Trademark Office Fee Changes and Strategies

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is always tweaking fees slightly here and there.  However, effective January 18, 2025, the USPTO implemented significant changes to its trademark application fee structure.  Here, I focus on the changes to the use of free-form text for identifying goods and services.  These adjustments are meant to encourage the use of standardized descriptions and thus hopefully streamline the application process.  I am not fully confident this will be the result.

Elimination of TEAS Plus and TEAS Standard Applications

Previously, trademark applicants could choose between TEAS Plus and TEAS Standard applications, with fees of $250 and $350 per class, respectively.  Those fees were set at the start of 2021.  I always found the “TEAS Plus” and “TEAS Standard” names completely non descriptive and unhelpful for clients to understand the different between the two types of applications, and instead explained that a client could choose between an application that created its own customized identification or one that adopted a standardized ID already accepted by the USPTO.

The USPTO has now consolidated these trademark applications into a single “base application” with a fee of $350 per class.  To qualify for this base fee, an application must:

• Be complete at the time of filing: This includes correctly providing all required information, such as the applicant’s name, domicile address, legal entity type, and, if applicable, translations or transliterations of non-English wording or non-Latin characters in the mark.
• Use pre-approved identifications: Applicants must select descriptions of goods and services directly from the USPTO’s Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual (ID Manual).

Applications lacking required information at the time of filing will incur a $100 surcharge per class.  This emphasizes the importance of submitting complete and accurate applications to avoid additional fees.

New Surcharges for Free-Form Text Usage

If an applicant opts to use free-form text and customize the way the application identifies the goods or services, instead of adopting the pre-approved entries from the ID Manual, additional fees will apply:

• Free-Form Text Fee: A $200 surcharge per class will be imposed if any listed goods or services do not appear verbatim in the ID Manual.
• Lengthy Description Fee: For free-form identifications exceeding 1,000 characters, an additional $200 fee will be charged for each subsequent set of 1,000 characters per class.

These surcharges are designed to offset the increased examination costs associated with non-standard and lengthy descriptions.  I believe this will be true to some extent.  When I submit a customized identification, I usually warn the applicant that the Office is likely to reject the description, forcing a conversation with the Examiner about what is the proper scope and diction of the identification.  Even when you craft an identification based on already-accepted ones in the Trademark ID Manual, Examiners seem to love to reject them.  Nevertheless, there are often good reasons for creating a customized description despite this risk: there may not be a good fit in the ID Manual, there may be a prosecution strategy in selecting an ID and then amending it around an existing registration, etc.

Impact on Applicants

Applicants with unique or highly specialized goods or services often find the pre-approved descriptions insufficient.  This may necessitate the use of the free-form text tool and incurring additional fees.  It’s advisable for such applicants to consult with trademark counsel to develop strategies that minimize surcharges while ensuring appropriate protection.

For example, you can suggest additions to the Trademark Office’s ID Manual.  I’ve found that the Office usually reviews suggestions within a few days and then adds the identification to the Manual within a week or so.  This is often a minimal delay for a trademark application.  Now that the surcharge for using a customized description has doubled, we may see more applicants adopt this strategy, meaning the Office’s time to review and approve the suggestions may increase.

The requirement to include translations and transliterations may be a hiccup.  I’ve had a few trademark applications questioned by the Examiner as to whether the mark was in a foreign language, when it certainly wasn’t.  This may lead applicants to defensively and preemptively state that the mark is not a foreign-language word and needs no translation or transliteration.

In the past, many of the changes to fees and application requirements have been directed at reducing fraudulent applications.  These changes don’t seem directed to that, as most questionable applications do not adopt lengthy or customized identifications of goods and services.

Interestingly, some foreign applicants needn’t worry – but some do.  Applications filed under the Madrid Protocol (Section 66(a)) are currently exempt from these additional fees.  Rather, these surcharges apply only to applications filed under Sections 1 and 44 of the Trademark Act. While Section 1 applications are based on use in the United States, Section 44 trademark applications are based on foreign priority applications and registrations.

Conclusion

The USPTO’s revised fee structure underscores the agency’s commitment to enhancing application quality and processing efficiency.  Applicants are encouraged to utilize the ID Manual’s pre-approved descriptions and ensure their applications are complete at the time of filing to avoid incurring additional fees.  For those with specialized needs, consulting with experienced trademark professionals can help navigate these changes effectively.  Contact Phoenix trademark attorney Tom Galvani at 602-281-6481 if you have questions about the new fees.