Rule2024-26644
Setting and Adjusting Trademark Fees During Fiscal Year 2025
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
November 18, 2024
Effective
January 18, 2025
Issuing agencies
Commerce DepartmentPatent and Trademark Office
Abstract
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).
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 222 (Monday, November 18, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 222 (Monday, November 18, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 91062-91091]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-26644]
[[Page 91061]]
Vol. 89
Monday,
No. 222
November 18, 2024
Part IV
Department of Commerce
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Patent and Trademark Office
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
37 CFR Parts 2 and 7
Setting and Adjusting Trademark Fees During Fiscal Year 2025; Final
Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 89 , No. 222 / Monday, November 18, 2024 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 91062]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#692b1b0c070d08074721061c1b000e0807291c1a191d06470e061f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="82c0f0e7ece6e3ecaccaedf7f0ebe5e3ecc2f7f1f2f6edace5edf4">[email protected]</span></a>; or
C. Brett Lockard, Director, Forecasting and Analysis Division, at 571-
272-0928 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a7e4cfd5ced4d3c8d7cfc2d589ebc8c4ccc6d5c3e7d2d4d7d3c889c0c8d1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4d0e253f243e39223d25283f6301222e262c3f290d383e3d3922632a223b">[email protected]</span></a>.
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 <a href="https://www.congress.gov/112/plaws/publ29/PLAW-112publ29.pdf">https://www.congress.gov/112/plaws/publ29/PLAW-112publ29.pdf</a>, as amended by the
SUCCESS Act, Public Law 115-273, 132 Stat. 4158, available at <a href="https://www.congress.gov/115/plaws/publ273/PLAW-115publ273.pdf">https://www.congress.gov/115/plaws/publ273/PLAW-115publ273.pdf</a>, 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 <a href="https://www.uspto.gov/StrategicPlan">https://www.uspto.gov/StrategicPlan</a>.
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 <a href="https://www.uspto.gov/FeeSettingAndAdjusting">https://www.uspto.gov/FeeSettingAndAdjusting</a>.
II. Background
Section 10(a) of the AIA, available at <a href="https://www.congress.gov/112/plaws/publ29/PLAW-112publ29.pdf">https://www.congress.gov/112/plaws/publ29/PLAW-112publ29.pdf</a>, 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 <a href="https://www.congress.gov/115/plaws/publ273/PLAW-115publ273.pdf">https://www.congress.gov/115/plaws/publ273/PLAW-115publ273.pdf</a>, 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
[[Page 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 <a href="https://www.uspto.gov/FeeSettingAndAdjusting">https://www.uspto.gov/FeeSettingAndAdjusting</a>.
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 <a href="https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/TPAC-Fee-Setting-Hearing-Transcript-20230605.pdf">https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/TPAC-Fee-Setting-Hearing-Transcript-20230605.pdf</a>. Members of the public were also given an
opportunity to submit written comments for TPAC to consider, and these
comments are available on <a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a> at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/docket/PTO-T-2023-0016">https://www.regulations.gov/docket/PTO-T-2023-0016</a>. 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 <a href="https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/TPAC-Report-on-2023-Fee-Proposal.docx">https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/TPAC-Report-on-2023-Fee-Proposal.docx</a>.
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 <a href="https://www.uspto.gov/FeeSettingAndAdjusting">https://www.uspto.gov/FeeSettingAndAdjusting</a>. 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 <a href="https://www.uspto.gov/dashboard/trademarks">https://www.uspto.gov/dashboard/trademarks</a>.
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.
[[Page 91064]]
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 463,756 442,627 418,438 402,622 401,645
inventory......................
Examination capacity *.......... 806 841 876 913 948
Performance measures:
Avg. first action pendency 7.5 6.3 5.9 5.5 4.9
(months)...................
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
Ga[eacute]tan De Rassenfosse, ``On the Price Elasticity of Demand for
Trademarks,'' Social Science Research Network, Jan. 28, 2018, <a href="https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2628646">https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2628646</a>; Benedikt Herz and Malwina Mejer, ``On the
Fee Elasticity of the Demand for Trademarks in Europe,'' Oxford
Economic Papers, Jul. 3, 2016, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/oep/gpw035">https://doi.org/10.1093/oep/gpw035</a>. 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
[[Page 91065]]
Other income.................... 10 10 10 10 10
Total projected fee collections 593 652 678 707 735
and other income...............
Budgetary requirements.......... 594 611 635 664 690
Funding to (+) and from (-) (1) 41 43 43 45
operating reserve..............
End-of-year operating reserve 85 126 169 213 258
balance........................
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 innovation-based 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 <a href="https://www.uspto.gov/FeeSettingAndAdjusting">https://www.uspto.gov/FeeSettingAndAdjusting</a>, 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,
[[Page 91066]]
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-than-expected 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, year-long 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
[[Page 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 <a href="https://www.congress.gov/116/plaws/publ260/PLAW-116publ260.pdf">https://www.congress.gov/116/plaws/publ260/PLAW-116publ260.pdf</a>. 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 long-term 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 long-range 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 long-range 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,
[[Page 91068]]
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final rule Dollar Percent FY 2023
Description Current fee fee change change 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, 100 Discontinue n/a n/a 4
per class.....................................
Application fee filed with WIPO (section 500 600 100 20 890
66(a)), per class.............................
Subsequent designation fee filed with WIPO 500 600 100 20 863
(section 66(a)), per class....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Sec. 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
[[Page 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final rule Dollar Percent FY 2023
Description Current fee fee change change unit cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fee for insufficient information (sections 1 n/a $100 n/a n/a n/a
and 44), per class............................
Fee for using the free-form text box to enter n/a 200 n/a n/a n/a
the identification of goods/services (sections
1 and 44), per class..........................
For each additional group of 1,000 characters n/a 200 n/a n/a n/a
beyond the first 1,000 (sections 1 and 44),
per class.....................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Sec. 2.22(1) through (20):
<bullet> The applicant's name and domicile address;
<bullet> The applicant's legal entity;
<bullet> The citizenship of each individual applicant, or the state
or country of incorporation or organization of each juristic applicant;
<bullet> 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;
<bullet> If the applicant is a sole proprietorship, the state of
organization of the sole proprietorship and the name and citizenship of
the sole proprietor;
<bullet> One or more bases for filing that satisfy all the
requirements of Sec. 2.34. If more than one basis is set forth, the
applicant must comply with the requirements of Sec. 2.34 for each
asserted basis;
<bullet> If the application contains goods and/or services in more
than one class, compliance with Sec. 2.86;
<bullet> A filing fee for each class of goods and/or services, as
required by Sec. 2.6(a)(1)(ii) or (iii);
<bullet> A verified statement that meets the requirements of Sec.
2.33, dated and signed by a person properly authorized to sign on
behalf of the owner pursuant to Sec. 2.193(e)(1);
<bullet> 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;
<bullet> 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;
<bullet> 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;
<bullet> If the mark is not in standard characters, a description
of the mark;
<bullet> If the mark includes non-English wording, an English
translation of that wording;
<bullet> If the mark includes non-Latin characters, a
transliteration of those characters;
<bullet> 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);
<bullet> 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 Sec. 2.36;
<bullet> If the application is a concurrent use application,
compliance with Sec. 2.42;
<bullet> 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 Sec. 2.11(a), and include the
attorney's name, postal address, email address, and bar information;
and
<bullet> 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 Sec. 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
[[Page 91070]]
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 character-based 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final rule Dollar Percent FY 2023
Description Current fee fee change change unit cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment to allege use (AAU), per class $200 $250 $50 25 n/a
(paper).......................................
Statement of use (SOU), per class (paper)...... 200 250 50 25 n/a
Amendment to allege use (AAU), per class 100 150 50 50 $152
(electronic)..................................
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final rule Dollar Percent FY 2023
Description Current fee fee change change unit cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 9 registration renewal application, per $500 $525 $25 5 n/a
class (paper).................................
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 300 325 25 8 $24
class (electronic)............................
[[Page 91071]]
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, post-registration 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 above-cost 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final rule Dollar Percent FY 2023 unit
Description Current fee fee change change 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, well-supported 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 Sec. 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Letters
Letters of protest corresponding to a Share of total
Fiscal year decided mark published in letters decided (%)
error
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016.......................................... 2,258 17 0.75
2017.......................................... 2,726 13 0.48
[[Page 91072]]
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final rule Dollar Percent FY 2023
Description Current fee fee change change 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 <a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a> at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/docket/PTO-T-2022-0034">https://www.regulations.gov/docket/PTO-T-2022-0034</a>.
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 <a href="https://www.uspto.gov/about-us/financial-and-performance">https://www.uspto.gov/about-us/financial-and-performance</a>. Also, the General Services Administration's
<a href="http://ITDashboard.gov">ITDashboard.gov</a> 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
[[Page 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-
than-expected 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 year-long 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 <a href="https://www.uspto.gov/Equity">https://www.uspto.gov/Equity</a>.
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
<a href="https://www.uspto.gov/Inventors">https://www.uspto.gov/Inventors</a>. The USPTO's Trademark Assistance
Center (TAC), <a href="https://www.uspto.gov/TrademarkAssistance">https://www.uspto.gov/TrademarkAssistance</a> 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-the-board 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
[[Page 91074]]
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 below-cost 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 <a href="http://myUSPTO.gov">myUSPTO.gov</a>,
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 <a href="http://USPTO.gov">USPTO.gov</a> 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 <a href="https://www.uspto.gov/LawSchoolClinic">https://www.uspto.gov/LawSchoolClinic</a>.
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
[[Page 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 <a href="https://www.uspto.gov/Inventors">https://www.uspto.gov/Inventors</a>. 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,
<a href="https://www.uspto.gov/TrademarkAssistance">https://www.uspto.gov/TrademarkAssistance</a>, can answer questions on a
variety of trademark topics.
The USPTO's Law School Clinic Certification Program, <a href="https://www.uspto.gov/LawSchoolClinic">https://www.uspto.gov/LawSchoolClinic</a>, 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, <a href="https://www.uspto.gov/LawSchoolClinic">https://www.uspto.gov/LawSchoolClinic</a>, 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-than-expected 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 Ga[eacute]tan De
Rassenfosse, ``On the Price Elasticity of Demand for Trademarks,''
Social Science Research Network, Jan. 28, 2018, <a href="https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2628646">https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2628646</a>; Benedikt Herz and Malwina Mejer, ``On the Fee
Elasticity of the Demand for Trademarks in Europe,'' Oxford Economic
Papers, Jul. 3, 2016, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/oep/gpw035">https://doi.org/10.1093/oep/gpw035</a>.
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
[[Page 91076]]
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 Sec. 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, year-long
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
[[Page 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
free-form 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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-in-the-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 Sec. 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 <a href="https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/trademark-updates-and-announcements/consistency-initiative">https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/trademark-updates-and-announcements/consistency-initiative</a>.
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 Sec. 2.22(a). The information required to avoid the
[[Page 91078]]
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 Sec. 2.32(a)(9) requires an applicant
to research a mark that is comprised of or includes non-English 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 Sec. 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 free-from 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-and-manuals/
trademark-identification-
[[Page 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 <a href="https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/guides-and-manuals/searching-trademark-id-manual">https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/guides-and-manuals/searching-trademark-id-manual</a>.
Comment 51: One commenter questioned the rationale for the free-
form 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 free-form descriptions or
also to pre-approved 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.
[[Page 91080]]
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 <a href="https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/guides-and-manuals/trademark-identification-goods-and-services-manual-suggestions">https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/guides-and-manuals/trademark-identification-goods-and-services-manual-suggestions</a>. 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 free-form 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
[[Page 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-favored-nation 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
[[Page 91082]]
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 post-registration 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
post-registration 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
[[Page 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
[[Page 91084]]
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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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--Sec. 2.6 Fee Changes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final rule
CFR section Fee code Description Paper or electronic Current fee fee
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.6(a)(1)(i)................. 6001.......... Application Paper................ $750 $850
(paper), per
class.
2.6(a)(1)(ii)(A)............. 7931.......... Application fee Electronic........... 500 600
filed with WIPO
(section
66(a)), per
class.
2.6(a)(1)(ii)(A)............. 7933.......... Subsequent Electronic........... 500 600
designation fee
filed with WIPO
(section
66(a)), per
class.
2.6(a)(1)(iii)............... 7009.......... Application Electronic........... 350 Discontinue
(TEAS
Standard), per
class.
2.6(a)(1)(iii)............... New........... Base Electronic........... n/a 350
application,
per class.
2.6(a)(1)(iv)................ 7007.......... Application Electronic........... 250 Discontinue
(TEAS Plus),
per class.
2.6(a)(1)(iv)................ New........... Fee for Paper................ n/a 100
insufficient
information
(sections 1 and
44), per class.
2.6(a)(1)(iv)................ New........... Fee for Electronic........... n/a 100
insufficient
information
(sections 1 and
44), per class.
2.6(a)(1)(v)................. 6008.......... Fee for failing Paper................ 100 Discontinue
to meet TEAS
Plus
requirements,
per class.
2.6(a)(1)(v)................. 7008.......... Fee for failing Electronic........... 100 Discontinue
to meet TEAS
Plus
requirements,
per class.
2.6(a)(1)(v)................. New........... Fee for using Paper................ n/a 200
the free-form
text box to
enter the
identification
of goods/
services
(sections 1 and
44), per class.
2.6(a)(1)(v)................. New........... Fee for using Electronic........... n/a 200
the free-form
text box to
enter the
identification
of goods/
services
(sections 1 and
44), per class.
[[Page 91085]]
2.6(a)(1)(vi)................ New........... For each Paper................ n/a 200
additional
group of 1,000
characters
beyond the
first 1,000
(sections 1 and
44), per class
(paper).
2.6(a)(1)(vi)................ New........... For each Electronic........... n/a 200
additional
group of 1,000
characters
beyond the
first 1,000
(sections 1 and
44), per class.
2.6(a)(2)(i)................. 6002.......... Amendment to Paper................ 200 250
allege use
(AAU), per
class.
2.6(a)(2)(ii)................ 7002.......... Amendment to Electronic........... 100 150
allege use
(AAU), per
class.
2.6(a)(3)(i)................. 6003.......... Statement of use Paper................ 200 250
(SOU), per
class.
2.6(a)(3)(ii)................ 7003.......... Statement of use Electronic........... 100 150
(SOU), per
class.
2.6(a)(5)(i)................. 6201.......... Section 9 Paper................ 500 525
registration
renewal
application,
per class.
2.6(a)(5)(ii)................ 7201.......... Section 9 Electronic........... 300 325
registration
renewal
application,
per class.
2.6(a)(5)(iii)(A)............ 7932.......... Renewal fee Electronic........... 300 325
filed at WIPO.
2.6(a)(12)(i)................ 6205.......... Section 8 Paper................ 325 425
declaration,
per class.
2.6(a)(12)(ii)............... 7205.......... Section 8 Electronic........... 225 325
declaration,
per class.
2.6(a)(13)(i)................ 6208.......... Section 15 Paper................ 300 350
declaration,
per class.
2.6(a)(13)(ii)............... 7208.......... Section 15 Electronic........... 200 250
declaration,
per class.
2.6(a)(15)(i)................ 6005.......... Petition to the Paper................ 350 500
Director.
2.6(a)(15)(ii)............... 7005.......... Petition to the Electronic........... 250 400
Director.
2.6(a)(15)(iii).............. 6010.......... Petition to Paper................ 250 350
revive an
application.
2.6(a)(15)(iv)............... 7010.......... Petition to Electronic........... 150 250
revive an
application.
2.6(a)(25)................... 7011.......... Letter of Electronic........... 50 150
protest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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--Sec. 7.6 Fee Changes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final rule
CFR section Fee code Description Paper or electronic Current fee fee
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7.6(a)(6)(i)................. 6905.......... Section 71 Paper................ $325 $425
declaration,
per class.
7.6(a)(6)(ii)................ 7905.......... Section 71 Electronic........... 225 325
declaration,
per class.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 91086]]
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 <a href="https://www.uspto.gov/FeeSettingAndAdjusting">https://www.uspto.gov/FeeSettingAndAdjusting</a>. 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 <a href="https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/TPAC-Fee-Setting-Hearing-Transcript-20230605.pdf">https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/TPAC-Fee-Setting-Hearing-Transcript-20230605.pdf</a>. Members of the public were
also given the opportunity to submit written comments for TPAC to
consider, and these comments are available on <a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a> at
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov/docket/PTO-T-2023-0016">https://www.regulations.gov/docket/PTO-T-2023-0016</a>. 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 <a href="https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/TPAC-Report-on-2023-Fee-Proposal.docx">https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/TPAC-Report-on-2023-Fee-Proposal.docx</a>. 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 <a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a> at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/comment/PTO-T-2022-0034-0025">https://www.regulations.gov/comment/PTO-T-2022-0034-0025</a>. 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
[[Page 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-to-use 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 <a href="https://www.uspto.gov/about-us/performance-and-planning/fee-setting-and-adjusting">https://www.uspto.gov/about-us/performance-and-planning/fee-setting-and-adjusting</a>.
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 <a href="http://www.uspto.gov/about-us/performance-and-planning/fee-setting-and-adjusting">http://www.uspto.gov/about-us/performance-and-planning/fee-setting-and-adjusting</a>.
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, well-supported 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 <a href="https://www.uspto.gov/FeeSettingAndAdjusting">https://www.uspto.gov/FeeSettingAndAdjusting</a>, 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
<a href="https://www.uspto.gov/FeeSettingAndAdjusting">https://www.uspto.gov/FeeSettingAndAdjusting</a>. 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.
[[Page 91088]]
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
[…truncated; see source link]Indexed from Federal Register on November 18, 2024.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.