[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 90 (Friday, May 9, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26664-26669]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-10730]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

 Patent and Trademark Office

37 CFR Part 2

[Docket No. PTO-T-2014-0011]
RIN 0651-AC94


Reduction of Fees for Trademark Applications and Renewals

AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The United States Patent and Trademark Office (``Office'' or 
``USPTO'') proposes reducing certain trademark fees, as authorized by 
the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (``AIA'' or ``Act''). The proposed 
reductions will reduce total trademark fee collections and promote 
efficiency for the USPTO and customers. The proposals also will further 
USPTO strategic objectives to increase the end-to-end electronic 
processing of trademark applications by offering additional electronic 
application processing options and promoting online filing, electronic 
file management, and workflow.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before June 23, 2014.

ADDRESSES: The USPTO prefers that comments be submitted via electronic 
mail message to [email protected]. Written comments also may be 
submitted by mail to Commissioner for Trademarks, P.O. Box 1451, 
Alexandria, VA 22313-1451, attention Cynthia C. Lynch; by hand delivery 
to the Trademark Assistance Center, Concourse Level, James Madison 
Building--East Wing, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314, 
attention Cynthia C. Lynch; or by electronic mail message via the 
Federal eRulemaking Portal. See the Federal eRulemaking Portal Web site 
(http://www.regulations.gov) for additional instructions on providing 
comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal. All comments submitted 
directly to the USPTO or provided on the Federal eRulemaking Portal 
should include the docket number (PTO-T-2014-0011). The comments will 
be available for public inspection on the USPTO's Web site at http://www.uspto.gov, on the Federal eRulemaking Portal, and also will be 
available at the Office of the Commissioner for Trademarks, Madison 
East, Tenth Floor, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314. 
Because comments will be made available for public inspection, 
information that is not desired to be made public, such as

[[Page 26665]]

an address or phone number, should not be included.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cynthia C. Lynch, Office of the Deputy 
Commissioner for Trademark Examination Policy, by email at 
[email protected], or by telephone at (571) 272-8742.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Executive Summary: Purpose: Section 10 of the AIA authorizes the 
Director of the USPTO (``Director'') to set or adjust by rule any fee 
established, authorized, or charged under the Trademark Act of 1946 (15 
U.S.C. 1051 et seq.) for any services performed by, or materials 
furnished by, the Office. See Section 10 of the AIA, Public Law 112-29, 
125 Stat. at 316-17.
    Section 10(c) of the AIA authorizes the Director to consult with 
the Trademark Public Advisory Committee (``TPAC'') on the advisability 
of reducing trademark fees and, following the required consultation, to 
reduce such fees. See Section 10(c) of the AIA, Public Law 112-29, 125 
Stat. at 317. The Director has consulted with TPAC and thereafter 
determined that it is advisable to propose such reductions in order to 
both improve the alignment of Office costs with revenues and 
incentivize electronic communications, thereby increasing efficiency. 
Therefore, the USPTO proposes to reduce the filing fees for trademark, 
certification mark, collective membership mark, and collective 
trademark applications for registration on the Principal or 
Supplemental Register that are filed using the Trademark Electronic 
Application System (``TEAS'') if applicants authorize email 
communication and file electronically throughout the application 
process. The USPTO also proposes to reduce the filing fees for TEAS 
Plus applications for registration and TEAS applications for renewal of 
a registration.
    The per-class fees for filing an application for registration of a 
trademark are currently set at $375 for filing a paper application, 
$325 for filing electronically using TEAS, and $275 for filing 
electronically using TEAS Plus, which involves additional requirements. 
37 CFR 2.6(a)(1). The per-class fee for renewal of a registration is 
currently $400. 37 CFR 2.6(a)(5).
    Prior to consulting with TPAC, the USPTO also published a notice of 
inquiry to provide the public, including user groups, with an 
opportunity to comment on possible adjustments to trademark application 
fees (77 FR 49,426 (Aug. 16, 2012)). The public comments overwhelmingly 
favored a fee reduction, and many expressed a desire for a lower-cost 
electronic filing option without any restrictions on the nature of the 
identification of goods and services, as is required under TEAS Plus.
    The proposed fees will help the USPTO to: (1) Continue with an 
appropriate and sustainable funding model; (2) support strategic 
objectives relating to online filing, electronic file management, and 
workflow; and (3) improve efficiency for USPTO operations and 
customers. The proposals will benefit the public by providing lower 
costs to seek federal registration, including advantages to individual 
and pro se filers, who make greater use of lower-cost filing options. 
In addition, the proposals offer additional options for meeting 
applicants' needs and preferences.
    Summary of Major Provisions: After reviewing the comments received 
in response to the notice of inquiry, the USPTO proposes to reduce by 
$50 the fee for an application filed using the regular TEAS application 
form from $325 to $275 per class if the applicant authorizes email 
communication and agrees to file all responses and other documents 
electronically during the prosecution of the application. This option 
will be known as a TEAS Reduced Fee (``TEAS RF'') application. The 
USPTO also proposes to reduce by $50 the fee for a TEAS Plus 
application from $275 to $225 per class and reduce by $100 the fee for 
a TEAS application for renewal of a registration from $400 to $300 per 
class. As has been the case since the inception of TEAS Plus, TEAS Plus 
applicants who fail to fulfill the filing and examination requirements 
set out in the rules will be subject to a processing fee of $50 per 
class, and similarly, TEAS RF applicants who fail to fulfill the 
requirements under the proposed rules will be subject to the existing 
processing fee of $50 per class.
    The filing fee of $375 per class for applications for registration 
filed on paper will not be changed. The filing fee of $400 per class 
for renewal of a registration filed on paper will not change.
    Costs and Benefits: This rulemaking is not economically significant 
under Executive Order 12866 (Sept. 30, 1993).
    References below to ``the Act,'' ``the Trademark Act,'' or ``the 
statute'' refer to the Trademark Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq., 
as amended. References to ``TMEP'' or ``Trademark Manual of Examining 
Procedure'' refer to the October 2013 edition.

Discussion of Proposed Rules Changes

    The USPTO proposes to amend Sec. Sec.  2.6, 2.22, and 2.23.
    The USPTO proposes to revise Sec.  2.6(a)(1) to enumerate the 
revised application filing fee options. The proposed Sec.  
2.6(a)(1)(iii) sets out the new, reduced fee of $275 for filing a TEAS 
Reduced Fee (i.e., TEAS RF) application under proposed Sec.  2.23. The 
proposed Sec.  2.6(a)(i)(iv) for TEAS Plus is the same as the existing 
Sec.  2.6(a)(1)(iii) except that the TEAS Plus fee is reduced from $275 
to $225 per class and there is minor rewording for consistency with 
existing Sec.  2.6(a)(1)(ii) and proposed Sec.  2.6(a)(1)(iii). The 
proposed Sec.  2.6(a)(1)(v) processing fee is the same as the existing 
Sec.  2.6(a)(1)(iv) except for amended citations to proposed Sec. Sec.  
2.22(c) and 2.23(c). The USPTO proposes to revise Sec.  2.6(a)(5) to 
enumerate the revised fees for renewal of a registration. The proposed 
Sec.  2.6(a)(5)(i) sets out the current fee of $400 as the fee for an 
application for renewal of a registration filed on paper. The proposed 
Sec.  2.6(a)(5)(ii) sets out the reduced fee of $300 per class for a 
TEAS renewal of a registration.
    The USPTO proposes to make the following format revisions to Sec.  
2.22 concerning TEAS Plus applications: Revise the rule title; in Sec.  
2.22(a), cite to Sec.  2.6(a)(1)(iv) instead of Sec.  2.6(a)(1)(iii); 
in Sec.  2.22(b), set forth the additional examination requirements for 
a TEAS Plus application that are currently set forth in existing Sec.  
2.23(a); in Sec.  2.22(c), set forth the current text in existing 
Sec. Sec.  2.22(b) and 2.23(b), and cite to Sec.  2.6(a)(1)(v) instead 
of to Sec.  2.6(a)(1)(iv); and, in Sec.  2.22(d), set forth the text 
currently in existing Sec.  2.22(c).
    The USPTO proposes to revise current Sec.  2.23 to create a TEAS RF 
option in the amount of $275. Existing Sec.  2.23 currently lists the 
additional examination requirements for a TEAS Plus application. As 
noted above, the provisions in existing Sec.  2.23 would be 
consolidated into revised Sec.  2.22. Filers using either the TEAS Plus 
or the new TEAS RF option are required to authorize email communication 
from the USPTO and submit documents electronically using TEAS during 
the prosecution of the application. However, filers using the new TEAS 
RF option are not required to comply with the additional TEAS Plus 
requirements for submitting the initial application.

Rulemaking Considerations

    Administrative Procedure Act: This rulemaking proposes to reduce 
fees under Section 10(c) of the AIA. See also 15 U.S.C. 1113, 15 U.S.C. 
1123, 35 U.S.C. 2. The other changes proposed in this rulemaking 
establish procedures for applicants seeking these reduced fees. The 
procedural changes proposed in

[[Page 26666]]

this rulemaking involve rules of agency practice and procedure, and/or 
interpretive rules. See Nat'l Org. of Veterans' Advocates v. Sec'y of 
Veterans Affairs, 260 F.3d 1365, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (stating that a 
rule that clarifies interpretation of a statute is interpretive); 
Bachow Commc'ns Inc. v. FCC, 237 F.3d 683, 690 (D.C. Cir. 2001) 
(stating that rules governing an application process are procedural 
under the Administrative Procedure Act); Inova Alexandria Hosp. v. 
Shalala, 244 F.3d 342, 350 (4th Cir. 2001) (stating that rules for 
handling appeals were procedural where they did not change the 
substantive standard for reviewing claims).
    Accordingly, prior notice and opportunity for public comment for 
the procedural changes are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b) or 
(c) (or any other law). See Cooper Techs. Co. v. Dudas, 536 F.3d 1330, 
1336-37 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (stating that 5 U.S.C. 553, and thus 35 U.S.C. 
2(b)(2)(B), does not require notice and comment rulemaking for 
``interpretative rules, general statements of policy, or rules of 
agency organization, procedure, or practice'' (quoting 5 U.S.C. 
553(b)(3)(A))). The Office, however, is publishing these proposed 
changes for comment as it seeks the benefit of the public's views on 
the Office's proposed reduced fees along with accompanying related 
requirements.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

1. Description of the Reasons That Action by the USPTO Is Being 
Considered
    The USPTO proposes reducing certain trademark fees as authorized by 
Section 10(c) of the AIA. The proposed reductions will reduce total 
trademark fee collections and promote efficiency for the USPTO and 
customers through increased electronic communication. Specifically, the 
USPTO proposes to amend its rules to reduce application filing fees for 
certain applications for registration on the Principal or Supplemental 
Register under section 1 and/or section 44 of the Trademark Act that 
are filed through TEAS, and to reduce the fee for renewal of a 
trademark registration that is filed through TEAS.
2. Succinct Statement of the Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, the 
Proposed Rule
    The objectives of the proposed rules are to reduce total trademark 
filing and renewal fees and fee collections, improve the alignment of 
Office costs with revenues, and promote efficiency for the USPTO and 
customers through electronic communication. Filing through TEAS and 
authorizing email communication expedites processing, shortens 
pendency, minimizes manual processing and the potential for data entry 
errors, and is more efficient for both the filer and the USPTO. TEAS-
filed documents are automatically uploaded into the USPTO database. 
They require no manual scanning or creation of a paper file wrapper, 
and they reduce or eliminate the need for manual data entry of 
amendments to the filings. Authorizing email communication provides 
similar benefits, by reducing the need for mailing and the creation of, 
or addition to, a file wrapper. Paper filings, on the other hand, 
necessitate: (1) Manual scanning and uploading of the documents into 
the USPTO database; (2) manual data entry of information; and (3) the 
creation of paper file wrappers in which to store the originals of the 
paper filings. Thus, the proposed rules facilitate efficiency in 
numerous ways. As to the legal basis for the proposed rules, Section 
10(c) of the AIA provides the authority for the Director to reduce 
trademark fees after consultation with TPAC. See also Section 31 of the 
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. 1113. Both 15 U.S.C. 1123 and 35 U.S.C. 2 
provide the authority for the Director to establish regulations for the 
conduct of trademark proceedings at the USPTO.
3. Description of and, Where Feasible, Estimate of the Number of 
Affected Small Entities
    The USPTO does not collect or maintain statistics in trademark 
cases on small- versus large-entity applicants, and this information 
would be required in order to determine the number of small entities 
that would be affected by the proposed rules. However, the USPTO will 
provide projected estimates of each type of filing affected by the 
proposed rules. The USPTO believes that the overall impact of the 
proposed lower fees on applicants and registrants will be 
overwhelmingly positive, as they will be afforded the opportunity to 
obtain a trademark registration for a reduced fee.
    The proposed rules could apply to any entity filing a trademark 
application, except those filing under Section 66(a), 15 U.S.C. 
1141f(a). The USPTO estimates that during the first year under the 
rules as proposed, the USPTO would receive 204,682 classes of TEAS Plus 
applications and 103,633 classes of TEAS RF applications that, absent 
the rule change, would be filed as regular TEAS applications. Thus, the 
estimated financial impact of the proposed reduced fees will be: (1) A 
$10,234,100 reduction in fees for TEAS Plus applicants; and (2) a 
$5,181,650 reduction in fees for TEAS RF applicants, or $5,065,100, 
when the estimated 2,331 classes of TEAS RF applicants who must pay the 
$50 processing fee are taken into consideration. Turning to the renewal 
fee, the USPTO estimates that during the first year under the rules as 
proposed, the USPTO would receive 62,315 classes of renewals, 61,193 
filed through TEAS, such that the financial impact will be a $6,119,300 
reduction in fees for trademark owners. The USPTO does not collect or 
maintain statistics in trademark cases on small versus large-entity 
applicants to determine what subset of applicants would be those small 
entities impacted by the proposed rules.
4. Description of the Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 
Requirements of the Proposed 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
    The proposed rules impose no new reporting or recordkeeping 
requirements.
    The proposed rules reduce fees for applications for and renewals of 
trademark registrations. The USPTO does not anticipate that the 
proposed rules would have a disproportionate impact upon any particular 
class of small or large entities. Any entity that applies for or renews 
a registered trademark could in fact benefit from the proposed rules. 
The proposed rules merely offer lower fees based on electronic filing 
of the renewal or application and other documents, and authorization 
for email communication from the USPTO. Because the fees for filing a 
paper application, a regular TEAS application, and a paper application 
for renewal of a registration remain unchanged under the proposed 
rules, and applicants may continue to file on paper or via the regular 
TEAS application form, following the requirements for the reduced fee 
options in the proposed rules will be the choice of the filer. 
Procedures for TEAS Plus filers remain the same, as the proposed rules 
merely reduce fees, and consolidate the TEAS Plus procedures within one 
rule, without imposing any change in practice. Filers using the new 
TEAS RF option will submit documents electronically using TEAS during 
the prosecution of the application and will authorize email 
communication from the USPTO.

[[Page 26667]]

    The USPTO estimates that filing electronically will not take any 
more time than filing the same type of document on paper and is likely 
to take less time. The USPTO further estimates that communicating by 
email will not take any more time than receiving and reviewing a USPTO 
communication sent by regular mail and is likely to take less time.
5. Description of Any Significant Alternatives to the Proposed Rule 
Which Accomplish the Stated Objectives of Applicable Statutes and Which 
Minimize Any Significant Economic Impact of the Rule on Small Entities
    The USPTO has considered whether and how it is appropriate to 
reduce any burden on small businesses through increased flexibility. 
The following options have been considered, but rejected, by the USPTO, 
since they are less protective of small businesses.
    The alternative of not offering these reduced fees, or not offering 
them to small entities, would retain the status quo for small entities 
and therefore produce no economic impact on them, but that alternative 
has been rejected because the economic effect of the proposed rules 
will be favorable to small businesses, rather than burdensome. In 
addition, the alternative of not reducing fees would fail to accomplish 
the stated objectives of reducing overall trademark fee collections and 
increasing efficiency for the USPTO and filers.
    The proposed rules provide streamlined and simplified procedures 
for all small entities, given the ease of filing electronically through 
TEAS and communicating by email. Thus, compliance will be streamlined 
and simplified for all affected entities. The proposed fee reductions 
promote greater efficiency from electronic filing and communication, as 
the procedures are simpler and not burdensome.
    Use of performance rather than design standards is not applicable 
to the proposed rulemaking because the USPTO is not issuing any sort of 
standard. Rather, the proposed rules will offer reduced fees to 
applicants and registrants who file and communicate electronically with 
the USPTO.
6. Identification, to the Extent Practicable, of all Relevant Federal 
Rules Which May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rule
    The proposed rules would not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with 
any other Federal rules.
    Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review): This rule 
has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive 
Order 12866 (Sept. 30, 1993).
    Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review): 
The USPTO has complied with Executive Order 13563 (Jan. 18, 2011). 
Specifically, the USPTO has, to the extent feasible and applicable: (1) 
Made a reasoned determination that the benefits justify the costs of 
the rule; (2) tailored the rule to impose the least burden on society 
consistent with obtaining the regulatory objectives; (3) selected a 
regulatory approach that maximizes net benefits; (4) specified 
performance objectives; (5) identified and assessed available 
alternatives; (6) provided the public with a meaningful opportunity to 
participate in the regulatory process, including soliciting the views 
of those likely affected prior to issuing a notice of proposed 
rulemaking, and provided online access to the rulemaking docket; (7) 
attempted to promote coordination, simplification, and harmonization 
across government agencies and identified goals designed to promote 
innovation; (8) considered approaches that reduce burdens and maintain 
flexibility and freedom of choice for the public; and (9) ensured the 
objectivity of scientific and technological information and processes, 
to the extent applicable.
    Executive Order 13132 (Federalism): This rule does not contain 
policies with federalism implications sufficient to warrant preparation 
of a Federalism Assessment under Executive Order 13132 (Aug. 4, 1999).
    Congressional Review Act: Under the Congressional Review Act 
provisions of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996 (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), prior to issuing any final rule, the USPTO 
will submit a report containing the final rule and other required 
information to the United States Senate, the United States House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the Government 
Accountability Office. The changes in this notice are not expected to 
result in an annual effect on the economy of 100 million dollars or 
more, a major increase in costs or prices, or significant adverse 
effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, 
innovation, or the ability of United States-based enterprises to 
compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets. 
Therefore, this notice is not expected to result in a ``major rule'' as 
defined in 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995: The changes set forth in this 
rulemaking do not involve a Federal intergovernmental mandate that will 
result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, of 100 million dollars (as adjusted) or more in any one 
year, or a Federal private sector mandate that will result in the 
expenditure by the private sector of 100 million dollars (as adjusted) 
or more in any one year, and will not significantly or uniquely affect 
small governments. Therefore, no actions are necessary under the 
provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. See 2 U.S.C. 
1501 et seq.
    Paperwork Reduction Act: This rule involves information collection 
requirements which are subject to review by the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 
3501 et seq.). The collection of information involved in this rule has 
been reviewed and previously approved by OMB under control numbers 
0651-0009 and 0651-0055.

I. Summary

    The USPTO proposes reducing certain trademark fees, as authorized 
by the AIA. The proposed reductions will reduce total trademark fee 
collections and promote efficiency for the USPTO and customers through 
electronic communication. The proposals will further the USPTO 
strategic objective to increase the end-to-end electronic processing of 
trademark applications including online filing, electronic file 
management, and workflow. Specifically, the USPTO proposes to amend its 
rules to permit a trademark applicant using the regular TEAS 
application form to file an application for registration on the 
Principal or Supplemental Register under section 1 and/or section 44 of 
the Trademark Act to pay a reduced fee under certain circumstances. The 
reduced fee would be offered to a TEAS applicant if the applicant 
agrees to receive communications concerning the application by email 
and to file all responses and other documents through TEAS during the 
prosecution of the application. The reduced fee option will not apply 
to applications filed pursuant to section 66(a) of the Act because they 
cannot be filed through TEAS. The USPTO also proposes to amend its 
rules to reduce the filing fees for an application filed using the TEAS 
Plus form and a TEAS application for renewal of a registration.

II. Data

    Needs and Uses: The public uses the various applications to apply 
for the registration of trademarks/service marks, collective 
trademarks/service marks, collective membership marks,

[[Page 26668]]

and certification marks that identify goods and/or services classified 
in single or multiple classes. The public also uses applications under 
section 44 to apply for a priority filing date and/or for registration 
based upon foreign registration of a mark. The USPTO uses information 
from the public to receive and process applications for registration of 
trademarks/service marks, collective trademarks/service marks, 
collective membership marks, and certification marks. The USPTO uses 
information from the public in response to section 44 applications to 
process applications for registration of a mark based upon earlier-
filed foreign applications or a foreign registration. In addition, the 
USPTO also uses the application information to determine whether the 
marks may be registered. The public uses the application for renewal to 
apply for the renewal of a registration. The USPTO uses information 
from the public to receive and process applications for renewal of a 
registration.
    Title of Collection: Applications for Trademark Registration.
    OMB Control Number: 0651-0009.
    Form Number(s): PTO Forms 1478, 1480, 1481, 1482.
    Type of Review: Revised Collection.
    Method of Collection: By mail, facsimile, hand delivery, or 
electronically to the Office.
    Affected Public: Individuals or households; businesses or other 
for-profits; and not-for-profit institutions.
    Estimated Number of Responses: 359,560.
    Estimated Time per Response: The Office estimates that the 
responses in this collection will take the public approximately 18 to 
30 minutes (0.3 to 0.5 hours).
    Estimated Total Annual Respondent Burden Hours: 125,373 hours per 
year.
    Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost Burden: $48,770,097 per 
year.
    Estimated Total Annual Non-hour Respondent Cost Burden: $97,548,226 
per year.

    Title of Collection: Post Registration (Trademark Processing).
    OMB Control Number: 0651-0055.
    Form Number(s): PTO Form 1963.
    Type of Review: Revised Collection.
    Method of Collection: By mail, facsimile, hand delivery, or 
electronically to the Office.
    Affected Public: Individuals or households; businesses or other 
for-profits; and not-for-profit institutions.
    Estimated Number of Responses: 51,929.
    Estimated Time per Response: The Office estimates that the 
responses in this collection will take the public approximately 12 to 
14 minutes (0.20 to 0.23 hours).
    Estimated Total Annual Respondent Burden Hours: 10,414 hours per 
year.
    Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost Burden: $4,050,988 per year.
    Estimated Total Annual Non-hour Respondent Cost Burden: $20,865,550 
per year.

III. Solicitation

    The agency is soliciting comments to: (1) Evaluate whether the 
proposed information requirement is necessary for the proper 
performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the 
information will have practical utility; (2) evaluate the accuracy of 
the agency's estimate of the burden; (3) enhance the quality, utility, 
and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) minimize the 
burden of collecting the information on those who are to respond, 
including by using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or 
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information 
technology.
    Interested persons are requested to send comments regarding this 
information collection by June 23, 2014 to: (1) The Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 
New Executive Office Building, Room 10202, 725 17th Street NW., 
Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Nicholas A. Fraser, the Desk Officer 
for the United States Patent and Trademark Office; and (2) The 
Commissioner for Trademarks, by mail to P.O. Box 1451, Alexandria, VA 
22313-1451, attention Cynthia C. Lynch; by hand delivery to the 
Trademark Assistance Center, Concourse Level, James Madison Building-
East Wing, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314, attention 
Cynthia C. Lynch; or by electronic mail message via the Federal 
eRulemaking Portal. All comments submitted directly to the USPTO or 
provided on the Federal eRulemaking Portal should include the docket 
number (PTO-T-2014-0011).
    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required 
to respond to nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to 
comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of 
the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information 
displays a currently valid OMB control number.

List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 2

    Administrative practice and procedure, Trademarks.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble and under the authority 
contained in Section 10(c) of the AIA, 15 U.S.C. 1113, 15 U.S.C. 1123, 
and 35 U.S.C. 2, as amended, the USPTO proposes to amend part 2 of 
title 37 as follows:

PART 2--RULES OF PRACTICE IN TRADEMARK CASES

0
1. The authority citation for part 2 reads as follows:

    Authority:  15 U.S.C. 1113, 15 U.S.C. 1123, 35 U.S.C. 2, Section 
10(c) of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (Pub. L. 112-29), 
unless otherwise noted.

0
2. Amend Sec.  2.6 by revising paragraphs (a)(1)(iii) and (iv), adding 
paragraph (a)(1)(v), and revising paragraph (a)(5) to read as follows:


Sec.  2.6  Trademark fees.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iii) For filing a TEAS Reduced Fee (RF) application through TEAS 
under Sec.  2.23, per class--$275.
    (iv) For filing a TEAS Plus application through TEAS under Sec.  
2.22, per class--$225.00.
    (v) Additional processing fee under Sec.  2.22(c) or Sec.  2.23(c), 
per class--$50.00.
* * * * *
    (5) Application for renewal of a registration fees.
    (i) For filing an application for renewal of a registration on 
paper, per class--$400.00.
    (ii) For filing an application for renewal of a registration 
through TEAS, per class--$300.00.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec.  2.22 by revising the section heading, paragraph (a) 
introductory text, and paragraphs (b) and (c) and adding paragraph (d) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  2.22  Requirements for a TEAS Plus application.

    (a) A trademark/service mark application for registration on the 
Principal Register under section 1 and/or section 44 of the Act will be 
entitled to a reduced filing fee under Sec.  2.6(a)(1)(iv) if it is 
filed through TEAS and includes:
* * * * *
    (b) In addition to the filing requirements under paragraph (a), the 
applicant must:
    (1) File the following communications through TEAS:
    (i) Responses to Office actions (except notices of appeal under 
section 20 of the Trademark Act);
    (ii) Requests to change the correspondence address and owner's 
address;

[[Page 26669]]

    (iii) Appointments and/or revocations of power of attorney;
    (iv) Appointments and/or revocations of domestic representative;
    (v) Voluntary amendments;
    (vi) Amendments to allege use under section 1(c) of the Act or 
statements of use under section 1(d) of the Act;
    (vii) Requests for extensions of time to file a statement of use 
under section 1(d) of the Act; and
    (viii) Requests to delete a section 1(b) basis.
    (2) Maintain a valid email correspondence address and continue to 
receive communications from the Office by email.
    (c) If an application does not fulfill the requirements of 
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, the applicant must pay the 
processing fee required by Sec.  2.6(a)(1)(v). The application will 
retain its original filing date, provided that when filed, the 
application met the filing date requirements of Sec.  2.21.
    (d) The following types of applications cannot be filed as TEAS 
Plus applications:
    (1) Applications for certification marks (see Sec.  2.45);
    (2) Applications for collective trademarks and service marks (see 
Sec.  2.44);
    (3) Applications for collective membership marks (see Sec.  2.44); 
and
    (4) Applications for registration on the Supplemental Register (see 
Sec.  2.47).
0
4. Revise Sec.  2.23 to read as follows:


Sec.  2.23  Requirements for a TEAS RF application.

    (a) A trademark, service mark, certification mark, collective 
membership mark, or collective trademark application for registration 
on the Principal or Supplemental Register under section 1 and/or 
section 44 of the Act will be entitled to a reduced filing fee under 
Sec.  2.6(a)(1)(iii) if it is filed through TEAS and includes:
    (1) an email address for correspondence; and
    (2) an authorization for the Office to send correspondence 
concerning the application to the applicant or applicant's attorney by 
email.
    (b) In addition to the filing requirements under paragraph (a), the 
applicant must:
    (1) File the following communications through TEAS:
    (i) Responses to Office actions (except notices of appeal under 
section 20 of the Trademark Act);
    (ii) Requests to change the correspondence address and owner's 
address;
    (iii) Appointments and/or revocations of power of attorney;
    (iv) Appointments and/or revocations of domestic representative;
    (v) Voluntary amendments;
    (vi) Amendments to allege use under section 1(c) of the Act or 
statements of use under section 1(d) of the Act;
    (vii) Requests for extensions of time to file a statement of use 
under section 1(d) of the Act; and
    (viii) Requests to delete a section 1(b) basis.
    (2) Maintain a valid email correspondence address, and continue to 
receive communications from the Office by email.
    (c) If an application does not meet the requirements of paragraphs 
(a) and (b) of this section, the applicant must pay the processing fee 
required by Sec.  2.6(a)(1)(v). The application will retain its 
original filing date, provided that when filed, the application met the 
filing date requirements of Sec.  2.21.

    Dated: May 6, 2014.
Michelle K. Lee,
Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Deputy 
Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office.
[FR Doc. 2014-10730 Filed 5-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-16-P