 

increase the volume of end-to-end 

electronic processing of trademark 

applications and agreed that the 

proposed fee reductions will make filing 

for individuals and smaller entities 

more accessible and promote greater 

efficiency through electronic filing and 

communication. 

Response: The USPTO appreciates the 

commenters’ support of the general 

objectives of the rule changes. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that the USPTO take additional steps to 

both further the USPTO’s strategic 

objective and reduce burdens on small 

businesses. In particular, the commenter 

recommended that the USPTO collect 

and track the filing and renewal 

information related to small businesses 

and provide reduced filing fees to small 

entities and applicants that are part of 

business incubators and other such 

organizations. In addition, the 

commenter opined that providing small 

entities with reduced fees for renewals 

and maintenance would help 

incentivize registrants to maintain and 

renew their marks. 

Response: The USPTO appreciates the 

commenter’s suggestions and will 

consider them in the future, but notes 

that they are outside the scope of the 

current rulemaking. Moreover, the 

USPTO has considered whether and 

how it is appropriate to reduce any 

burden on small businesses through 

increased flexibility. The final rules 

provide streamlined and simplified 

procedures for all small entities (and 

others), given the ease of filing 

electronically through TEAS and 

communicating by email. In addition, 

the fee reductions promote greater 

efficiency from electronic filing and 

communication, as the procedures are 

simpler and not burdensome. 

Comment: One commenter noted that 

although the data that becomes the 

equivalent of an application under 

Section 66(a) of the Trademark Act is 

not submitted by applicants directly, the 

Office’s goals of increasing efficiency 

through electronic correspondence can 

be achieved with such applications by 

requiring that the applicant use TEAS to 

respond to provisional refusals and for 

subsequent prosecution. 

Response: The USPTO notes that the 

reduced-fee option of filing using TEAS 

Plus is not currently available for 

requests for an extension of protection 

to the United States, i.e., a Section 66(a) 

application, 15 U.S.C. 1141f(a), nor will 

the TEAS RF option be available for 

these applications. The USPTO has not 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
74634 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 241 / Tuesday, December 16, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

required electronic communication by 

any filers who have not voluntarily 

agreed to do so, and therefore the 

USPTO would not be inclined to impose 

such a requirement on Section 66(a) 

applicants. 

Summary of Major Provisions: After 

reviewing the comments received in 

response to the notice of proposed 

rulemaking, the USPTO reduces by $50 

the fee for an application filed using the 

regular TEAS application form, and a 

TEAS request for transformation of an 

extension of protection to the United 

States into a U.S. application pursuant 

to § 7.31, from $325 to $275 per class if 

the applicant authorizes email 

communication and agrees to file all 

responses and other specified 

documents electronically during the 

prosecution of the application. This 

option will be known as a TEAS 

Reduced Fee (‘‘TEAS RF’’) application. 

The USPTO also reduces by $50 the fee 

for a TEAS Plus application from $275 

to $225 per class and reduces by $100 

the fee for a TEAS application for 

renewal of a registration from $400 to 

$300 per class. As has been the case 

since the inception of TEAS Plus, TEAS 

Plus applicants who fail to fulfill the 

filing and examination requirements set 

out in the rules will be subject to a 

processing fee of $50 per class, and 

similarly, TEAS RF applicants who fail 

to fulfill the requirements under the 

rules will be subject to the existing 

processing fee of $50 per class. 

Costs and Benefits: This rulemaking is 

not economically significant under 

Executive Order 12866 (Sept. 30, 1993). 

References below to ‘‘the Act,’’ ‘‘the 

Trademark Act,’’ or ‘‘the statute’’ refer to 

the Trademark Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C. 

1051 et seq., as amended. References to 

‘‘TMEP’’ or ‘‘Trademark Manual of 

Examining Procedure’’ refer to the 

October 2014 edition. 

Discussion of Rules Changes 

The USPTO amends §§ 2.6, 2.22, and 

2.23. 

First, the USPTO amends § 2.6(a)(1) to 

enumerate the revised application filing 

fee options. Section 2.6(a)(1)(iii) sets out 

the new, reduced fee of $275 for filing 

a TEAS Reduced Fee (i.e., TEAS RF) 

application under revised § 2.23. 

Revised § 2.6(a)(i)(iv) for TEAS Plus is 

the same as the currently existing 

§ 2.6(a)(1)(iii) except that the TEAS Plus 

fee is reduced from $275 to $225 per 

class and there is minor rewording for 

consistency with existing § 2.6(a)(1)(ii) 

and revised § 2.6(a)(1)(iii). The 

§ 2.6(a)(1)(v) processing fee is the same 

as the currently existing § 2.6(a)(1)(iv) 

except for amended citations to revised 

§§ 2.22(c) and 2.23(c). The USPTO 

revises § 2.6(a)(5) to enumerate the 

revised fees for renewal of a registration. 

The new § 2.6(a)(5)(i) maintains the 

current fee of $400 as the fee for an 

application for renewal of a registration 

filed on paper and the new § 2.6(a)(5)(ii) 

sets out the reduced fee of $300 per 

class for a TEAS renewal of a 

registration. 

Comment: Two commenters stated 

that they support efforts to reduce fees 

where appropriate and consistent with a 

sustainable funding model and as long 

as the current and future efficacy and 

efficiency of the USPTO will not be 

compromised. 

Response: The USPTO appreciates the 

commenters’ concerns. As one 

commenter noted, the Office has 

assured stakeholders that the reduction 

is possible due to efficiencies that have 

allowed the USPTO to create an 

operating reserve and that the revised 

fee structure maintains a reserve 

sufficient to manage operations and 

address long-term investments. Also, 

the Office regularly reviews fees, and 

may make adjustments in the future as 

needed. 

Comment: All commenters were in 

favor of the fee reductions. One noted 

that in addition to reducing trademark 

application fees, which should lead to 

more applications being filed, result in 

a more accurate Federal Register, and 

thereby increase efficiency and value for 

everyone, the USPTO should provide 

filing-fee discounts when an applicant 

files companion applications together 

that feature overlapping information, so 

as to incentivize businesses to file 

trademark applications that they may 

otherwise not invest in and that would 

otherwise never become part of the 

pending application database or the 

Register. Similarly, the commenter 

suggested that when there are multiple 

classes in the same application, the 

filing fees for subsequent classes be 

reduced by $100, to encourage 

applicants to be comprehensive in 

listing the goods and services with 

which they use or intend to use their 

marks, making for a more accurate and 

complete Register. The commenter 

opined further that a discounted filing 

fee for new businesses might increase 

the percentage of trademarks that are 

filed with the USPTO. Lastly, the 

commenter noted that the 10-year 

renewal fee, even at a TEAS reduced 

rate, appears out of line with the initial 

application filing fees and the 6-year 

Section 8 filing fees, since the 

processing of the renewal by the USPTO 

is not nearly as substantial or complex 

as the handling of initial applications. 

Response: The USPTO appreciates the 

commenter’s suggestions for possible 

mechanisms by which to increase 

application filings and further reduce 

fees. To the extent that the Office finds 

additional opportunities for fee 

reductions in the future, these 

suggestions will be considered. They 

would require further exploration and 

review by the Office. 

Comment: Two commenters provided 

comments regarding the filing fee for 

paper applications. One commenter 

suggested that increasing the filing fee 

for paper applications may provide a 

more direct incentive for paper filers to 

switch to filing electronically. A second 

commenter agreed with the USPTO’s 

decision to retain the existing filing fee 

for paper applications and encouraged 

the USPTO to continue outreach efforts 

to identify and address the reasons why 

applicants continue to file paper 

applications and to develop an 

electronic solution to address those 

circumstances. 

Response: At this time, the USPTO 

has no plan to increase any filing fee, 

and prefers to rely on other mechanisms 

to encourage electronic communication. 

It is anticipated that the TEAS RF 

reduced-fee option is a mechanism that 

will encourage such applicants to 

switch from paper to electronic filing. 

Comment: One commenter sought to 

confirm that there was no intent to 

decrease the fees for filing an 

application under Section 66 of the 

Trademark Act and encouraged the 

Office to consider how the fee reduction 

could alter the incentives of foreign 

applicants to seek U.S. registration via 

national applications versus through the 

Madrid System. 

Response: The USPTO confirms that 

no change is being made to the fee for 

a request for an extension of protection 

under Section 66(a), 15 U.S.C. 1141f(a). 

The USPTO notes that if the only 

country in which a foreign applicant 

sought extension of protection of a 

foreign registration was the United 

States, it might make it more cost 

effective to file directly with the U.S. 

using TEAS RF. However, as the vast 

majority of Madrid users designate more 

than one country, they may determine 

that the benefits of the Madrid System 

outweigh the $50 per-class savings 

available through the TEAS RF option. 

Second, the USPTO makes the 

following format revisions to § 2.22 

concerning TEAS Plus applications: 

revise the rule title; in § 2.22(a), cite to 

§ 2.6(a)(1)(iv) instead of § 2.6(a)(1)(iii); 

in § 2.22(b), set forth the additional 

examination requirements for a TEAS 

Plus application that are currently set 

forth in existing § 2.23(a); in § 2.22(c), 

set forth the current text in existing 

§§ 2.22(b) and 2.23(b), and cite to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 241 / Tuesday, December 16, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 74635 

§ 2.6(a)(1)(v) instead of to § 2.6(a)(1)(iv); 

and, in § 2.22(d), set forth the text 

currently in existing § 2.22(c). 

Comment: Three commenters 

expressed concerns regarding the TEAS 

Plus requirements. Two commenters 

noted that the fee reduction for TEAS 

Plus applications is not likely to cause 

applicants to switch from TEAS to 

TEAS Plus since a majority of those who 

do not use TEAS Plus choose not to use 

it because of the issues surrounding the 

identification of goods and services and/ 

or the accounting and other difficulties 

that may ensue if TEAS Plus status is 

lost during the application process. For 

example, applicants may need to submit 

identifications not found in the U.S. 

Acceptable Identification of Goods and 

Services Manual (ID Manual) to 

accurately identify their goods and 

services. Revisions to the ID Manual to 

include all classes and types of goods 

and services, update recitations of goods 

and services, and make it more easily 

navigable to help address these 

concerns were suggested. The 

requirement to search for and select all 

relevant goods and/or services and 

separately assign a basis to each, and 

where applicable, attach a separate 

specimen, was thought to make the 

TEAS Plus application more timeconsuming and cumbersome than 

regular TEAS applications. The 

commenters encouraged the USPTO to 

investigate and address the restrictions 

of TEAS Plus that currently lead some 

applicants to file by TEAS and to 

provide other options, such as lifting the 

identification requirement or providing 

expedited processing. 

Response: The new TEAS RF option 

addresses these concerns. In response to 

public input on potential adjustments to 

trademark application fees, the 

comments overwhelmingly favored a fee 

reduction, and many expressed a desire 

for a lower-cost electronic filing option 

without any restrictions on the nature of 

the identification of goods and services, 

as is required under TEAS Plus. 

Accordingly, the USPTO proposed the 

introduction of the TEAS RF filing 

option. The filing fee for TEAS RF is the 

same as the current TEAS Plus fee, but 

the application does not require that 

applicants choose an identification of 

goods or services from the ID Manual. 

Nor are applicants required to comply 

with any of the other TEAS Plus 

requirements except the requirements to 

authorize email communication and file 

specified documents electronically 

throughout the application process. 

In addition, the USPTO is 

implementing improvements to the ID 

Manual, such as basic and advanced 

search options, highlighting of search 

terms in results, inclusion of Notes in 

results table, and displaying initial 

results according to a ‘‘relevance’’ 

priority rather than by Class number. 

The USPTO notes that the additional 

requirements of TEAS Plus cited by the 

commenter, i.e., to search for and select 

all relevant goods and services, assign a 

basis to each, and, if applicable, attach 

a separate specimen for each class, merit 

the lower fee of TEAS Plus because they 

lower the cost of examination and 

reduce pendency in large part because 

most such applications are complete 

when filed, and will therefore, typically 

result in the issuance of fewer Office 

actions. 

Third, the USPTO revises current 

§ 2.23 to establish a TEAS RF option in 

the amount of $275. Existing § 2.23 lists 

the additional examination 

requirements for a TEAS Plus 

application. As noted above, the 

provisions in previous § 2.23 are 

consolidated into revised § 2.22. Filers 

using either the TEAS Plus or the new 

TEAS RF option are required to 

authorize email communication from 

the USPTO and submit specified 

documents electronically using TEAS 

during the prosecution of the 

application. However, filers using the 

new TEAS RF option are not required to 

comply with the additional TEAS Plus 

requirements. 

Comment: One commenter also noted 

that the new TEAS RF application 

addresses many concerns applicants 

have with the TEAS Plus application 

and presents an option that its clients, 

many of which are small businesses, 

will likely use and benefit from. 

Response: The USPTO appreciates the 

commenter’s statement that the TEAS 

RF option will benefit applicants. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Office confirm 

that informal communications with the 

examining attorney, including 

telephone and email communications, 

would not violate the requirement of an 

‘‘electronic communication’’ for 

purposes of retaining TEAS RF status. 

Response: The USPTO confirms that 

informal communications by telephone 

or email with an examining attorney 

would not violate the requirement that 

the applicant submit documents via 

TEAS during the prosecution of the 

application. Informal communications 

are not substitutes for formal responses 

to Office actions, but rather are 

conducted only if they serve to develop 

and clarify specific issues and lead to a 

mutual understanding between the 

examining attorney and the applicant 

regarding a particular application. See 

TMEP section 709.05. Therefore, such 

an informal communication need not be 

filed through TEAS to comply with the 

final rule. Notably, § 2.23 lists all the 

specific communications that TEAS RF 

applicants must file through TEAS or be 

subject to the processing fee of $50 per 

class. 

Rulemaking Considerations 

Administrative Procedure Act: This 

rulemaking reduces fees under Section 

10(c) of the AIA. See also 15 U.S.C. 

1113, 15 U.S.C. 1123, 35 U.S.C. 2. The 

other changes in this rulemaking 

establish procedures for applicants 

seeking these reduced fees. The 

procedural changes in this rulemaking 

involve rules of agency practice and 

procedure, and/or interpretive rules. See 

Nat’l Org. of Veterans’ Advocates v. 

Sec’y of Veterans Affairs, 260 F.3d 1365, 

1375 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (stating that a rule 

that clarifies interpretation of a statute 

is interpretive); Bachow Commc’ns Inc. 

v. FCC, 237 F.3d 683, 690 (D.C. Cir. 

2001) (stating that rules governing an 

application process are procedural 

under the Administrative Procedure 

Act); Inova Alexandria Hosp. v. Shalala, 

244 F.3d 342, 350 (4th Cir. 2001) 

(stating that rules for handling appeals 

were procedural where they did not 

change the substantive standard for 

reviewing claims). 

Accordingly, prior notice and 

opportunity for public comment for the 

procedural changes are not required 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b) or (c) (or any 

other law). See Cooper Techs. Co. v. 

Dudas, 536 F.3d 1330, 1336–37 (Fed. 

Cir. 2008) (stating that 5 U.S.C. 553, and 

thus 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2)(B), does not 

require notice and comment rulemaking 

for ‘‘interpretative rules, general 

statements of policy, or rules of agency 

organization, procedure, or practice’’ 

(quoting 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A))). The 

Office, however, published these 

changes for comment as it sought the 

benefit of the public’s views. The Office 

has also undertaken a Final Regulatory 

Flexibility Act Analysis of the final rule. 

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis: 

1. Description of the reasons that 

action by the USPTO is being 

undertaken: 

The USPTO is reducing certain 

trademark fees as authorized by Section 

10(c) of the AIA. The reductions will 

reduce total trademark fee collections 

and promote efficiency for the USPTO 

and customers through increased 

electronic communication. Specifically, 

the USPTO amends its rules to reduce 

application filing fees for certain 

applications for registration on the 

Principal or Supplemental Register 

under Section 1 and/or Section 44 of the 

Trademark Act, and for TEAS requests 

for transformation of an extension of 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
74636 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 241 / Tuesday, December 16, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

protection to the United States into a 

U.S. application filed pursuant to § 7.31, 

and to reduce the fee for renewal of a 

trademark registration that is filed 

through TEAS. 

2. Succinct statement of the objectives 

of, and legal basis for, the final 

rulemaking: 

The objectives of the final rulemaking 

are to reduce total trademark filing and 

renewal fees and fee collections, 

improve the alignment of Office costs 

with revenues, and promote efficiency 

for the USPTO and customers through 

electronic communication. Filing 

through TEAS and authorizing email 

communication expedites processing, 

shortens pendency, minimizes manual 

processing and the potential for data 

entry errors, and is more efficient for 

both the filer and the USPTO. TEASfiled documents are automatically 

uploaded into the USPTO database. 

They require no manual scanning or 

creation of a paper file wrapper, and 

they often reduce or eliminate the need 

for manual data entry of amendments to 

the filings. Authorizing email 

communication provides similar 

benefits, by reducing the need for 

mailing and the creation of, or addition 

to, a file wrapper. Paper filings, on the 

other hand, necessitate: (1) Manual 

scanning and uploading of the 

documents into the USPTO database; (2) 

manual data entry of information; and 

(3) the creation of paper file wrappers in 

which to store the originals of the paper 

filings. Thus, the final rulemaking 

facilitates efficiency in numerous ways. 

As to the legal basis for the revisions, 

Section 10(c) of the AIA provides the 

authority for the Director to reduce 

trademark fees after consultation with 

the TPAC. See also Section 31 of the 

Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. 1113. Both 15 

U.S.C. 1123 and 35 U.S.C. 2 provide the 

authority for the Director to establish 

regulations for the conduct of trademark 

proceedings at the USPTO. 

3. Description of and, where feasible, 

estimate of the number of affected small 

entities: 

The USPTO does not collect or 

maintain statistics in trademark cases on 

small- versus large-entity applicants, 

and this information would be required 

in order to determine the number of 

small entities that would be affected by 

the final rulemaking. However, the 

USPTO will provide projected estimates 

of each type of filing affected by the 

final rulemaking. The overall impact of 

the lower fees on applicants and 

registrants will be overwhelmingly 

positive, as they will be afforded the 

opportunity to obtain a trademark 

registration for a reduced fee. 

The final rulemaking could apply to 

any entity filing a trademark 

application, except those filing under 

Section 66(a), 15 U.S.C. 1141f(a). The 

USPTO estimates that during the first 

year under the final rulemaking, the 

USPTO would receive 103,633 classes 

of TEAS RF applications that, absent the 

rule change, likely would have been 

filed as regular TEAS applications, as 

well as 204,682 classes of TEAS Plus 

applications. Thus, the estimated 

financial impact of the reduced fees will 

be: (1) A $10,234,100 reduction in fees 

for TEAS Plus applicants; and (2) a 

$5,181,650 reduction in fees for TEAS 

RF applicants, or $5,065,100, when the 

estimated 2,331 classes of TEAS RF 

applicants who likely will be required 

to pay the $50 processing fee are taken 

into consideration. Turning to the 

renewal fee, the USPTO estimates that 

during the first year under the final 

rulemaking, the USPTO would receive 

62,315 classes of renewals, 61,193 of 

which will be filed through TEAS, such 

that the financial impact will be a 

$6,119,300 reduction in fees for 

trademark owners. The USPTO does not 

collect or maintain statistics in 

trademark cases on small- versus largeentity applicants to determine what 

subset of applicants would be small 

entities impacted by the final rule. 

4. Description of the reporting, 

recordkeeping, and other compliance 

requirements of the final rulemaking, 

including an estimate of the classes of 

small entities that will be subject to the 

requirement and the type of professional 

skills necessary for preparation of the 

report or record: 

The final rules impose no new 

reporting or recordkeeping 

requirements. 

The final rules reduce fees for 

applications, requests for transformation 

of an extension of protection to the 

United States into a U.S. application, 

and renewals of trademark registrations. 

The USPTO does not anticipate that the 

final rulemaking will have a 

disproportionate impact upon any 

particular class of small or large entities. 

Any entity that applies for or renews a 

registered trademark may choose to 

benefit from the final rules. The final 

rulemaking merely offers lower fees 

based on electronic filing of the renewal 

or application and other documents, 

and authorization for email 

communication from the USPTO. 

Because the fees for filing a paper 

application, a regular TEAS application, 

a paper request for transformation of an 

extension of protection to the United 

States into a U.S. application, and a 

paper application for renewal of a 

registration remain unchanged under 

the final rules, and applicants may 

continue to file on paper or via the 

regular TEAS application form, the filer 

may choose whether to undertake the 

requirements for the reduced-fee 

options in the final rules. Procedures for 

TEAS Plus filers remain the same, as the 

final rules merely reduce fees and 

consolidate the TEAS Plus procedures 

within one rule, without imposing any 

change in practice. Filers using the new 

TEAS RF option must submit specified 

documents electronically using TEAS 

during the prosecution of the 

application and must authorize email 

communication from the USPTO. 

The USPTO estimates that filing 

electronically likely will take less time 

than filing the same type of document 

on paper and will not take any more 

time. The USPTO further estimates that 

communicating by email will not take 

any more time than receiving and 

reviewing a USPTO communication 

sent by regular mail and is likely to take 

less time. 

5. Description of any significant 

alternatives to the final rulemaking 

which accomplish the stated objectives 

of applicable statutes and which 

minimize any significant economic 

impact of the rules on small entities: 

The USPTO has considered whether 

and how it is appropriate to reduce any 

burden on small businesses through 

increased flexibility. The following 

options have been considered, but 

rejected, by the USPTO, since they are 

less protective of small businesses. 

The alternative of not offering the 

identified reduced fees, or not offering 

them to small entities, would retain the 

status quo for small entities and 

therefore produce no economic impact 

on them, but that alternative has been 

rejected because the economic effect of 

the final rules will be favorable to small 

businesses, rather than burdensome. In 

addition, the alternative of not reducing 

fees would fail to accomplish the stated 

objectives of reducing overall trademark 

fee collections and increasing efficiency 

for the USPTO and filers. 

The final rulemaking provides 

streamlined and simplified procedures 

for all small entities, as well as others, 

given the ease of filing electronically 

through TEAS and communicating by 

email. Thus, compliance will be 

streamlined and simplified for all 

affected entities. The fee reductions 

promote greater efficiency from 

electronic filing and communication, as 

the procedures are simpler and not 

burdensome. 

Use of performance rather than design 

standards is not applicable to the final 

rulemaking because the USPTO is not 

issuing any sort of standard. Rather, the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 241 / Tuesday, December 16, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 74637 

final rulemaking offers reduced fees to 

applicants and registrants who file and 

communicate electronically with the 

USPTO. 

6. Identification, to the extent 

practicable, of all relevant Federal rules 

which may duplicate, overlap, or 

conflict with the final rules: 

The final rules do not duplicate, 

overlap, or conflict with any other 

Federal rules. 

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review): This rulemaking 

has been determined to be not 

significant for purposes of Executive 

Order 12866 (Sept. 30, 1993). 

Executive Order 13563 (Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review): The 

USPTO has complied with Executive 

Order 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 the rules; (2) 

tailored the rules 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) 

provided the public with a meaningful 

opportunity to participate in the 

regulatory process, including soliciting 

the views of those likely affected prior 

to issuing a notice of proposed 

rulemaking, 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, to the extent applicable. 

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism): 

This rule does not contain policies with 

federalism implications sufficient to 

warrant preparation of a Federalism 

Assessment under Executive Order 

13132 (Aug. 4, 1999). 

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.), prior to issuing this 

final rule, the USPTO submitted a report 

containing the final rule and other 

required information to the United 

States Senate, the United States House 

of Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the Government 

Accountability Office. The changes in 

this final rule are not expected to result 

in an annual effect on the economy of 

100 million dollars 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 is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined in 

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

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 dollars (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 dollars (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. 

Paperwork Reduction Act: This rule 

involves information collection 

requirements which are subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.). An information collection 

request was submitted to OMB under 

control numbers 0651–0009 and 0651– 

0055 at the time of the Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, and a preapproval was given. Since that time no 

substantive changes to the burden have 

been made. Additionally, the agency 

will follow up with a change worksheet 

submission to reconcile any burden 

estimate adjustments, especially as 

regards OMB Control Number 0651– 

0051. 

I. Summary 

The USPTO is reducing certain 

trademark fees, as authorized by the 

AIA. The reductions will reduce total 

trademark fee collections and promote 

efficiency for the USPTO and customers 

through electronic communication and 

will further the USPTO’s strategic 

objective to increase the end-to-end 

electronic processing of trademark 

applications including online filing, 

electronic file management, and 

workflow. Specifically, the USPTO 

amends its rules to permit a trademark 

applicant using the regular TEAS 

application form to file an application 

for registration on the Principal or 

Supplemental Register under Section 1 

and/or Section 44 of the Trademark Act, 

and an applicant who files a TEAS 

request for transformation of an 

extension of protection to the United 

States into a U.S. application, to pay a 

reduced fee under certain 

circumstances. The reduced fee is 

available to a TEAS applicant if the 

applicant agrees to receive 

communications concerning the 

application by email and to file all 

responses and other documents through 

TEAS during the prosecution of the 

application. The reduced-fee option 

does not apply to applications filed 

pursuant to Section 66(a) of the Act 

because they cannot be filed through 

TEAS. The USPTO also amends its rules 

to reduce the filing fees for an 

application filed using the TEAS Plus 

form and a TEAS application for 

renewal of a registration. 

II. Data 

Needs and Uses: The public uses the 

various applications to apply for the 

registration of trademarks/service 

marks, collective trademarks/service 

marks, collective membership marks, 

and certification marks that identify 

goods and services classified in single or 

multiple classes. The public also uses 

applications under Section 44 to apply 

for a priority filing date and/or for 

registration based upon foreign 

registration of a mark. The USPTO uses 

information from the public to receive 

and process applications for registration 

of trademarks/service marks, collective 

trademarks/service marks, collective 

membership marks, and certification 

marks. The USPTO uses information 

from the public in response to Section 

44 applications to process applications 

for registration of a mark based upon 

earlier-filed foreign applications or a 

foreign registration. In addition, the 

USPTO also uses the application 

information to determine whether the 

marks may be registered. The public 

uses the application for renewal to 

apply for the renewal of a registration. 

The USPTO uses information from the 

public to receive and process 

applications for renewal of a 

registration. 

Title of Collection: Applications for 

Trademark Registration. 

OMB Control Number: 0651–0009. 

Form Number(s): PTO Forms 1478, 

1480, 1481, 1482. 

Type of Review: Revised Collection. 

Method of Collection: By mail, 

facsimile, hand delivery, or 

electronically to the Office. 

Affected Public: Individuals or 

households; businesses or other forprofits; and not-for-profit institutions. 

Estimated Number of Responses: 

359,560. 

Estimated Time per Response: The 

Office estimates that the responses in 

this collection will take the public 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
74638 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 241 / Tuesday, December 16, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

approximately 18 to 30 minutes (0.3 to 

0.5 hours). 

Estimated Total Annual Respondent 

Burden Hours: 125,373 hours per year. 

Estimated Total Annual Respondent 

Cost Burden: $48,770,097 per year. 

Estimated Total Annual Non-hour 

Respondent Cost Burden: $97,548,226 

per year. 

Title of Collection: Post Registration 

(Trademark Processing). 

OMB Control Number: 0651–0055. 

Form Number(s): PTO Form 1963. 

Type of Review: Revised Collection. 

Method of Collection: By mail, 

facsimile, hand delivery, or 

electronically to the Office. 

Affected Public: Individuals or 

households; businesses or other forprofits; and not-for-profit institutions. 

Estimated Number of Responses: 

51,929. 

Estimated Time per Response: The 

Office estimates that the responses in 

this collection will take the public 

approximately 12 to 14 minutes (0.20 to 

0.23 hours). 

Estimated Total Annual Respondent 

Burden Hours: 10,414 hours per year. 

Estimated Total Annual Respondent 

Cost Burden: $4,050,988 per year. 

Estimated Total Annual Non-Hour 

Respondent Cost Burden: $20,865,550 

per year. 

Title of Collection: Madrid Protocol. 

OMB Control Number: 0651–0051. 

Form Number(s): PTO Global Form. 

Type of Review: Revised Collection. 

Method of Collection: By mail, 

facsimile, hand delivery, or 

electronically to the Office. 

Affected Public: Individuals or 

households; businesses or other forprofits; and not-for-profit institutions. 

Estimated Number of Responses: 

6,623. 

Estimated Time per Response: The 

Office estimates that the responses in 

this collection will take the public 

approximately 15 minutes to one hour 

and 15 minutes (0.25 to 1.25 hours). 

Estimated Total Annual Respondent 

Burden Hours: 1,711 hours per year. 

Estimated Total Annual Respondent 

Cost Burden: $634,781 per year. 

Estimated Total Annual Non-Hour 

Respondent Cost Burden: $743,875 per 

year. 

III. Solicitation 

Comments were solicited to: (1) 

Evaluate whether the information 

requirement is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

agency, including whether the 

information will have practical utility; 

(2) evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s 

estimate of the burden; (3) enhance the 

quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected; and (4) 

minimize the burden of collecting the 

information on those who are to 

respond, including by using appropriate 

automated, electronic, mechanical, or 

other technological collection 

techniques or other forms of information 

technology. 

Regarding whether the collection of 

information enhances the quality, 

utility, and clarity of the information to 

be collected, the USPTO received two 

comments. 

Comment: The commenters noted that 

the proposed changes will result in 

more accurate and carefully tailored 

trademark applications by allowing 

applicants to submit the most accurate 

and comprehensive designation of 

goods and services since they will not 

have to choose designations from the ID 

Manual, which the commenter contends 

results in inefficiencies not only for the 

companies seeking to register a mark, 

but also for the USPTO and other 

companies conducting trademark 

searches. The commenter also asserts 

that the proposed changes would help 

applicants receive the maximum 

benefits of the USPTO system. One 

commenter noted that requests for 

extensions of protection encounter a 

number of inefficiencies arising from 

the data transfer from WIPO to the 

Office and recommended that these 

inefficiencies be addressed by the Office 

as part of the rule or in a separate 

request for comment. 

Response: The USPTO agrees with the 

commenters regarding the benefits of 

providing a reduced-fee option while 

permitting applicants to submit their 

own identifications of goods and 

services. 

The USPTO appreciates the 

suggestions regarding requests for 

extension of protection but notes that 

the Office is unaware of the alleged 

inefficiencies of using an entry from the 

ID Manual and notes that these requests 

are not part of the information 

collection impacted by this final 

rulemaking. Any more detailed 

comments about this subject outside the 

scope of this final rulemaking may be 

submitted to the USPTO through 

TMFeedback@USPTO.gov. 

As to whether changes minimize the 

burden of collecting the information on 

those who are to respond, including by 

using appropriate automated, electronic, 

mechanical, or other technological 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology, the USPTO 

received no comments. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of law, no person is required to respond 

to nor shall a 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. 

List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 2 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Trademarks. 

For the reasons stated in the preamble 

and under the authority contained in 

Section 10(c) of the AIA, 15 U.S.C. 1113, 

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

amended, the USPTO amends part 2 of 

title 37 as follows: 

PART 2—RULES OF PRACTICE IN 

TRADEMARK CASES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 2 is 

revised to read as follows: 

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

35 U.S.C. 2, Section 10(c) of Pub. L. 112–29, 

unless otherwise noted. 

■ 2. Amend § 2.6 by revising paragraphs 

(a)(1)(iii) and (iv), adding paragraph 

(a)(1)(v), and revising paragraph (a)(5) to 

read as follows: 

§ 2.6 Trademark fees. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(iii) For filing a TEAS Reduced Fee 

(RF) application through TEAS under 

§ 2.23, per class—$275 

(iv) For filing a TEAS Plus application 

through TEAS under § 2.22, per class— 

$225.00 

(v) Additional processing fee under 

§§ 2.22(c) or 2.23(c), per class—$50.00 

* * * * * 

(5) Application for renewal of a 

registration fees. 

(i) For filing an application for 

renewal of a registration on paper, per 

class—$400.00 

(ii) For filing an application for 

renewal of a registration through TEAS, 

per class—$300.00 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 2.22 by revising the 

section heading, paragraph (a) 

introductory text, and paragraphs (b) 

and (c) and adding paragraph (d) to read 

as follows: 

§ 2.22 Requirements for a TEAS Plus 

application. 

(a) A trademark/service mark 

application for registration on the 

Principal Register under section 1 and/ 

or section 44 of the Act will be entitled 

to a reduced filing fee under 

§ 2.6(a)(1)(iv) if it is filed through TEAS 

and includes: 

* * * * * 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 241 / Tuesday, December 16, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 74639 

(b) In addition to the filing 

requirements under paragraph (a) of this 

section, the applicant must: 

(1) File the following communications 

through TEAS: 

(i) Responses to Office actions (except 

notices of appeal under section 20 of the 

Trademark Act); 

(ii) Requests to change the 

correspondence address and owner’s 

address; 

(iii) Appointments and/or revocations 

of power of attorney; 

(iv) Appointments and/or revocations 

of domestic representative; 

(v) Voluntary amendments; 

(vi) Amendments to allege use under 

section 1(c) of the Act or statements of 

use under section 1(d) of the Act; 

(vii) Requests for extensions of time to 

file a statement of use under section 1(d) 

of the Act; and 

(viii) Requests to delete a section 1(b) 

basis. 

(2) Maintain a valid email 

correspondence address and continue to 

receive communications from the Office 

by email. 

(c) If an application does not fulfill 

the requirements of paragraphs (a) and 

(b) of this section, the applicant must 

pay the processing fee required by 

§ 2.6(a)(1)(v). The application will retain 

its original filing date, provided that 

when filed, the application met the 

filing date requirements of § 2.21. 

(d) The following types of 

applications cannot be filed as TEAS 

Plus applications: 

(1) Applications for certification 

marks (see § 2.45); 

(2) Applications for collective 

trademarks and service marks (see 

§ 2.44); 

(3) Applications for collective 

membership marks (see § 2.44); and 

(4) Applications for registration on the 

Supplemental Register (see § 2.47). 

■ 4. Revise § 2.23 to read as follows: 

§ 2.23 Requirements for a TEAS RF 

application. 

(a) A trademark, service mark, 

certification mark, collective 

membership mark, or collective 

trademark application for registration on 

the Principal or Supplemental Register 

under section 1 and/or section 44 of the 

Act will be entitled to a reduced filing 

fee under § 2.6(a)(1)(iii) if it is filed 

through TEAS and includes: 

(1) An email address for 

correspondence; and 

(2) An authorization for the Office to 

send correspondence concerning the 

application to the applicant or 

applicant’s attorney by email. 

(b) In addition to the filing 

requirements under paragraph (a) of this 

section, the applicant must: 

(1) File the following communications 

through TEAS: 

(i) Responses to Office actions (except 

notices of appeal under section 20 of the 

Trademark Act); 

(ii) Requests to change the 

correspondence address and owner’s 

address; 

(iii) Appointments and/or revocations 

of power of attorney; 

(iv) Appointments and/or revocations 

of domestic representative; 

(v) Voluntary amendments; 

(vi) Amendments to allege use under 

section 1(c) of the Act or statements of 

use under section 1(d) of the Act; 

(vii) Requests for extensions of time to 

file a statement of use under section 1(d) 

of the Act; and 

(viii) Requests to delete a section 1(b) 

basis. 

(2) Maintain a valid email 

correspondence address, and continue 

to receive communications from the 

Office by email. 

(c) If an application does not meet the 

requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of 

this section, the applicant must pay the 

processing fee required by § 2.6(a)(1)(v). 

The application will retain its original 

filing date, provided that when filed, the 

application met the filing date 

requirements of § 2.21. 

Dated: December 10, 2014. 

Michelle K. Lee, 

Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for 

Intellectual Property and Deputy Director, 

United States Patent and Trademark Office. 

[FR Doc. 2014–29413 Filed 12–15–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–16–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 9 and 721 

[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2009–0767; FRL–9915–61] 

RIN 2070–AJ52 

Ethylene Glycol Ethers; Significant 

New Use Rule 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: Under the Toxic Substances 

Control Act (TSCA), EPA is 

promulgating a significant new use rule 

(SNUR) for seven ethylene glycol ethers 

(also known as glymes). This rule will 

require persons who intend to 

manufacture (including import) or 

process any of the seven ethylene glycol 

ethers for an activity that is designated 

as a significant new use by this rule to 

notify EPA at least 90 days before 

commencing such manufacture or 

processing. The required notifications 

would provide EPA with the 

opportunity to evaluate the intended 

use and, if necessary based on the 

information available at that time, an 

opportunity to protect against potential 

unreasonable risks, if any, from that 

activity before it occurs. EPA is also 

making a technical amendment to the 

codified list of control numbers for 

approved information collection 

activities so that it includes the control 

number assigned by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) to the 

information collection activities 

contained in this rule. 

DATES: This final rule is effective 

February 17, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2009–0767, is 

available at http://www.regulations.gov 

or at the Office of Pollution Prevention 

and Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket), EPA 

Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William 

Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC. The Public Reading Room is open 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the OPPT 

Docket is (202) 566–0280. Please review 

the visitor instructions and additional 

information about the docket available 

at http://www.epa.gov/dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical information contact: Kirsten 

Hesla, Chemical Control Division 

(7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention 

and Toxics, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone 

number: 202–564–2984; email address: 

hesla.kirsten@epa.gov. 

For general information contact: The 

TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 

South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 

14620; telephone number: (202) 554– 

1404; email address: TSCA-Hotline@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Executive Summary 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you manufacture 

(including import) or process any of the 

chemical substances covered by this 

final rule. The North American 

Industrial Classification System 

(NAICS) codes identified are not 

intended to be exhaustive, but rather 

provides a guide to help readers 

determine whether this document 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES