The Trademark Public Advisory Committee (TPAC) has been informed by the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) of the USPTO’s intention to restructure existing trademark fees. Additionally, the USPTO has released its preliminary trademark fee proposal and materials pertaining to fees. The proposed changes would make it more costly for candidates to compose their own portrayals of labor and products in manners not characterized in the USPTO Brand name ID Manual. After an application, proving commercial use will also cost more, as will renewal and maintenance fees.
The choice to upgrade the current brand name expense plan comes after the USPTO’s fruition of an extensive brand name charge survey. Two main themes emerged from this review. First, the USPTO believes that lower-than-expected demand in conjunction with recent trademark filing and renewal pattern changes is to blame for the lower-than-expected forecasts for aggregate revenue based on current demand estimates. Second, generally speaking USPTO working expenses have expanded because of rising expansion in the U.S., bringing about the need to create more income to fund the USPTO’s working shortage.
New Fee Proposal for a Single-Application Filing System and Related Surcharge Fees The new fee proposal is timed to coincide with the switch to a single-application filing system. A single basic application filing option with various premium surcharges will replace the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) Standard and TEAS Plus applications and their associated fees. The recently proposed charge structure is:
| Fee Category | Description | Current Fee | Proposed Fee | Dollar Change | Percent Change |
| Application Filings | Basic application, per class | $250 | $350 | $100 | 40 percent |
| Application Filings | Fee for insufficient information, per class | N/A | $100 | N/A | N/A |
| Application Filings | Fee for using custom goods and service identifications not contained in the Trademark Next Generation ID Manual (using the free-form text box), per class | N/A | $200 | N/A | N/A |
| Application Filings | Long identifications of goods and/or services, for each additional 1,000 characters in excess of the initially provided 1,000 characters, per class | N/A | $200 | N/A | N/A |
Moreover, in an effort to align foreign and domestic application fee schedules, the USPTO has proposed adjustments to fees paid for foreign Madrid Protocol-based applications filed under Section 66(a) of the Trademark Act.
| Fee Category | Description | Current Fee | Proposed Fee | Dollar Change | Percent Change |
| Application Filings | Basic application – Section 66(a), per class | N/A | $350 | N/A | N/A |
| Application Filings | Basic application – filing a subsequent designation under Section 66(a), per class | N/A | $350 | N/A | N/A |
| Application Filings | Fee for insufficient information, per class | N/A | $100 | N/A | N/A |
| Application Filings | Fee for using custom goods and service identifications not contained in the Trademark Next Generation ID Manual (using the free-form text box), per class | N/A | $200 | N/A | N/A |
| Application Filings | Long identifications of goods and/or services, for each additional 1,000 characters in excess of the initially provided 1,000 characters, per class | N/A | $200 | N/A | N/A |
The USPTO expects that these collective surcharges will offset the higher operating costs incurred from excessively and unnecessarily long identifications and will also incentivize “complete applications,” improving efficiency and reducing pendency times.
Other Fee Increases
Additionally, the USPTO has released proposals to increase or set the following trademark fees:
| Fee Category | Description | Current Fee | Proposed Fee | Dollar Change | Percent Change |
| Intent to Use/Use Fees | Amendment to allege use (AAU), per class | $100 | $200 | $100 | 100 percent |
| Intent to Use/Use Fees | Statement of use (SOU), per class | $100 | $150 | $50 | 50 percent |
| Intent to Use/Use Fees | First, second and third request for six-month extension for filing an SOU, per class | $125 | $125 | $0 | 0 percent |
| Intent to Use/Use Fees | Fourth and subsequent requests for six-month extension for filing an SOU, per class | $125 | $250 | $125 | 100 percent |
| Trademark Processing | Petition to the Director | $250 | $400 | $150 | 60 percent |
| Trademark Processing | Petition to revive an application | $150 | $250 | $100 | 67 percent |
| Trademark Processing | Letter of protest | $50 | $250 | $200 | 400 percent |
| Maintenance Filings | Section 9 renewal application, per class | $300 | $350 | $50 | 17 percent |
| Maintenance Filings | Section 8 declaration, per class | $225 | $300 | $75 | 33 percent |
| Maintenance Filings | Section 15 declaration, per class | $200 | $250 | $50 | 25 percent |
| Madrid Protocol Fees | Section 71 declaration, per class | $225 | $300 | $75 | 33 percen |
The USPTO as a whole may gain from the fee increases, but trademark applicants and owners will lose out. The new penalty for “insufficient information” is especially concerning; The USPTO has not specified what “insufficient information” entails or whether each examining attorney will have unilateral authority to impose a penalty. Although the possibility of appealing these individual decisions to the Director has not yet been established, such Petitions to the Director will incur an additional $400 cost. Applicants may now face yet another inconsistently applied standard and its associated penalty, with their only recourse being an uncertain appeal and payment of yet another fee. They have already faced inconsistent examination refusals and delayed examination timelines.
Source – hKLaw
