[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 204 (Friday, October 21, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 72694-72708]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-25506]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Patent and Trademark Office

37 CFR Parts 2 and 7

[Docket No. PTO-T-2016-0005]
RIN 0651-AD08


Trademark Fee Adjustment

AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office or 
USPTO) is amending its rules to set or increase certain trademark fees, 
as authorized by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA). The fees 
will allow the Office to further USPTO strategic objectives by: Better 
aligning fees with the full cost of the relevant products and services; 
protecting the integrity of the register by incentivizing more timely 
filing or examination of applications and other filings and more 
efficient resolution of appeals and trials; and promoting the 
efficiency of the process, in large part through lower-cost electronic 
filing options. The changes will also continue to recover the aggregate 
estimated cost of Trademark and Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) 
operations and USPTO administrative services that support Trademark 
operations.

DATES: This rule is effective on January 14, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Chicoski, Office of the 
Deputy Commissioner for Trademark Examination Policy, by email at 
[email protected], or by telephone at (571) 272-8943.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Purpose: Section 10 of the AIA (Section 10) 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., as amended (the Trademark Act or the Act) for any services 
performed by, or materials furnished by, the Office. See Section 10 of 
the AIA, Public Law 112-29, 125 Stat. 284, 316-17. Section 10 
prescribes that fees may be set or adjusted only to recover the 
aggregate estimated costs to the Office for processing, activities, 
services, and materials relating to trademarks, including 
administrative costs to the Office with respect to such Trademark and 
TTAB operations. The Director may set individual fees at, below, or 
above their respective cost. Section 10 authority includes flexibility 
to set individual fees in a way that furthers key policy 
considerations, while taking into account 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) and oversight 
by Congress. Accordingly, on October 14, 2015, the Director notified 
the TPAC of the Office's intent to set or adjust trademark fees and 
submitted a preliminary trademark fee proposal with supporting 
materials.
    The TPAC held a public hearing in Alexandria, Virginia on November 
3, 2015 and released its report regarding the preliminary proposed fees 
on November 30, 2015. The Office considered the comments, advice, and 
recommendations received from the TPAC and the public in proposing the 
fees set forth in the notice of proposed rulemaking published in the 
Federal Register on May 27, 2016, at 81 FR 33619. The proposed rule 
included links to the preliminary trademark fee proposal and associated 
materials and to the TPAC report. The Office considered all public 
comments received during the comment period in the development of this 
final rule.
    The USPTO protects consumers and provides benefits to businesses by 
effectively and efficiently carrying out the trademark laws of the 
United States. The final rule will advance key policy considerations, 
while taking into account the cost of individual services. For example, 
the increased fees for paper filings aim to better align the required 
fees with the cost of processing paper filings and incentivize 
electronic filings to promote efficiency of the registration process. 
Other trademark fees are increased to encourage timely filings and 
notices to further promote the efficiency of the process.
    The fee schedule implemented in this rulemaking will also continue 
to recover the aggregate estimated costs to the Office to achieve 
strategic and operational goals, such as maintaining an operating 
reserve, implementing measures to maintain trademark pendency and high 
quality, modernizing the trademark information technology (IT) systems, 
continuing programs for stakeholder and public outreach, and enhancing 
operations of the TTAB.
    Summary of Major Provisions: The Office herein sets or adjusts 42 
trademark processing and service fees. The fee structure increases the 
per-class fee for an initial application filed on paper by $225 to 
$600, and increases the fees for 31 other paper filings by between $75 
and $200 (per class, where

[[Page 72695]]

applicable). The per-class fee for an initial application filed using 
the regular Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) option is 
increased by $75 to $400. This increase also applies to requests for 
extension of protection and subsequent designations filed under the 
Madrid Protocol. 15 U.S.C. 1141e; Madrid Protocol Article 8(7)(a). As 
discussed below, in response to comments regarding requests for 
extensions of time to file a statement of use filed electronically, the 
USPTO is reducing the fee for such extensions. In addition, 10 TTAB-
related fees are established or revised, six of which differentiate the 
fees for initiating a proceeding, as filed electronically or on paper, 
and increase these as compared to the prior undifferentiated fees; and 
four that establish electronic and paper filing fees for requests to 
extend time to file a notice of opposition in certain circumstances. A 
link to a full list of current and final rule fees, including the unit 
cost by fee from fiscal years 2013, 2014, and 2015, is available at: 
http://www.uspto.gov/about-us/performance-and-planning/fee-setting-and-adjusting.
    Rulemaking Goals and Strategies: This final rule will allow the 
Office to achieve the dual goals of furthering key policy 
considerations while continuing to recover prospective aggregate costs 
of operation. One of the overall objectives of this rulemaking is to 
set individual fees to further key IP-protection policy considerations 
while taking into account the cost of the particular service. The 
Office seeks to enhance trademark protection for IP rights holders by 
offering application filing options and promoting the Administration's 
innovation strategies.
    This final rule is based on furthering three key policy 
considerations: (1) To better align fees with full costs; (2) to 
protect the integrity of the register; and (3) to promote the 
efficiency of the trademark process.
    Better Align Fees with Full Costs: The first fee-setting objective 
is to set and adjust trademark fees to better align those fees with the 
full costs of providing the relevant services to achieve aggregate cost 
recovery. In determining which fees to set or adjust, the Office 
targeted changes to fees where the gap between the cost of the service 
and the current fee rate was the greatest. Paper filings are generally 
more expensive to process than electronic filings. Currently, however, 
most fees for paper filings are not set at full cost; instead they are 
subsidized by electronic filers. Because of this, across-the-board 
increases in fees for paper filings are implemented herein to bring the 
respective fees closer to the actual cost of processing paper filings 
and incentivize lower-cost electronic options. Additionally, 
adjustments to TTAB fees, which have not been adjusted, depending on 
the fee, for 15-25 years, will bring the fees closer to current 
processing costs, and new fees for extensions of time to file a notice 
of opposition will allow recovery of some of the cost of processing 
these filings.
    Protect the Integrity of the Trademark Register: The second fee-
setting objective is to set or adjust fees to further the policy 
objective of protecting the accuracy of the trademark register by 
incentivizing timely filings and examination, as well as efficient 
trial and appeal resolutions. These fees are used to encourage actions 
that help to facilitate efficient processing and encourage the prompt 
conclusion of application prosecution. An accurate register allows the 
public to rely on the register to determine potential trademark rights. 
Filings that may result in a less-accurate register are among those 
filings targeted under this objective.
    Promote the Efficiency of the Trademark Process: The third fee-
setting objective pertains to furthering key policy objectives and 
meeting stakeholder expectations by improving the efficiency of the 
trademark registration process, and related appeals and trial cases, 
primarily by incentivizing electronic filings. To reach this objective, 
the Office targets changes to fees that could administratively improve 
application processing by encouraging more electronic filing. 
Electronic filing 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. The Office believes that 
the increase in fees for paper filings, in conjunction with such prior 
rulemakings as the TEAS Reduced Fee (TEAS RF) rulemaking that took 
effect in January 2015 (79 FR 74633 (Dec. 16, 2014)) and increased 
electronic-filing options at lower rates, will continue to result in a 
greater percentage of electronic filings, in turn improving the 
efficiency of the trademark process.
    Consistent with the Office's goals and obligations under the AIA, 
another overall objective of this rulemaking is to ensure the fee 
schedule continues to generate sufficient revenue to recover the 
prospective aggregate costs of Trademark and TTAB operations and the 
associated administrative costs. Fees must be set at levels projected 
to cover future aggregate costs, which include budgetary requirements 
and an operating reserve. A record number of over 500,000 classes were 
filed in fiscal year (FY) 2015, the seventh consecutive year of 
increased filings, and the Office projects this trend of increased 
filings to continue for the foreseeable future. Additionally, to 
maintain trademark pendency and quality goals with the increased 
filings, the Office must ensure it continues to have adequate resources 
and IT systems to support future processing and examination 
requirements. The Office is in the midst of a multi-year IT systems and 
infrastructure upgrade, which is critical to the future of the U.S. 
trademark registration system and long sought after by stakeholders.
    Maintaining the current fee schedule is unlikely to meet budgetary 
requirements, including: Full costs associated with the projected 
increases in filings; the full costs necessary to support Trademark and 
TTAB operations; and necessary investments in IT systems, intellectual 
property (IP) policy, and USPTO programs. The USPTO FY 2017 President's 
Budget was the basis for the initial fee proposal. It includes two 
revenue estimates based on the projected demand for trademark products 
and services and fee rates: (1) The current fee schedule; and (2) the 
initial fee proposal as submitted to the TPAC and discussed in its 
public hearing and report. It also includes information on estimated 
aggregate cost that may be found in the USPTO FY 2017 President's 
Budget (Figure #4, page 23) at http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fy17pbr.pdf.
    The Office notes that because the FY 2017 President's Budget was 
submitted prior to the USPTO making final decisions on the fee 
adjustments, and given that the Office reduced several fees from the 
initial proposal in response to comments from the TPAC and the public, 
and further reduced fees in response to comments submitted regarding 
the proposed rule, as discussed herein, the aggregate revenue projected 
for FY 2017-FY 2021 is higher in that document than the projections for 
this final rule. Under the fee schedule in this final rule, assuming 
the same level of budgetary requirements, optimal operating reserves 
are projected by FY 2021. The USPTO would use its existing authority 
going forward to adjust fees to cover budgetary requirements and to 
maintain the optimal operating reserve balance. If the actual operating 
reserve exceeds the estimated optimal level by 15 percent for two 
consecutive years, the USPTO would consider lowering fees.
    Aggregate costs are estimated through the USPTO budget-formulation 
process

[[Page 72696]]

with the annual preparation of a five-year performance-based budget 
request.
    These fee-schedule goals are consistent with strategic goals and 
objectives detailed in the USPTO 2014-2018 Strategic Plan (Strategic 
Plan) that is available at: http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/USPTO_2014-2018_Strategic_Plan.pdf. The Strategic Plan 
defines the USPTO's mission and long-term goals and presents the 
actions the Office will take to realize those goals. The significant 
actions the Office describes in the Strategic Plan that are 
specifically related to the goals of this rulemaking are: Ensuring 
optimal IT service to all users, maintaining trademark pendency and 
high quality, continuing and enhancing stakeholder and public outreach, 
and enhancing operations of the TTAB.
    The trademark fee schedule implemented herein will achieve the 
goals of furthering the key policy considerations of better aligning 
fees with full costs, protecting the integrity of the register, and 
promoting the efficiency of the trademark process in FY 2017 and beyond 
while recovering prospective aggregate costs of operation. It will also 
create a better and fairer cost-recovery system that balances 
subsidizing costs to encourage broader usage of IP rights-protection 
mechanisms and participation by more trademark owners.
    The following table shows the current and final fee amounts 
implemented by this rulemaking for paper-filed applications and 
documents.

                                                                 Fees for Paper Filings
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     37 CFR                         Fee code                   Description                  Current fee   Final rule fee      Change
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.6(a)(1)(i)...................................            6001  Filing an Application on Paper, per                $375            $600            $225
                                                                  Class.
2.6(a)(19)(i)..................................            6006  Request to Divide an Application Filed              100             200             100
                                                                  on Paper, per New Application Created.
2.6(a)(1)(v)...................................            6008  Additional Processing Fee under Sec.                 50             125              75
                                                                  2.22(c) or Sec.   2.23(c), per Class.
2.6(a)(5)(i)...................................            6201  Filing an Application for Renewal of a              400             500             100
                                                                  Registration on Paper, per Class.
2.6(a)(6)(i)...................................            6203  Additional Fee for Filing a Renewal                 100             200             100
                                                                  Application During the Grace Period on
                                                                  Paper, per Class.
2.6(a)(21)(i)..................................            6204  Correcting a Deficiency in a Renewal                100             200             100
                                                                  Application via Paper Filing.
2.6(a)(12)(i)..................................            6205  Filing an Affidavit under Sec.   8 of               100             225             125
                                                                  the Act on Paper, per Class.
2.6(a)(14)(i)..................................            6206  Additional Fee for Filing a Sec.   8                100             200             100
                                                                  Affidavit During the Grace Period on
                                                                  Paper, per Class.
2.6(a)(20)(i)..................................            6207  Correcting a Deficiency in a Sec.   8               100             200             100
                                                                  Affidavit via Paper Filing.
2.6(a)(13)(i)..................................            6208  Filing an Affidavit under Sec.   15 of              200             300             100
                                                                  the Act on Paper, per Class.
2.6(a)(7)(i)...................................            6210  Filing to Publish a Mark under Sec.                 100             200             100
                                                                  12(c) on Paper, per Class.
2.6(a)(8)(i)...................................            6211  Issuing New Certificate of Registration             100             200             100
                                                                  upon Request of Registrant, Request
                                                                  Filed on Paper.
2.6(a)(9)(i)...................................            6212  Certificate of Correction of                        100             200             100
                                                                  Registrant's Error, Request Filed on
                                                                  Paper.
2.6(a)(10)(i)..................................            6213  Filing a Disclaimer to a Registration,              100             200             100
                                                                  on Paper.
2.6(a)(11)(i)..................................            6214  Filing an Amendment to a Registration,              100             200             100
                                                                  on Paper.
2.6(a)(2)(i)...................................            6002  Filing an Amendment to Allege Use under             100             200             100
                                                                  Sec.   1(c) of the Act on Paper, per
                                                                  Class.
2.6(a)(3)(i)...................................            6003  Filing a Statement of Use under Sec.                100             200             100
                                                                  1(d)(1) of the Act on Paper, per Class.
2.6(a)(4)(i)...................................            6004  Filing a Request under Sec.   1(d)(2)               150             225              75
                                                                  of the Act for a Six-Month Extension
                                                                  of Time for Filing a Statement of Use
                                                                  under Sec.   1(d)(1) of the Act on
                                                                  Paper, per Class.
7.6(a)(1)(i)...................................            6901  Certifying an International Application             100             200             100
                                                                  Based on a Single Application or
                                                                  Registration, Filed on Paper, per
                                                                  Class.
7.6(a)(2)(i)...................................            6902  Certifying an International Application             150             250             100
                                                                  Based on More Than One Basic
                                                                  Application or Registration Filed on
                                                                  Paper, per Class.
7.6(a)(4)(i)...................................            6903  Transmitting a Request to Record an                 100             200             100
                                                                  Assignment or Restriction, or Release
                                                                  of a Restriction, under Sec.   7.23 or
                                                                  Sec.   7.24 Filed on Paper.
7.6(a)(5)(i)...................................            6904  Filing a Notice of Replacement under                100             200             100
                                                                  Sec.   7.28 on Paper, per Class.
7.6(a)(6)(i)...................................            6905  Filing an Affidavit under Sec.   71 of              100             225             125
                                                                  the Act on Paper, per Class.
7.6(a)(7)(i)...................................            6906  Surcharge for Filing an Affidavit under             100             200             100
                                                                  Sec.   71 of the Act During Grace
                                                                  Period on Paper, per Class.
7.6(a)(3)(i)...................................            6907  Transmitting a Subsequent Designation               100             200             100
                                                                  under Sec.   7.21, Filed on Paper.

[[Page 72697]]

 
7.6(a)(8)(i)...................................            6908  Correcting a Deficiency in a Sec.   71              100             200             100
                                                                  Affidavit Filed on Paper.
2.6(a)(16)(i)..................................            6401  Filing a Petition to Cancel on Paper,               300             500             200
                                                                  per Class.
2.6(a)(17)(i)..................................            6402  Filing a Notice of Opposition on Paper,             300             500             200
                                                                  per Class.
2.6(a)(18)(i)..................................            6403  Ex Parte Appeal to the Trademark Trial              100             300             200
                                                                  and Appeal Board Filed on Paper, per
                                                                  Class.
2.6(a)(22)(i)..................................             New  Filing a Request for an Extension of     ..............             200             n/a
                                                                  Time to File a Notice of Opposition
                                                                  under Sec.   2.102(c)(3) on Paper.
2.6(a)(23)(i)..................................             New  Filing a Request for an Extension of     ..............             300             n/a
                                                                  Time to File a Notice of Opposition
                                                                  under Sec.   2.102(c)(1)(ii) or (c)(2)
                                                                  on Paper.
2.6(a)(15)(i)..................................            6005  Petitions to the Director Filed on                  100             200             100
                                                                  Paper.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments and Responses

    The USPTO published a proposed rule on May 27, 2016 soliciting 
comments on the proposed fee schedule. In response, the USPTO received 
comments from four intellectual property organizations and seven 
individual commenters representing law firms, corporations, and 
individuals. These comments are posted on the USPTO's Web site at 
http://www.uspto.gov/trademark/trademark-updates-and-announcements/comments-proposed-rulemaking-relating-trademark-fee.
    The Office received comments both generally supporting and 
objecting to the fee increases. Three commenters objected to any 
increase in fees, as they believed such increases placed hardships on 
individual filers and small-business owners. Two of these commenters 
suggested that fees be maintained at their current levels for these 
groups and one suggested that the Office consider lowering the fees for 
individual entrepreneurs, artisans, and crafts people. Alternatively, 
one commenter expressed support of the Office's goal of incentivizing 
use of electronic filings, the proposed fee increases on certain paper 
filings, and the increase of the application fee for the regular TEAS 
application.
    The USPTO appreciates the commenter's support of the objective of 
incentivizing electronic filing, but it also appreciates the concerns 
of the commenters regarding the impact of the increased fees on 
individuals and small-business owners. After review of the comments to 
the fee proposal, the USPTO is reducing the current fee for 
electronically filed requests for extensions of time to file a 
statement of use and the proposed increases for affidavits under 
sections 8 and 71. Furthermore, the majority of the fee increases are 
for paper filings. The less-expensive electronic filing method can be 
used by all types of filers, including small companies and individuals 
focused on minimizing costs, and the Office's experience is that small 
companies and individual filers have proven particularly adept at 
finding and choosing lower-cost filing options.
    The USPTO also received public comments expressing concerns with 
several individual fees. In the interest of providing context to those 
comments, they are summarized and responded to in the general 
discussion of the individual fee rationale below.
    Individual Fee Rationale: The Office projects the aggregate revenue 
generated from trademark fees will recover the prospective aggregate 
cost, including the attainment and maintenance of an adequate operating 
reserve for its Trademark and TTAB operations. In addition, as 
described above, some of the fees are set to balance several key policy 
factors, and executing these policy factors in the trademark fee 
schedule is consistent with the goals and objectives outlined in the 
Strategic Plan. Once the key policy factors are considered, fees are 
set at, above, or below individual cost-recovery levels for the service 
provided. For more information regarding the cost methodologies used to 
derive the historical fee unit expenses, please refer to USPTO Fee 
Setting--Activity Based Information and Trademark Fee Unit Expense 
Methodology available at: http://www.uspto.gov/about-us/performance-and-planning/fee-setting-and-adjusting.
    Fees for Paper Filings: The final rule increases the fees for paper 
filings in order to meet two objectives: Better align fees with costs 
and improve the efficiency of the trademark process. The fee for filing 
a trademark application for registration on paper is increased by $225, 
from $375 per International Class to $600 per International Class. 
Additionally, all trademark processing fees for paper filings are 
increased by $75 to $200 more than current fees (per class, when 
applicable).
    The costs of processing paper filings are generally higher than 
electronic filings and higher than current fee schedules. A full list 
of current and new fees including the unit cost by fee from fiscal 
years 2013, 2014, and 2015 is available in the Table of Trademark 
Fees--Current, Final Rule and Unit Cost at: http://www.uspto.gov/about-us/performance-and-planning/fee-setting-and-adjusting. An increase in 
the fees for these filings will help to offset the higher processing 
costs and come closer to recovering the total processing costs. 
Furthermore, setting a higher fee for paper filings incentivizes 
electronic filings, which are more cost efficient for the Office to 
process and which reduce the possibility of data-entry errors. As a 
result, adjustments of 5-10% in the estimated number of paper filings 
have been made in projecting filings and estimating revenue considering 
the impact of the fee increase on the behavior of applicants and 
parties to TTAB proceedings and the resulting revenues. The rationale 
behind this fee increase is consistent with prior fee reductions for 
electronic filings.
    At present, the vast majority of filings are electronic. For 
example, in FY 2015, only 0.4% of initial applications for registration 
were filed on paper, increasing the unit costs as filings decrease. 
Additionally, more than 95% of all fee-paid requests were filed 
electronically in FY 2015. Thus, the increase in all paper filing fees 
will have virtually no impact on the vast majority of applicants and 
registrants who file documents electronically.
    Three commenters objected to the amounts of the proposed fee 
increases

[[Page 72698]]

for paper filings. The USPTO understands the concerns to keep costs low 
for all filers. The objections to these fees have been carefully 
considered. However, some of the amended fees are set to balance 
several key policy factors, and executing these policy factors in the 
trademark fee schedule is consistent with the goals and objectives 
outlined in the Strategic Plan. In addition, given the costs to process 
paper filings, the USPTO has determined that a fee increase is 
necessary at this time in order to bring the fees charged closer to the 
costs of processing the filings. The USPTO encourages the use of 
electronic filing as a preferred filing method because it is less 
expensive, with lower processing fees and costs. It is also more 
efficient, because electronic filing expedites processing by 
eliminating the need for individual data entry as well as decreasing 
the potential for data-entry errors. The USPTO provides guidance on 
using TEAS electronic filing forms on its Web site at http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-getting-started/trademark-basics/teas-nuts-and-bolts-videos.
    Two commenters suggested a waiver of any higher fee for paper 
filing in situations where electronic filing is unavailable, whether 
due a system outage or to TEAS limitations regarding the submission of 
evidence or specimens in video format. One of the commenters also 
suggested that the difference in fees in such situations be waived by 
some mechanism other than a petition to the Director.
    The USPTO notes that it is currently possible to submit electronic 
files containing sound or multimedia specimens or evidence directly 
through TEAS in all initial application forms as well as response 
forms, allegation-of-use forms, petitions forms, and post-registration 
maintenance forms. The complete list of forms is available on the USPTO 
Web site at http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-application-process/filing-online/trademark-electronic-application-system-teas-1#164074. The USPTO 
is also enhancing additional forms to permit direct submission of sound 
or multimedia files on an ongoing basis, with the next enhancement 
planned for October 2016. Therefore, there are few situations in which 
a party would be unable to attach an electronic file to a TEAS form. 
Until such time as all forms accept such attachments, the USPTO has 
provided a workaround approach for submitting such files via email.
    The USPTO makes every effort to have TEAS and the Electronic System 
for Trademark Trials and Appeals (ESTTA) for trademark and TTAB 
filings, respectively, available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. 
Sometimes, TEAS or ESTTA may be unavailable because of routine 
maintenance or are unexpectedly inaccessible. In such cases, the USPTO 
provides information about the outage on its Web site and makes every 
attempt to restore service as soon as possible. The USPTO also provides 
information regarding filing documents during an outage at http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-application-process/filing-online/filing-documents-during-outage. Requests to waive a fee because a document had 
to be filed on paper due to a system outage or other circumstance are 
considered on a case-by-case basis. In order to properly assess the 
circumstances and evidence regarding each request for a fee waiver, the 
appropriate mechanism is to file a petition to the Director under 37 
CFR 2.146.
    Other Trademark-Processing Fees: The Office also increases certain 
other trademark-processing fees in order to further key policy 
considerations, and reduces one fee. The rule increases the per-class 
fee for an initial application filed through TEAS from $325 to $400. 
This fee increase applies to both U.S. and foreign filers as well as to 
applications submitted under the Madrid Protocol as requests for 
extension of protection and subsequent designation. The rule also 
increases the processing fee for failure to meet the requirements for a 
TEAS Plus or TEAS RF filing from $50 to $125 per International Class to 
better align the resulting total charge with the fee for filing a 
regular TEAS application. In addition, the final rule increases the 
fees for affidavits under sections 8 and 71 of the Act in the amount of 
$25 per class for electronic filings and $125 per class for paper 
filings. However, as a result of public comments, the rule reduces the 
current fee for electronically filing a request for an extension of 
time to file a statement of use from $150 to $125 per class and reduces 
the increase for filing such a request on paper to $225, rather than 
the proposed increase to $250.
    Initial Application Filed Through TEAS: The final rule increases 
the fee for an initial application filed through TEAS as a regular TEAS 
application in order to better align the fee with the costs and to 
incentivize subsequent electronic filing and communications. The fee is 
increased from $325 to $400 to bring the fee closer to the full 
processing cost of the service. Unlike the TEAS Plus and TEAS RF 
application options, the regular TEAS application does not require the 
applicant to commit to communicating electronically with the Office 
throughout the course of prosecution of the application. Increasing the 
fee for this application option will encourage applicants to commit to 
complete electronic processing using one of the lower-cost application 
options. Corresponding increases to the individual fee for requests for 
protection of an International Registration through the Madrid Protocol 
are also affected by invoking the relevant provisions under the 
Protocol and its Common Regulations to adjust fees at the request of a 
contracting party.
    One commenter stated that the proposed increase of ``from $75 a 
class to $400 a class'' for regular TEAS applications is extremely 
burdensome on small companies and individuals, and suggested reducing 
the fee to no more than $150 per class. The USPTO appreciates the 
commenter's concerns regarding the increased price for the regular TEAS 
application and assumes that the commenter is referring to the $75 
increase from the current fee of $325 per class to $400 per class. The 
USPTO notes that all filers, including small companies and individuals, 
have less-expensive filing options. Filers seeking lower-cost 
alternatives may select between the TEAS Plus application, at $225 per 
class, and the TEAS RF option, which has fewer filing requirements than 
the TEAS Plus option, at $275 per class. The USPTO has no plans to 
introduce a lower-cost filing option at this time as these fees are set 
based on the reasons mentioned above.

                                                             Other Trademark-Processing Fees
                                                        [Initial application filed through TEAS]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     37 CFR                         Fee code                   Description                  Current fee   Final rule fee      Change
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.6(a)(1)(ii)..................................            7001  Filing and Application through TEAS,               $325            $400             $75
                                                                  per Class.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 72699]]

    (1) Processing Fee for Failure to Meet Requirements for TEAS Plus 
or TEAS RF: The final rule increases the fee for failure to meet TEAS 
Plus or TEAS RF filing requirements in order to promote the efficiency 
of the trademark application process by incentivizing electronic 
filings and communication. Both TEAS Plus and TEAS RF feature reduced 
filing fees in exchange for meeting certain requirements, including a 
requirement to file certain documents electronically. Applicants who 
fail to meet the requirements are charged a per-class processing fee. 
This fee is increased from $50 to $125 to address the difference 
between the filing fees for these applications and the filing fee for a 
regular TEAS application, and to further encourage applicants to 
maintain the discounted application status by meeting all TEAS Plus and 
TEAS RF requirements to avoid being assessed the additional processing 
fee. Thus, the Office will continue to promote use of electronic 
filings, which are more efficient and cost-effective to review.

                                                             Other Trademark-Processing Fees
                                       [Processing fee for failure to meet requirements for TEAS plus or TEAS RF]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     37 CFR                         Fee code                   Description                  Current fee   Final rule fee      Change
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.6(a)(1)(v)...................................            6008  Additional Processing Fee under Sec.                $50            $125             $75
                                                                  2.22(c) or Sec.   2.23(c), per Class
                                                                  (paper).
2.6(a)(1)(v)...................................            7008  Additional Processing Fee under Sec.                 50             125              75
                                                                  2.22(c) or Sec.   2.23(c), per Class
                                                                  (electronic).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Affidavits under sections 8 and 71 of the Act: In addition to 
aligning the fees with full costs, the increase in fees for submitting 
affidavits under sections 8 and 71 will help to ensure the accuracy and 
integrity of the trademark register. Costs are set to increase for 
these filings as a result of the need for increased legal examination. 
In 2012, the USPTO began the Post Registration Proof of Use Pilot 
Program, during which 500 registrations (for which section 8 or 71 
affidavits were filed) were reviewed to assess the accuracy and 
integrity of the trademark register as to the actual use of the mark 
with the goods and/or services identified in the registration. The 
findings of the pilot program demonstrated a need for ongoing measures 
for additional review of these filings on a permanent basis. Such 
additional measures, which are currently under development in a 
separate rulemaking (see ``Changes in Requirements for Affidavits or 
Declarations of Use, Continued Use, or Excusable Nonuse in Trademark 
Cases'' (81 FR 40589; June 22, 2016)), will help identify and remove 
registrations with insufficient maintenance filings, thereby reducing 
the number of invalid registrations, and resulting in a more accurate 
trademark register. Increased fees are required to recover the costs 
associated with the additional review.
    The USPTO has reassessed its aggregate cost and determined that a 
reduction in the proposed increase for affidavits under sections 8 and 
71 that are filed on paper is appropriate. The fee for such affidavits 
filed using TEAS is increased by $25, rather than the proposed increase 
of $50. The fee for such affidavits filed on paper is increased by 
$125, rather than the proposed increase of $150.

                                                             Other Trademark-Processing Fees
                                                  [Affidavits under Sec.   8 and Sec.   71 of the Act]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     37 CFR                         Fee code                   Description                  Current fee   Final rule fee      Change
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.6(a)(12)(i)..................................            6205  Filing an Affidavit under Sec.   8 of              $100            $225            $125
                                                                  the Act on Paper, per Class.
2.6(a)(12)(ii).................................            7205  Filing an Affidavit under Sec.   8 of               100             125              25
                                                                  the Act through TEAS, per Class.
7.6(a)(6)(i)...................................            6905  Filing an Affidavit under Sec.   71 of              100             225             125
                                                                  the Act on Paper, per Class.
7.6(a)(6)(ii)..................................            7905  Filing an Affidavit under Sec.   71 of              100             125              25
                                                                  the Act through TEAS, per Class.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) Extension of Time to File a Statement of Use: Two commenters 
encouraged the USPTO to reduce the fee for extensions of time to file a 
statement of use filed through TEAS, given the disparity between the 
cost to process such extensions and the TEAS fee. The comment is well-
taken, and the USPTO will reduce the fee for electronically filed 
extensions of time to file a statement of use from $150 to $125 per 
class. Although reduced, the fee will still serve to incentivize 
electronic filing, a more efficient process than paper filing.

[[Page 72700]]



                                                             Other Trademark-Processing Fees
                                                     [Extension of time to file a statement of use]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     37 CFR                         Fee code                   Description                  Current fee   Final rule fee      Change
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.6(a)(4)(i)...................................            6004  Filing a Request under Sec.   1(d)(2)              $150            $225             $75
                                                                  of the Act for a Six-Month Extension
                                                                  of Time for Filing a Statement of Use
                                                                  under Sec.   1(d)(1) of the Act on
                                                                  Paper, per Class.
2.6(a)(4)(i)...................................            7004  Filing a Request under Sec.   1(d)(2)               150             125            (25)
                                                                  of the Act for a Six-Month Extension
                                                                  of Time for Filing a Statement of Use
                                                                  under Sec.   1(d)(1) of the Act
                                                                  through TEAS, per Class.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Trademark Service Fees: The final rule discontinues two trademark 
service fees and replaces two ``at-cost'' service fees with a set fee. 
The deposit account set-up fee is discontinued because the process will 
be handled electronically, thus reducing the cost to process. The self-
service copy fee is discontinued because the service will be provided 
by a third-party vendor. Additionally, the USPTO is not moving forward 
with the proposed hourly fee for using X-Search. The Office revaluated 
the proposed fee change and determined to continue to charge no fee for 
this service. Finally, the unspecified labor fees are replaced with a 
set fee of $160 for expedited service and $40 for overnight delivery. 
The fees are based on an average hourly cost of $40 per hour and the 
additional time estimated to fulfill the type of request.

                                                                 Trademark Service Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              37 CFR                   Fee code            Description               Current fee             Final rule fee               Change
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              8524  Unspecified Other          At cost................  n/a....................  n/a.
                                                     Services, Excluding
                                                     Labor.
                                              9201  Establish Deposit Account  $10....................  n/a....................  n/a.
                                              8902  Self-Service Copy Charge,  $0.25..................  n/a....................  n/a.
                                                     per Page Copishare Card.
                                              8523  Labor Charges for          $40....................  n/a....................  n/a.
                                                     Services, per Hour or
                                                     Fraction Thereof.
2.6(b)(9).........................             New  Additional Fee for         .......................  $160...................  n/a.
                                                     Expedited Service.
2.6(b)(8).........................             New  Additional Fee for         .......................  $40....................  n/a.
                                                     Overnight Delivery.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Existing Fees at the TTAB: This final rule also increases ex parte 
(i.e., appeal) fees, which have not been adjusted in more than 25 
years, and inter partes (i.e., trial) fees, which have not been 
adjusted in 15 years. With this rule, the TTAB differentiates paper and 
electronic filing fees. The rule includes a $100 per-class increase in 
fees for electronic filings for petitions for cancellation, notices of 
opposition, and ex parte appeals. A $200 increase, per class, is 
enacted for paper filings for the same requests. Currently, the cost of 
TTAB operations is heavily subsidized by revenue from other trademark 
processing fees. The fee increases will not recover the full costs of 
TTAB operations, but will bring the fees closer to the full costs in 
order to better align costs and fees. Furthermore, the larger increased 
fees for paper filings will incentivize lower-cost electronic filing in 
order to improve the efficiency of processing and reduce total costs.
    The Office interpreted one comment to raise concerns about the $200 
increase per class to file a notice of appeal on paper. Another 
commenter pointed out that most notices of appeal are filed 
electronically, so the $100 per-class increase would affect more 
stakeholders than the $200 increase to the paper filing fee. Both 
comments explained that notices of appeal often are filed to ``buy 
time'' or ``preserve the right to appeal'' while a request for 
reconsideration of an examining attorney's final refusal is pending, 
and as an alternative to any increase in the fee for a notice of 
appeal, suggested adding a separate fee for only those applicants who 
file an appeal brief.
    The Office recognizes that a significant percentage of notices of 
appeal are filed, in essence, to obtain an extension of time to 
continue discussions with an examining attorney regarding issues 
presented by a final refusal. The final rule retains the proposed 
increase in the appeal fee (and the differentiation between paper 
filings and electronic filings). The higher paper filing fee encourages 
electronic filing, and the increase in the appeal fee encourages 
efficiency by promoting earlier and more comprehensive communication 
between applicants and examining attorneys regarding issues raised in 
Office actions refusing registration. In reviewing appeals that do not 
result in the filing of appeal briefs, because requests for 
reconsideration are granted or lead to further discussion obviating the 
need to file an appeal brief, the Office has learned that many issues 
could have been resolved earlier in the examination process or through 
prompt filing of a request for reconsideration after receipt of a final 
refusal, rather than much later as a complement to the notice of 
appeal. For many applicants who receive a final refusal, but promptly 
file a request for reconsideration, filing a notice of appeal and the 
fee therefor can be avoided entirely. In addition, were the Office to 
implement the recommendation to add a fee for filing an appeal brief, 
the brief fee would have to be significantly higher than the proposed 
increase in the notice of appeal fee in order to raise revenue 
equivalent to that generated by the fee increase for the notice of 
appeal, which, as noted, is avoidable when used primarily as an 
extension of the examination process.

[[Page 72701]]



                                                                Existing Fees at the TTAB
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     37 CFR                         Fee code                   Description                  Current fee   Final rule fee      Change
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.6(a)(16)(i)..................................            6401  Filing a Petition to Cancel on Paper,              $300            $500            $200
                                                                  per Class.
2.6(a)(16)(ii).................................            7401  Filing a Petition to Cancel through                 300             400             100
                                                                  ESTTA, per Class.
2.6(a)(17)(i)..................................            6402  Filing a Notice of Opposition on Paper,             300             500             200
                                                                  per Class.
2.6(a)(17)(ii).................................            7402  Filing a Notice of Opposition through               300             400             100
                                                                  ESTTA, per Class.
2.6(a)(18)(i)..................................            6403  Ex Parte Appeal to the Trademark Trial              100             300             200
                                                                  and Appeal Board Filed on Paper, per
                                                                  Class.
2.6(a)(18)(ii).................................            7403  Ex Parte Appeal to the Trademark Trial              100             200             100
                                                                  and Appeal Board Filed through ESTTA,
                                                                  per Class.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Establish Fees for Extensions of Time at the TTAB: The final rule 
establishes new fees for requests for extensions of time to file a 
notice of opposition in order to better align the fees with the 
processing costs as well as to protect the integrity of the trademark 
register. The public has 30 days from the date of publication of an 
application to file a notice of opposition with the TTAB. However, 
prior to this rule, a potential opposer had available to it several 
types of extensions, at no fee, that allowed the opposer to delay an 
application or delay making a decision regarding whether to file an 
opposition. This rulemaking establishes a tiered fee structure for 
these filings. Under the new structure, potential opposers may request: 
(1) An initial 30-day extension for no fee; (2) a subsequent 60-day 
extension for a fee of $100 for electronic filings and $200 for paper 
filings, OR a single 90-day extension effectively combining the 30-day 
no-fee extension and the subsequent 60-day extension, at these fees; 
and (3) a final 60-day extension for a fee of $200 for electronic 
filings and $300 for paper filings. The ``subsequent 60-day'' extension 
or 90-day extension both require a showing of good cause, 37 CFR 
2.102(c)(1) to (2), in addition to the appropriate fee. The ``final 60-
day extension'' requires written consent of the applicant or its 
representative, or a showing of extraordinary circumstances warranting 
this final extension, see 37 CFR 2.102(c)(3), in addition to the 
appropriate fee.
    Three commenters addressed the proposed new fees for extensions of 
time to oppose. None took issue with higher costs for paper filings. 
One comment addressed the perceived ``abrogation'' of the option to 
file for a 90-day initial extension of time to oppose and noted this 
would increase filing costs as parties would file for the no-cost 30-
day extension and then separately for the subsequent 60-day good-cause 
extension. The Office does not intend to remove the option for filing 
an initial 90-day extension, as explained above. All three commenters 
suggested that the fees for extensions of time to oppose might actually 
encourage potential opposers to file more notices of opposition to 
avoid the extension fees. Two of the commenters suggested a fee only 
for the ``final'' 60-day extension of time to oppose. The final rule 
retains the proposed extension fees, which are noted to be ``per 
application'' fees and not ``per class'' fees, and therefore lower than 
total fees for filing an opposition to a multi-class application.
    These fees will yield efficiencies by encouraging potential 
opposers to make decisions regarding filing an opposition sooner, thus 
reducing delays to applicants. Thousands of applications are delayed 
each year without any subsequent filing of a notice of opposition, and 
the Office has received complaints from applicants whose applications 
have been delayed, from the applicants' perspective, unjustly. 
Additionally, for those that file the notice of opposition, the fee 
will result in faster commencement and, therefore, conclusion of TTAB 
cases by encouraging earlier decisions to initiate proceedings. This 
should also help to protect the integrity of the trademark register by 
encouraging timely decisions and filings to ensure that the rights of 
other applicants and the public are not adversely affected.

                                                       New Fees for Extensions of Time at the TTAB
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              37 CFR                        Fee code                Description               Current fee        Final rule fee           Change
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.6(a)(22)(i).....................  New....................  Filing a Request for an    .......................            $200  n/a.
                                                              Extension of Time to
                                                              File a Notice of
                                                              Opposition under Sec.
                                                              2.102(c)(3) on Paper.
2.6(a)(22)(ii)....................  New....................  Filing a Request for an    n/a....................             100  n/a.
                                                              Extension of Time to
                                                              File a Notice of
                                                              Opposition under Sec.
                                                              2.102(c)(3) through
                                                              ESTTA.
2.6(a)(23)(i).....................  New....................  Filing a Request for an    n/a....................             300  n/a.
                                                              Extension of Time to
                                                              File a Notice of
                                                              Opposition under Sec.
                                                              2.102(c)(1)(ii) or
                                                              (c)(2) on Paper.
2.6(a)(23)(ii)....................  New....................  Filing a Request for an    n/a....................             200  n/a.
                                                              Extension of Time to
                                                              File a Notice of
                                                              Opposition under Sec.
                                                              2.102(c)(1)(ii) or
                                                              (c)(2) through ESTTA.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given that the fee for the notice of opposition has been increased, 
the Office believes that the extension fees should encourage earlier 
calculated decisions based on all of the available information and 
fees. Furthermore, implementing a tiered-fee structure will reduce the 
number of potential opposers

[[Page 72702]]

that use the extensions merely to delay applications.
    Finally, these fees will help offset the processing costs. In FY 
2015, the Office received 17,000 requests for extensions of time to 
file a notice of opposition, but there has been no fee to cover the 
costs to process these filings. It is customary for requests that delay 
processing of records, such as extensions, to require a fee to 
contribute to the cost of processing the filing as well as the overall 
cost of processing of appeals and trials. These fees are necessary to 
help attain primary Office goals of furthering key policy 
considerations, such as encouraging efficient processing, along with 
recovering the aggregate cost of operations.
    Costs and Benefits: This rulemaking is not considered to be 
economically significant under Executive Order 12866 (Sept. 30, 1993).

Discussion of Regulatory Changes

    The USPTO amends Sec. Sec.  2.6 and 7.6 to establish new or 
increase certain existing trademark fees, and to make other conforming 
changes, as described in the section-by-section analysis below.
    The USPTO revises Sec.  2.6(a)(1)(i) to increase the fee for an 
initial application filed on paper from $375 to $600 per class, and 
Sec.  2.6(a)(1)(ii) to increase the fee for an initial application 
filed using the regular TEAS option from $325 to $400 per class. This 
increase also applies to requests for extension of protection filed 
under the Madrid Protocol.
    The USPTO revises Sec.  2.6(a)(1)(v) to increase the fee for 
failure to meet TEAS Plus or TEAS RF requirements from $50 to $125 per 
class.
    The USPTO revises Sec.  2.6(a)(2) to read ``Amendment to allege 
use'' and adds Sec. Sec.  2.6(a)(2)(i) and (ii) to set out the fees for 
filing an amendment to allege use on paper and through TEAS, 
respectively. The paper filing fee is increased from $100 to $200 per 
class.
    The USPTO revises Sec.  2.6(a)(3) to read ``Statement of use'' and 
adds Sec. Sec.  2.6(a)(3)(i) and (ii) to set out the fees for filing a 
statement of use on paper and through TEAS, respectively. The paper 
filing fee is increased from $100 to $200 per class.
    The USPTO revises Sec.  2.6(a)(4) to read ``Extension of time for 
filing statement of use'' and adds Sec. Sec.  2.6(a)(4)(i) and (ii) to 
set out the fees for filing an extension of time to file a statement of 
use on paper and through TEAS, respectively. The paper filing fee is 
increased from $150 to $225 per class. The fee for filing through TEAS 
is reduced from $150 to $125 per class.
    The USPTO revises Sec.  2.6(a)(5)(i) to increase the fee for filing 
an application for renewal of a registration on paper from $400 to $500 
per class.
    The USPTO revises Sec.  2.6(a)(6) to read ``Renewal during grace 
period'' and adds Sec. Sec.  2.6(a)(6)(i) and (ii) to set out the fees 
for filing a renewal application during the grace period on paper and 
through TEAS, respectively. The paper filing fee is increased from $100 
to $200 per class.
    The USPTO revises Sec.  2.6(a)(7) to read ``Publishing mark under 
section 12(c)'' and adds Sec. Sec.  2.6(a)(7)(i) and (ii) to set out 
the fees for filing a request to publish a mark under section 12(c) on 
paper and through TEAS, respectively. The paper filing fee is increased 
from $100 to $200 per class.
    The USPTO revises Sec.  2.6(a)(8) to read ``New certificate of 
registration'' and adds Sec. Sec.  2.6(a)(8)(i) and (ii) to set out the 
fees for a filing a request to issue a new certificate of registration 
on paper and through TEAS, respectively. The paper filing fee is 
increased from $100 to $200.
    The USPTO revises Sec.  2.6(a)(9) to read ``Certificate of 
correction of registrant's error'' and adds Sec. Sec.  2.6(a)(9)(i) and 
(ii) to set out the fees for filing a request to issue a certification 
of correction of a registrant's error on paper and through TEAS, 
respectively. The paper filing fee is increased from $100 to $200.
    The USPTO revises Sec.  2.6(a)(10) to read ``Disclaimer to a 
registration'' and adds Sec. Sec.  2.6(a)(10)(i) and (ii) to set out 
the fees for submitting a disclaimer to a registration on paper and 
through TEAS or the Electronic System for Trademark Trials and Appeals 
(ESTTA), respectively. The paper filing fee is increased from $100 to 
$200.
    The USPTO revises Sec.  2.6(a)(11) to read ``Amendment of 
registration'' and adds Sec. Sec.  2.6(a)(11)(i) and (ii) to set out 
the fees for filing an amendment to a registration on paper and through 
TEAS or ESTTA, respectively. The paper filing fee is increased from 
$100 to $200.
    The USPTO revises Sec.  2.6(a)(12) to read ``Affidavit under 
section 8'' and adds Sec. Sec.  2.6(a)(12)(i) and (ii) to set out the 
fees for filing an affidavit under section 8 of the Act on paper and 
through TEAS, respectively. The paper filing fee is increased from $100 
to $225 per class and the electronic filing fee is increased from $100 
to $125 per class.
    The USPTO revises Sec.  2.6(a)(13) to read ``Affidavit under 
section 15'' and adds Sec. Sec.  2.6(a)(13)(i) and (ii) to set out the 
fees for filing an affidavit under section 15 of the Act on paper and 
through TEAS, respectively. The paper filing fee is increased from $200 
to $300 per class.
    The USPTO revises Sec.  2.6(a)(14) to read ``Filing section 8 
affidavit during grace period'' and adds Sec. Sec.  2.6(a)(14)(i) and 
(ii) to set out the fees for filing an affidavit under section 8 of the 
Act during the grace period on paper and through TEAS, respectively. 
The paper filing fee is increased from $100 to $200 per class.
    The USPTO revises Sec.  2.6(a)(15) to read ``Petitions to the 
Director'' and adds Sec. Sec.  2.6(a)(15)(i) and (ii) to set out the 
fees for filing a petition to the Director on paper and through TEAS. 
The paper filing fee is increased from $100 to $200.
    The USPTO revises Sec.  2.6(a)(16) to read ``Petition to cancel'' 
and adds Sec. Sec.  2.6(a)(16)(i) and (ii) to set out the fees for 
filing a petition to cancel on paper and through ESTTA. The paper 
filing fee is increased from $300 to $500 per class and the electronic 
filing fee is increased from $300 to $400 per class.
    The USPTO revises Sec.  2.6(a)(17) to read ``Notice of opposition'' 
and adds Sec. Sec.  2.6(a)(17)(i) and (ii) to set out the fees for 
filing a notice of opposition on paper and through ESTTA, respectively. 
The paper filing fee is increased from $300 to $500 per class and the 
electronic filing fee is increased from $300 to $400 per class.
    The USPTO revises Sec.  2.6(a)(18) to read ``Ex parte appeal'' and 
adds Sec. Sec.  2.6(a)(18)(i) and (ii) to set out the fees for filing 
an ex parte appeal on paper and through ESTTA, respectively. The paper 
filing fee is increased from $100 to $300 per class and the electronic 
filing fee is increased from $100 to $200 per class.
    The USPTO revises Sec.  2.6(a)(19) to read ``Dividing an 
application'' and adds Sec. Sec.  2.6(a)(19)(i) and (ii) to set out the 
fees for filing a request to divide an application on paper and through 
TEAS, respectively. The proposed paper filing fee is increased from 
$100 to $200 per new application created.
    The USPTO revises Sec.  2.6(a)(20) to read ``Correcting deficiency 
in section 8 affidavit'' and adds Sec. Sec.  2.6(a)(20)(i) and (ii) to 
set out the fees for filing a correction in a section 8 affidavit on 
paper and through TEAS, respectively. The paper filing fee is increased 
from $100 to $200.
    The USPTO revises Sec.  2.6(a)(21) to read ``Correcting deficiency 
in renewal application'' and adds Sec. Sec.  2.6(a)(21)(i) and (ii) to 
set out the fees for filing a correction in a renewal application on 
paper and through TEAS, respectively. The paper filing fee is increased 
from $100 to $200.
    The USPTO adds Sec.  2.6(a)(22) to read ``Extension of time for 
filing notice of opposition under Sec.  2.102(c)(1)(ii) or

[[Page 72703]]

(c)(2)'' and Sec. Sec.  2.6(a)(22)(i) and (ii) to set out the fees for 
filing a request for an extension of time to file a notice of 
opposition pursuant to Sec.  2.102(c)(1)(ii) or (c)(2) on paper and 
through ESTTA, respectively. The paper filing fee is set at $200 and 
the electronic filing fee is set at $100.
    The USPTO adds Sec.  2.6(a)(23) to read ``Extension of time for 
filing notice of opposition under Sec.  2.102(c)(3)'' and Sec. Sec.  
2.6(a)(23)(i) and (ii) to set out the fees for filing a request for an 
extension of time to file a notice of opposition pursuant to Sec.  
2.102(c)(3) on paper and through ESTTA, respectively. The paper filing 
fee is set at $300 and the electronic filing fee is set at $200.
    The USPTO deletes the current Sec.  2.6(b)(8).
    The USPTO redesignates Sec.  2.6(b)(9) as Sec.  2.6(b)(8) and 
deletes the current fee for self-service copies and replaces it with a 
fee of $40 for overnight delivery.
    The USPTO redesignates Sec.  2.6(b)(10) as Sec.  2.6(b)(9) and 
deletes the current fee for labor charges and replaces it with a fee of 
$160 for expedited service.
    The USPTO deletes the current Sec.  2.6(b)(11) and redesignates the 
current Sec.  2.6(b)(12) as Sec.  2.6(b)(10).
    The USPTO deletes the current Sec. Sec.  2.6(b)(13) and Sec.  
2.6(b)(13)(i), redesignates the current Sec.  2.6(b)(13)(ii) as Sec.  
2.6(b)(11), and adds the wording ``Deposit account'' at the beginning 
of the paragraph.
    The USPTO revises Sec.  2.200(b) to delete the reference to the 
extra charge in Sec.  2.6(b)(10), pursuant to the proposed change to 
Sec.  2.6(b)(10) set forth above.
    The USPTO revises Sec.  2.208(a) to delete the reference to the fee 
for establishing a deposit account and amend the reference regarding 
the service charge to Sec.  2.6(b)(11), pursuant to the proposed 
changes to Sec. Sec.  2.6(b)(13)-(13)(ii) set forth above.
    The USPTO revises Sec.  7.6(a)(1) to read ``Certification of 
international application based on single application or registration'' 
and adds Sec. Sec.  7.6(a)(1)(i) and (ii) to set out the fees for 
certifying an international application based on a single basic 
application or registration on paper and through TEAS, respectively. 
The paper filing fee is increased from $100 to $200, per class.
    The USPTO revises Sec.  7.6(a)(2) to read ``Certification of 
international application based on more than one application or 
registration'' and adds Sec. Sec.  7.6(a)(2)(i) and (ii) to set out the 
fees for certifying an international application based on a more than 
one application or registration on paper and through TEAS, 
respectively. The paper filing fee is increased from $150 to $250 per 
class.
    The USPTO revises Sec.  7.6(a)(3) to read ``Transmission of 
subsequent designation'' and adds Sec. Sec.  7.6(a)(3)(i) and (ii) to 
set out the fees for transmitting a subsequent designation under Sec.  
7.21 on paper and through TEAS, respectively. The paper filing fee is 
increased from $100 to $200.
    The USPTO revises Sec.  7.6(a)(4) to read ``Transmission of request 
to record an assignment or restriction'' and adds Sec. Sec.  
7.6(a)(4)(i) and (ii) to set out the fees for transmitting a request to 
record an assignment or restriction under Sec.  7.23 or Sec.  7.24 on 
paper and through TEAS, respectively. The paper filing fee is increased 
from $100 to $200.
    The USPTO revises Sec.  7.6(a)(5) to read ``Notice of replacement'' 
and adds Sec. Sec.  7.6(a)(5)(i) and (ii) to set out the fees for 
filing a notice of replacement under Sec.  7.28 on paper and through 
TEAS, respectively. The fee for filing a notice of replacement on paper 
is increased from $100 to $200 per class.
    The USPTO revises Sec.  7.6(a)(6) to read ``Affidavit under section 
71'' and to add Sec. Sec.  7.6(a)(6)(i) and (ii) to set out the fees 
for filing an affidavit under section 71 of the Act on paper and 
through TEAS, respectively. The paper filing fee is increased from $100 
to $225 per class, and the electronic filing fee is increased from $100 
to $125 per class.
    The USPTO revises Sec.  7.6(a)(7) to read ``Filing affidavit under 
section 71 during grace period'' and adds Sec. Sec.  7.6(a)(7)(i) and 
(ii) to set out the surcharge for filing an affidavit under section 71 
of the Act during the grace period on paper and through TEAS, 
respectively. The surcharge for filing an affidavit during the grace 
period on paper is increased from $100 to $200 per class.
    The USPTO revises Sec.  7.6(a)(8) to read ``Correcting deficiency 
in section 71 affidavit'' and adds Sec. Sec.  7.6(a)(8)(i) and (ii) to 
set out the fees for correcting a deficiency in a section 71 affidavit 
on paper and through TEAS, respectively. The fee for filing the 
correction on paper is increased from $100 to $200.

Rulemaking Requirements

America Invents Act

    This rulemaking sets and adjusts fees under Section 10(a) of the 
AIA. Section 10(a) of the AIA 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 Office. See Section 10 of the AIA, Public Law 112-29, 125 Stat. 
284, 316-17. Section 10(e) of the AIA 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 Office provide a public comment period of not less 
than 45 days.
    The 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 the TPAC with the proposed fees at least 45 days prior to 
publishing the proposed fees in the Federal Register. The TPAC then has 
at least 30 days within which to deliberate, consider, and comment on 
the proposal, as well as hold public hearing(s) on the proposed fees. 
The 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 Office issues any final fees. The Office will 
consider and analyze any comments, advice, or recommendations received 
from the TPAC before finally setting or adjusting fees. Fees set or 
adjusted under Section 10 may not become effective before the end of 
the 45-day period beginning on the day after the date on which the 
final rule setting or adjusting the fees is published in the Federal 
Register.
    Consistent with the requirements of the AIA, on October 14, 2015, 
the Director notified the TPAC of the Office's intent to set or adjust 
trademark fees and submitted a preliminary trademark fee proposal with 
supporting materials. The preliminary trademark fee proposal and 
associated materials are available at: http://www.uspto.gov/about-us/performance-and-planning/fee-setting-and-adjusting. The revenue 
estimate for the fee proposal considered by the TPAC was included in 
the USPTO FY 2017 President's Budget request. The fee schedule 
associated with the original proposal is presented as Alternative 4--
Original Proposal to TPAC.
    The TPAC held a public hearing in Alexandria, Virginia on November 
3, 2015. Transcripts of this hearing and comments submitted to the TPAC 
in writing are available for review at http://www.uspto.gov/about-us/performance-and-planning/fee-setting-and-adjusting. The TPAC released 
its report regarding the preliminary proposed fees on November 30, 
2015. The report can be found online at http://www.uspto.gov/

[[Page 72704]]

about-us/performance-and-planning/fee-setting-and-adjusting. The 
proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on May 27, 2016 and 
the public was provided with a 45-day comment period. After 
consideration of public comments, the USPTO publishes this final rule, 
which is effective on January 14, 2017.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    The USPTO publishes this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
(FRFA) as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 
601 et seq.) to examine the impact of the Office's proposed 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 a notice of 
proposed rulemaking (NPRM), the agency must prepare and make available 
for public comment a FRFA, 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. 
5 U.S.C. 603, 605. The USPTO published an Initial Flexibility Analysis 
(IRFA), along with the NPRM, on May 27, 2016 (81 FR 33619). The USPTO 
received no comments from the public directly applicable to the IFRA, 
as stated below in Item 2.
    Items 1-6 below discuss the six items specified in 5 U.S.C. 
604(a)(1)-(6) to be addressed in a FRFA. Item 6 below discusses 
alternatives considered by the Office.
1. Succinct statement of the need for, and objectives of, the rule:

    The USPTO is setting and adjusting certain trademark fees as 
authorized by Section 10 of the AIA. The fee schedule implemented under 
Section 10 in this rulemaking will further key policy considerations 
to: (1) Better align fees with full costs; (2) protect the integrity of 
the register; and (3) promote the efficiency of the trademark process; 
and recover the aggregate estimated trademark costs of the Office to 
achieve strategic and operational goals, such as maintaining an 
operating reserve, implementing measures to maintain trademark pendency 
and high trademark quality, modernizing the trademark IT systems, 
continuing programs for stakeholder and public outreach, and enhancing 
operations of the TTAB. Aggregate costs are estimated through the USPTO 
budget-formulation process with the annual preparation of a five-year 
performance-based budget request. Revenues are estimated based on the 
projected demand for trademark products and services and fee rates.
    As to the legal basis for the final rule, Section 10 of the AIA 
provides the authority for the 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., as amended. See also Section 31 of the 
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. 1113.

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 proposed rule as a result of such comments:

    The USPTO did not receive any public comments in response to the 
IRFA. However, the Office received comments about fees in general, as 
well as particular fees, and their impact on small entities, which are 
further discussed in the preamble.

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 USPTO did not receive any comments filed by the Chief Counsel 
for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in response to the 
proposed rule.

4. Description of and 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 in order to determine the number of small entities 
that would be affected by the final rule. The USPTO believes that the 
overall impact of the fee structure implemented herein on applicants 
and registrants will be positive, because it promotes the more cost-
effective electronic filing system. There will be little or no impact 
for the majority of applicants and registrants that file electronically 
and communicate on a timely basis.
    The final rule applies to any entity filing with USPTO. The USPTO 
estimates that during the first fiscal year under the rules, assuming 
an expected implementation date of January 2017, the USPTO would expect 
to collect approximately $9.5 million more in trademark processing, 
service, and TTAB fees. The USPTO would receive an additional $0.7 
million in fees from paper-filed applications and $8.8 million more 
from electronically filed applications, including $3 million from TEAS 
applications for the registration of a mark, $3.2 million from requests 
for extension of protection and subsequent designations, $0.3 million 
for additional fees for applications failing to meet the TEAS Plus or 
TEAS RF requirements, $4 million for affidavits of use under sections 8 
and 71, and $5 million less for extensions of time for filing a 
statement of use. Total TTAB filing fees would increase by $3.6 
million; $2.1 million is expected from the newly established fees for 
filing extensions of time to file an opposition.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Estimated          Estimated
                 Trademark fee category                   collections with   collections with        Change
                                                            current fees     final rule fees
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Trademark Fees...................................       $307,468,600       $316,957,100         $9,488,500
Paper-Filed Applications...............................          1,752,750          2,418,550            665,800
Electronically Filed Applications......................        294,063,575        302,875,475          8,811,900
TEAS Applications for the Registration of a Mark.......         17,787,900         20,763,600          2,975,700
Request for Extension of Protection and Subsequent              19,384,950         22,567,950          3,183,000
 Designations..........................................
Failing to Meet the TEAS Plus or TEAS RF Requirements..            320,800            663,200            342,400
Affidavit under Sec.   8 and Sec.   71 of the Act......         21,654,300         25,604,400          3,950,100
Extension of Time to File a Statement of Use...........         37,705,400         32,741,300        (4,964,100)
Total TTAB Fees........................................          4,742,000          8,310,700          3,568,700
New TTAB Fees..........................................                  0          2,142,300          2,142,300
Trademark Service Fees.................................         11,652,240         11,663,440             11,200
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 72705]]

5. Description of the reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance 
requirements of the final 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 final rule imposes no new reporting or recordkeeping 
requirements.
    The final rule sets and adjusts trademark fees. The USPTO does not 
anticipate that the final rule would have a disproportionate impact 
upon any particular class of small or large entities.

6. 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 a total of five alternatives for setting fee 
rates before enacting this rule. A full list of current and proposed 
fees for each of the alternatives is available in the FRFA Tables and 
the Trademark Fee Aggregate Revenue Tables at http://www.uspto.gov/about-us/performance-and-planning/fee-setting-and-adjusting. The 
alternatives are explained here with additional information regarding 
how each proposal was developed and the aggregate revenue was 
estimated. A description of the Aggregate Revenue Estimating 
Methodologies is available at: http://www.uspto.gov/about-us/performance-and-planning/fee-setting-and-adjusting.
    The USPTO chose the alternative implemented herein because it will 
enable the Office to achieve its goals effectively and efficiently 
without unduly burdening small entities, erecting barriers to entry, or 
stifling incentives to innovate. This alternative furthers key policy 
considerations of better aligning fees with full costs, protecting the 
integrity of the register, and promoting the efficiency of the 
trademark process while continuing to secure the Office's required 
revenue to meet its aggregate costs. The increased efficiencies 
realized through the final rule will benefit all applicants and 
registrants by allowing registrations to be granted sooner and more 
efficiently removing unused marks from the register, thus allowing mark 
owners to more quickly and assuredly register their marks. The fee 
schedule for this alternative (labeled Final Rule) is available at: 
http://www.uspto.gov/about-us/performance-and-planning/fee-setting-and-adjusting.
    One alternative to setting and increasing the proposed fees would 
be to take no action at this time regarding trademark fees and to leave 
all trademark fees as currently set. This alternative was rejected 
because it will not assist in protecting the integrity of the register 
by incentivizing more timely filing of applications and other filings 
and more efficient resolution of appeals and trials, will not promote 
the efficiency of the process by, in part, increasing the affordability 
of electronic filing options relative to paper filings, and will not 
better align fees with the full cost of products and services. In 
addition, it does not sufficiently recover aggregate costs. The fee 
schedule for this alternative (labeled Alternative 1--No Change) is 
available at: http://www.uspto.gov/about-us/performance-and-planning/fee-setting-and-adjusting.
    Another alternative to setting and increasing the fees that was 
considered was to tie all trademark fees to the Consumer Price Index 
(CPI), applying a 9.956%, multi-year, across-the-board inflationary 
increase to all trademark fees. The 9.956% represents the estimated 
cumulative inflationary adjustment from FY 2017 through FY 2021. As 
estimated by the Congressional Budget Office, projected inflationary 
rates by fiscal year are: 2.17% in FY 2017, 2.39% in FY 2018, 2.38% in 
FY 2019, 2.42% in FY 2020, and 2.42% in FY 2021. This alternative was 
rejected because, unlike the fee structure implemented herein, fee 
increases would be in excess of aggregate costs and there would be no 
improvements in fee design to accomplish the stated objectives of 
protecting the integrity of the register by incentivizing more timely 
filing of applications and other filings and more efficient resolution 
of appeals and trials. In addition, it was determined that adjusting 
trademark fees in accordance with increases or decreases in the CPI 
would likely lead to user confusion as fees would be adjusted by what 
could be viewed as non-traditional or unpredictable increments. The fee 
schedule for this alternative (labeled Alternative 2--CPI Increase) is 
available at: http://www.uspto.gov/about-us/performance-and-planning/fee-setting-and-adjusting.
    Another alternative that was considered was full cost recovery per 
fee. This would require USPTO to set each trademark fee at 100% of unit 
cost to allow the USPTO to recover full cost per fee based on the most 
recent fee unit cost trends. The USPTO uses Activity Based Information 
to determine the historical costs of activities related to each fee. 
Additional information about the methodology is available at: http://www.uspto.gov/about-us/performance-and-planning/fee-setting-and-adjusting.
    It is common practice in the Federal Government to set a particular 
fee at a level to recover the cost of a given good or service. In OMB 
Circular A-25: User Charges, the OMB 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. This alternative was 
rejected because it was determined that the costs for any given product 
or service can vary from year to year, such that a yearly review of 
all, and adjustment to many, trademark fees would be required, and 
could also lead to stakeholder confusion regarding what any given 
trademark fee was currently set at and what the relevant fee would be 
in the future. This alternative would have increased revenue by more 
than the final rule in part because workloads are expected to increase. 
In addition, it was determined that setting the trademark fees to 
recover 100% of all costs associated with each product or service would 
not properly promote the efficiency of the process. The fee schedule 
for this alternative (labeled Alternative 3--Individual Cost Recovery) 
is available at: http://www.uspto.gov/about-us/performance-and-planning/fee-setting-and-adjusting.
    For purposes of this discussion, the preliminary trademark fee 
proposal presented to the TPAC is identified as Alternative 4 in the 
Trademark Fee Aggregate Revenue Tables available at: http://www.uspto.gov/about-us/performance-and-planning/fee-setting-and-adjusting. The revenue estimate for the preliminary proposal considered 
by the TPAC was included in the USPTO FY 2017 President's Budget 
request. That proposal, as addressed in the preamble, was modified 
based on the feedback from the TPAC report received November 30, 2015 
and feedback received from public comments. The preliminary proposal 
included an increase in the fee to file a request for an extension of 
time to file a statement of use that would apply only to U.S.-based 
applicants that filed an application based on a future intention to use 
the mark. The final rule no longer includes an increase to that fee 
unless it is filed on paper, consistent with the increase in all paper-
filed requests.

[[Page 72706]]

Instead, the final rule includes a reduction in the fee for 
electronically filing a request for an extension of time to file a 
statement of use and an increase in the fee for filing an affidavit 
under section 8 and 71, which apply to the continued maintenance of a 
registration. The final rule also increases the fee for filing a TEAS 
application. The fee schedule for this alternative (labeled Alternative 
4--Original Proposal to TPAC (FY 17 PB)) is available at: http://www.uspto.gov/about-us/performance-and-planning/fee-setting-and-adjusting.
    Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review): This rule 
has been determined to be significant, but not economically 
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 that 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, 0651-0040, 0651-0050, 0651-0051, 0651-0054, and 0651-0055.
    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

37 CFR Part 2

    Administrative practice and procedure, Trademarks.

37 CFR Part 7

    Administrative practice and procedure, Trademarks, International 
registration.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble and under the authority 
contained in Section 10(a) of the AIA, 15 U.S.C. 1113, 15 U.S.C. 1123, 
and 35 U.S.C. 2, as amended, the USPTO amends parts 2 and 7 of title 37 
as follows:

PART 2--RULES OF PRACTICE IN TRADEMARK CASES

0
1. The authority citation for 37 CFR part 2 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1113, 15 U.S.C. 1123, 35 U.S.C. 2, Section 
10 of Pub. L. 112-29, unless otherwise noted.

0
2. Revise Sec.  2.6 to read as follows:


Sec.  2.6  Trademark fees.

    (a) Trademark process fees.
    (1) Application filing fees.

(i) For filing an application on paper, per class--$600.00
(ii) For filing an application through TEAS, per class--$400.00
(iii) For filing a TEAS Reduced Fee (RF) application through TEAS under 
Sec.  2.23, per class--$275.00
(iv) For filing a TEAS Plus application through TEAS under Sec.  2.22, 
per class--$225.00
(v) Additional processing fee under Sec. Sec.  2.22(c) or 2.23(c), per 
class--$125.00

    (2) Amendment to allege use.

(i) For filing an amendment to allege use under section 1(c) of the Act 
on paper, per class--$200.00
(ii) For filing an amendment to allege use under section 1(c) of the 
Act through TEAS, per class--$100.00

    (3) Statement of use.

(i) For filing a statement of use under section 1(d)(1) of the Act on 
paper, per class--$200.00
(ii) For filing a statement of use under section 1(d)(1) of the Act 
through TEAS, per class--$100.00

    (4) Extension of time for filing statement of use.

(i) For filing a request under section 1(d)(2) of the Act for a six-
month extension of time for filing a statement of use under section 
1(d)(1) of the Act on paper, per class--$225.00
(ii) For filing a request under section 1(d)(2) of the Act for a six-
month extension of time for filing a statement of use under section 
1(d)(1) of the Act through TEAS, per class--$125.00

    (5) Application for renewal of a registration fees.

(i) For filing an application for renewal of a registration on paper, 
per class--$500.00
(ii) For filing an application for renewal of a registration through 
TEAS, per class--$300.00

    (6) Renewal during grace period.

(i) Additional fee for filing a renewal application during the grace 
period on paper, per class--$200.00

[[Page 72707]]

(ii) Additional fee for filing a renewal application during the grace 
period through TEAS, per class--$100.00

    (7) Publishing mark under section 12(c).

(i) For filing to publish a mark under section 12(c) on paper, per 
class--$200.00
(ii) For filing to publish a mark under section 12(c) through TEAS, per 
class--$100.00

    (8) New certificate of registration.

(i) For issuing a new certificate of registration upon request of 
registrant, request filed on paper--$200.00
(ii) For issuing a new certificate of registration upon request of 
registrant, request filed through TEAS--$100.00

    (9) Certificate of correction of registrant's error.

(i) For a certificate of correction of registrant's error, request 
filed on paper--$200.00
(ii) For a certificate of correction of registrant's error, request 
filed through TEAS--$100.00

    (10) Disclaimer to a registration.

(i) For filing a disclaimer to a registration, on paper--$200.00
(ii) For filing a disclaimer to a registration, through TEAS or ESTTA--
$100.00

    (11) Amendment of registration.

(i) For filing an amendment to a registration, on paper--$200.00
(ii) For filing an amendment to a registration, through TEAS or ESTTA--
$100.00

    (12) Affidavit under section 8.

(i) For filing an affidavit under section 8 of the Act on paper, per 
class--$225.00
(ii) For filing an affidavit under section 8 of the Act through TEAS, 
per class--$125.00

    (13) Affidavit under section 15.

(i) For filing an affidavit under section 15 of the Act on paper, per 
class--$300.00
(ii) For filing an affidavit under section 15 of the Act through TEAS, 
per class--$200.00

    (14) Filing section 8 affidavit during grace period.

(i) Additional fee for filing a section 8 affidavit during the grace 
period on paper, per class--$200.00
(ii) Additional fee for filing a section 8 affidavit during the grace 
period through TEAS, per class--$100.00

    (15) Petitions to the Director.

(i) For petitions to the Director filed on paper--$200.00
(ii) For petitions to the Director filed through TEAS--$100.00

    (16) Petition to cancel.

(i) For filing a petition to cancel on paper, per class--$500.00
(ii) For filing a petition to cancel through ESTTA, per class--$400.00

    (17) Notice of opposition.

(i) For filing a notice of opposition on paper, per class--$500.00
(ii) For filing a notice of opposition through ESTTA, per class--
$400.00

    (18) Ex parte appeal.

(i) For ex parte appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board filed 
on paper, per class--$300.00
(ii) For ex parte appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board filed 
through ESTTA, per class--$200.00

    (19) Dividing an application.

(i) Request to divide an application filed on paper, per new 
application created--$200.00
(ii) Request to divide an application filed through TEAS, per new 
application created--$100.00

    (20) Correcting deficiency in section 8 affidavit.

(i) For correcting a deficiency in a section 8 affidavit via paper 
filing--$200.00
(ii) For correcting a deficiency in a section 8 affidavit via TEAS 
filing--$100.00

    (21) Correcting deficiency in renewal application.

(i) For correcting a deficiency in a renewal application via paper 
filing--$200.00
(ii) For correcting a deficiency in a renewal application via TEAS 
filing--$100.00

    (22) Extension of time for filing notice of opposition under Sec.  
2.102(c)(1)(ii) or (c)(2).

(i) For filing a request for an extension of time to file a notice of 
opposition under Sec.  2.102(c)(1)(ii) or (c)(2) on paper--$200.00
(ii) For filing a request for an extension of time to file a notice of 
opposition under Sec.  2.102(c)(1)(ii) or (c)(2) through ESTTA--$100.00

    (23) Extension of time for filing notice of opposition under Sec.  
2.102(c)(3).

(i) For filing a request for an extension of time to file a notice of 
opposition under Sec.  2.102(c)(3) on paper--$300.00
(ii) For filing a request for an extension of time to file a notice of 
opposition under Sec.  2.102(c)(3) through ESTTA--$200.00

    (b) Trademark service fees.

(1) For printed copy of registered mark, copy only. Service includes 
preparation of copies by the Office within two to three business days 
and delivery by United States Postal Service; and preparation of copies 
by the Office within one business day of receipt and delivery to an 
Office Box or by electronic means (e.g., facsimile, electronic mail)--
$3.00
(2) Certified or uncertified copy of trademark application as filed 
processed within seven calendar days--$15.00
(3) Certified or uncertified copy of a trademark-related official 
record--$50.00
(4) Certified copy of a registered mark, showing title and/or status:
(i) Regular service--$15.00
(ii) Expedited local service--$30.00
(5) Certified or uncertified copy of trademark records, per document 
except as otherwise provided in this section--$25.00
(6) For recording each trademark assignment, agreement or other 
document relating to the property in a registration or application
(i) First property in a document--$40.00
(ii) For each additional property in the same document--$25.00
(7) For assignment records, abstract of title and certification, per 
registration--$25.00
(8) Additional Fee for Overnight Delivery--$40.00
(9) Additional Fee for Expedited Service--$160.00
(10) For processing each payment refused (including a check returned 
``unpaid'') or charged back by a financial institution--$50.00
(11) Deposit account service charge for each month when the balance at 
the end of the month is below $1,000--$25.00

0
3. Amend Sec.  2.200 to revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  2.200  Assignment records open to public inspection.

* * * * *
    (b) An order for a copy of an assignment or other document should 
identify the reel and frame number where the assignment or document is 
recorded.

0
4. Amend Sec.  2.208 to revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec.  2.208  Deposit accounts.

    (a) For the convenience of attorneys, and the general public in 
paying any fees due, in ordering copies of records, or services offered 
by the Office, deposit accounts may be established in the Office. A 
minimum deposit of $1,000 is required for paying any fees due or in 
ordering any services offered by the

[[Page 72708]]

Office. The Office will issue a deposit account statement at the end of 
each month. A remittance must be made promptly upon receipt of the 
statement to cover the value of items or services charged to the 
account and thus restore the account to its established normal deposit. 
An amount sufficient to cover all fees, copies, or services requested 
must always be on deposit. Charges to accounts with insufficient funds 
will not be accepted. A service charge (Sec.  2.6(b)(11)) will be 
assessed for each month that the balance at the end of the month is 
below $1,000.
* * * * *

PART 7--RULES OF PRACTICE IN FILINGS PURSUANT TO THE PROTOCOL 
RELATING TO THE MADRID AGREEMENT CONCERNING THE INTERNATIONAL 
REGISTRATION OF MARKS

0
5. The authority citation for 37 CFR Part 7 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1123, 35 U.S.C. 2, unless otherwise noted.


0
6. Revise Sec.  7.6 to read as follows:


Sec.  7.6  Schedule of U.S. process fees.

    (a) The Office requires the following process fees:
    (1) Certification of international application based on single 
application or registration.

(i) For certifying an international application based on a single basic 
application or registration, filed on paper, per class--$200.00
(ii) For certifying an international application based on a single 
basic application or registration, filed through TEAS, per class--
$100.00

    (2) Certification of international application based on more than 
one application or registration.

(i) For certifying an international application based on more than one 
basic application or registration filed on paper, per class--$250.00
(ii) For certifying an international application based on more than one 
basic application or registration filed through TEAS, per class--
$150.00

    (3) Transmission of subsequent designation.

(i) For transmitting a subsequent designation under Sec.  7.21, filed 
on paper--$200.00
(ii) For transmitting a subsequent designation under Sec.  7.21, filed 
through TEAS--$100.00

    (4) Transmission of request to record an assignment or restriction.

(i) For transmitting a request to record an assignment or restriction, 
or release of a restriction, under Sec.  7.23 or Sec.  7.24 filed on 
paper--$200.00
(ii) For transmitting a request to record an assignment or restriction, 
or release of a restriction, under Sec.  7.23 or Sec.  7.24 filed 
through TEAS--$100.00

    (5) Notice of replacement.

(i) For filing a notice of replacement under Sec.  7.28 on paper, per 
class--$200.00
(ii) For filing a notice of replacement under Sec.  7.28 through TEAS, 
per class--$100.00

    (6) Affidavit under section 71.

(i) For filing an affidavit under section 71 of the Act on paper, per 
class--$225.00
(ii) For filing an affidavit under section 71 of the Act through TEAS, 
per class--$125.00

    (7) Filing affidavit under section 71 during grace period.

(i) Surcharge for filing an affidavit under section 71 of the Act 
during the grace period on paper, per class--$200.00
(ii) Surcharge for filing an affidavit under section 71 of the Act 
during the grace period through TEAS, per class--$100.00

    (8) Correcting deficiency in section 71 affidavit.

(i) For correcting a deficiency in a section 71 affidavit filed on 
paper--$200.00
(ii) For correcting a deficiency in a section 71 affidavit filed 
through TEAS--$100.00

    (b) The fees required in paragraph (a) of this section must be paid 
in U.S. dollars at the time of submission of the requested action. See 
Sec.  2.207 of this chapter for acceptable forms of payment and Sec.  
2.208 of this chapter for payments using a deposit account established 
in the Office.

    Dated: October 17, 2016.
Michelle K. Lee,
Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of 
the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
[FR Doc. 2016-25506 Filed 10-20-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-16-P