[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 59 (Tuesday, March 26, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20897-20915]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-06186]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Patent and Trademark Office

37 CFR Parts 2 and 7

[Docket No. PTO-T-2022-0034]
RIN 0651-AD65


Setting and Adjusting Trademark Fees During Fiscal Year 2025

AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Department of 
Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) proposes 
to set and adjust trademark fees, as authorized by the Leahy-Smith 
America Invents Act (AIA), as amended by the Study of Underrepresented 
Classes Chasing Engineering and Science Success Act of 2018 (SUCCESS 
Act). The proposed fee adjustments will provide the USPTO sufficient 
aggregate revenue to recover the aggregate costs of trademark 
operations in future years (based on assumptions and estimates found in 
the agency's Fiscal Year 2025 Congressional Justification (FY 2025 
Budget)), including implementing the USPTO 2022-2026 Strategic Plan 
(Strategic Plan).

DATES: The USPTO solicits comments from the public on this proposed 
rule. Written comments must be received on or before May 28, 2024 to 
ensure consideration.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on proposed trademark fees must be 
submitted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov.
    To submit comments via the portal, commenters should go to https://www.regulations.gov/docket/PTO-T-2022-0034 or enter docket number PTO-
T-2022-0034 on the homepage and select the ``Search'' button. The site 
will provide search results listing all documents associated with this 
docket. Commenters can find a reference to this notice and select the 
``Comment'' button, complete the required fields, and enter or attach 
their comments. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in 
Adobe portable document format (PDF) or Microsoft Word format. Because 
comments will be made available for public inspection, information that 
the submitter does not desire to make public, such as an address or 
phone number, should not be included in the comments.
    Visit the Federal eRulemaking Portal for additional instructions on 
providing comments via the portal. If electronic

[[Page 20898]]

submission of comments is not possible, please contact the USPTO using 
the contact information below in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section of this notice for special instructions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brendan Hourigan, Director, Office of 
Planning and Budget, at 571-272-8966, or [email protected]; or 
C. Brett Lockard, Director, Forecasting and Analysis Division, at 571-
272-0928. [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Executive Summary

A. Introduction

    The USPTO publishes this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM or 
proposed rule) under section 10 of the AIA (section 10), Public Law 
112-29, 125 Stat. 284, as amended by the SUCCESS Act, Public Law 115-
273, 132 Stat. 4158, which authorizes the Under Secretary of Commerce 
for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO to set or adjust by 
rule any trademark fee established, authorized, or charged under the 
Trademark Act of 1946 (the Trademark Act), 15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq., as 
amended, for any services performed or materials furnished by the 
agency. Section 10 prescribes that trademark fees may be set or 
adjusted only to recover the aggregate estimated costs to the USPTO for 
processing, activities, services, and materials relating to trademarks, 
including administrative costs of the agency with respect to such 
trademark fees. Section 10 authority includes flexibility to set 
individual fees in a way that furthers key policy factors, while 
considering the cost of the respective services. Section 10 also 
establishes certain procedural requirements for setting or adjusting 
fee regulations, such as public hearings and input from the Trademark 
Public Advisory Committee (TPAC) and congressional oversight. TPAC held 
a public hearing on the USPTO's preliminary trademark fee proposals on 
June 5, 2023, and issued a report (TPAC Report) on August 14, 2023, 
containing its comments, advice, and recommendations on the preliminary 
fee proposals. The USPTO considered and analyzed the TPAC Report before 
publishing the fee proposals in this NPRM. See Part IV: Rulemaking 
Goals and Strategies for further discussion of the TPAC Report.

B. Purpose of This Action

    Based on a biennial review of fees, costs, and revenues that began 
in fiscal year (FY) 2021, the USPTO concluded that fee adjustments are 
necessary to provide the agency with sufficient financial resources to 
facilitate the effective administration of the U.S. trademark system, 
including implementing the Strategic Plan, available on the agency 
website at https://www.uspto.gov/StrategicPlan. The individual fee 
proposals align with the USPTO's fee structure philosophy, including 
the agency's four key fee setting policy factors: (1) promote 
innovation strategies; (2) align fees with the full cost of trademark 
services; (3) set fees to facilitate the effective administration of 
the trademark system; and (4) offer application processing options. The 
proposed fee adjustments will enable the USPTO to accomplish its 
mission to drive U.S. innovation, inclusive capitalism, and global 
competitiveness by delivering high-quality and timely trademark 
examination and review proceedings that produce accurate and reliable 
trademark rights for domestic and international stakeholders.

C. Summary of Provisions Impacted by This Action

    The USPTO proposes to set and adjust 31 trademark fees, including 
the introduction of 12 new fees. The agency also proposes discontinuing 
6 fees.
    Under the proposed fee schedule in this NPRM, the routine fees to 
obtain and maintain a trademark registration (e.g., application filing, 
intent-to-use/use (ITU) filings, and post-registration maintenance 
fees) will increase relative to the current fee schedule, in order to 
ensure financial sustainability and provide for improvements needed 
relative to trademark filings and registration. Additional information 
describing the proposed fee adjustments is included in Part V: 
Individual Fee Rationale in this rulemaking and in the Table of 
Trademark Fees--Current, Proposed, and Unit Cost (Table of Trademark 
Fees), available on the fee setting section of the USPTO website at 
https://www.uspto.gov/FeeSettingAndAdjusting.

II. Legal Framework

A. Leahy-Smith America Invents Act--Section 10

    The AIA was enacted on September 16, 2011. See Public Law 112-29, 
125 Stat. 284, 316-17. Section 10(a) of the AIA authorizes the Director 
of the USPTO (Director) to set or adjust by rule any fee established, 
authorized, or charged under the Trademark Act for any services 
performed or materials furnished by the agency. Section 10 provides 
that trademark fees may be set or adjusted only to recover the 
aggregate estimated costs to the USPTO for processing, activities, 
services, and materials relating to trademarks, including 
administrative costs of the agency with respect to such trademark fees. 
Provided that the fees in the aggregate achieve overall aggregate cost 
recovery, the Director may set individual fees under section 10 at, 
below, or above their respective cost. Section 10(e) requires the 
Director to publish the final fee rule in the Federal Register and the 
USPTO's Official Gazette at least 45 days before the final fees become 
effective.

B. The Study of Underrepresented Classes Chasing Engineering and 
Science Success Act of 2018

    The SUCCESS Act was enacted on October 31, 2018. See Public Law 
115-273, 132 Stat. 4158. Section 4 of the SUCCESS Act amended section 
10(i)(2) of the AIA by striking ``7-year'' and inserting ``15-year'' in 
reference to the expiration of fee setting authority. Therefore, 
updated section 10(i) terminates the Director's authority to set or 
adjust any fee under section 10 upon the expiration of the 15-year 
period that began on September 16, 2011, and ends on September 16, 
2026.

C. Trademark Public Advisory Committee Role

    The Secretary of Commerce established TPAC under the American 
Inventors Protection Act of 1999. TPAC advises the Director of the 
USPTO on the management, policies, goals, performance, budget, and user 
fees of trademark operations.
    When adopting fees under section 10 of the AIA, the Director must 
provide the proposed fees to TPAC at least 45 days prior to publishing 
the proposed fees in the Federal Register. TPAC then has 30 days within 
which to deliberate, consider, and comment on the proposal, as well as 
hold a public hearing on the proposed fees. Then, TPAC must publish a 
written report setting forth in detail the comments, advice, and 
recommendations of the committee regarding the proposed fees. The USPTO 
must consider and analyze any comments, advice, or recommendations 
received from TPAC before setting or adjusting fees.
    Accordingly, on May 8, 2023, the Director notified TPAC of the 
USPTO's intent to set and adjust trademark fees and submitted a 
preliminary trademark fee proposal with supporting materials. The 
preliminary trademark fee proposal and associated materials are 
available on the fee setting section of the USPTO website at https://www.uspto.gov/FeeSettingAndAdjusting.

[[Page 20899]]

    TPAC held a public hearing at the USPTO's headquarters in 
Alexandria, Virginia, on June 5, 2023, and members of the public were 
given an opportunity to provide oral testimony. Transcripts of the 
hearing are available for review on the USPTO website at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/TPAC-Fee-Setting-Hearing-Transcript-20230605.pdf. Members of the public were also given an 
opportunity to submit written comments for TPAC to consider, and these 
comments are available on Regulations.gov at https://www.regulations.gov/docket/PTO-T-2023-0016. On August 14, 2023, TPAC 
issued a written report setting forth their comments, advice, and 
recommendations regarding the preliminary proposed fees. The report is 
available on the USPTO website at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/TPAC-Report-on-2023-Fee-Proposal.docx. The USPTO 
considered and analyzed all comments, advice, and recommendations 
received from TPAC before publishing this NPRM. See Part IV: Rulemaking 
Goals and Strategies for further discussion of the TPAC Report.

III. Estimating Aggregate Costs and Revenue

    Section 10 provides that trademark fees may be set or adjusted only 
to recover the aggregate estimated costs to the USPTO for processing, 
activities, services, and materials relating to trademarks, including 
administrative costs with respect to such trademark fees. The following 
is a description of how the agency estimates aggregate costs and 
revenue.

Step 1: Estimating Aggregate Costs

    Estimating prospective aggregate costs is accomplished primarily 
through the annual budget formulation process. The annual budget is a 
five-year plan for carrying out base programs and new initiatives to 
deliver on the USPTO's statutory mission and implement the agency's 
strategic goals and objectives.
    First, the USPTO projects the level of demand for trademark 
services, which depends on many factors that are subject to change, 
including domestic and global economic activity. The agency also 
considers non-US trademark-related activities, policies, and 
legislation, and known process efficiencies. The number of trademark 
application filings (i.e., incoming work to the USPTO) drives 
examination costs, which make up the largest share of trademark 
operating costs. The USPTO looks at indicators including the expected 
growth in real gross domestic product (RGDP), a leading indicator of 
incoming trademark applications, to estimate prospective workloads. 
RGDP is reported by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (www.bea.gov) and 
forecasted each February by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
(www.omb.gov) in the Economic and Budget Analyses section of the 
Analytical Perspectives, and twice annually by the Congressional Budget 
Office (CBO) (www.cbo.gov) in the Budget and Economic Outlook.
    The expected production workload is then compared to the current 
examination production capacity to determine any required staffing and 
operating costs (e.g., salaries, workload processing contracts, and 
publication) adjustments. The agency uses a trademark pendency model 
that estimates trademark production output based on actual historical 
data and input assumptions, such as incoming trademark applications, 
number of examining attorneys on board, and overtime hours. Key 
statistics regarding pendency, filing and application metrics, and 
current inventory used to inform the model can be viewed on the data 
visualization center section of the USPTO website at https://www.uspto.gov/dashboard/trademarks.
    Next, the USPTO calculates budgetary spending requirements based on 
the prospective aggregate costs of trademark operations. First, the 
agency estimates the costs of status quo operations (base 
requirements), then adjusts that figure for anticipated pay increases 
and inflationary increases for the budget year and four out years. The 
USPTO then estimates the prospective costs for expected changes in 
production workload and new initiatives over the same period. The 
agency then reduces cost estimates for completed initiatives and known 
cost savings expected over the same five-year horizon. A detailed 
description of budgetary requirements, aggregate costs, and related 
assumptions for the Trademarks program is available in the FY 2025 
Budget.
    The USPTO estimates that trademark operations will cost $594 
million in FY 2025, including $293 million for trademark examining; $24 
million for trademark trials and appeals; $50 million for trademark 
information resources; $22 million for activities related to 
intellectual property (IP) protection, policy, and enforcement; and 
$204 million for general support costs necessary for trademark 
operations (e.g., the trademark share of rent, utilities, legal, 
financial, human resources, other administrative services, and agency-
wide information technology (IT) infrastructure and support costs). See 
Appendix II of the FY 2025 Budget. In addition, the agency will 
transfer $280 thousand to the Department of Commerce, Inspector 
General, for audit support for the Trademarks program.
    Table 1 below provides key underlying production workload 
projections and assumptions from the FY 2025 Budget used to calculate 
aggregate costs. Table 2 (see Step 2) presents the total budgetary 
requirements (prospective aggregate costs) for FY 2025 through FY 2029 
and the estimated collections and operating reserve balances that would 
result from the proposed adjustments contained in this NPRM. These 
projections are based on point-in-time estimates and assumptions that 
are subject to change. There is considerable uncertainty in outyear 
budgetary requirements. There are risks that could materialize over the 
next several years (e.g., adjustments to examination capacity, time 
allotted to examining attorneys and other personnel to perform their 
work, recompetitions of contracts, changes in workload, and 
inflationary increases, etc.) that could increase the USPTO's budgetary 
requirements in the short- to medium-term. These estimates are 
refreshed annually during the formulation of USPTO's budget.

                        Table 1--Trademark Production Workload Projections, FY 2025-2029
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Production measures            FY 2025         FY 2026         FY 2027         FY 2028         FY 2029
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applications....................         774,000         817,000         863,000         912,000         964,000
Application growth rate.........            4.6%            5.5%            5.6%            5.7%            5.7%
Balanced disposals..............       1,552,600       1,680,000       1,740,000       1,850,000       1,930,000
Unexamined trademark application         463,756         442,627         418,438         402,622         401,645
 backlog........................
Examination capacity **.........             806             841             876             913             948
Performance measures:
    Avg. first action pendency               7.5             6.3             5.9             5.5             4.9
     (months)...................

[[Page 20900]]

 
    Avg. total pendency (months)            13.5            11.3            10.9             9.5             8.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* In this table, examination capacity is the number of examining attorneys on board at end of year, as described
  in the FY 2025 Budget.

Step 2: Estimating Prospective Aggregate Revenue

    As described above in Step 1, the USPTO's prospective aggregate 
costs (as presented in the FY 2025 Budget) include budgetary 
requirements related to planned production, anticipated initiatives, 
and a contribution to the trademark operating reserve required for the 
agency to maintain trademark operations and realize its strategic goals 
and objectives for the next five years. Prospective aggregate costs 
become the target aggregate revenue level that the new fee schedule 
must generate in a given year and over the five-year planning horizon. 
To estimate aggregate revenue, the USPTO references production models 
used to estimate aggregate costs and analyzes relevant factors and 
indicators to calculate prospective fee workloads (e.g., number of 
applications and requests for services and products).
    The same economic indicators used to forecast incoming workloads 
also provide insight into market conditions and the management of IP 
portfolios, which influence application processing requests and post-
registration decisions to maintain trademark protection. When 
developing fee workload forecasts, the USPTO also considers other 
factors including fraud and scams impacting trademark filings, overseas 
activity, policies and legislation, court decisions, process 
efficiencies, and anticipated applicant behavior.
    The USPTO collects fees for trademark-related services and products 
at different points in time within the application examination process 
and over the life of the pending trademark application and resulting 
registration. Trademark application filings are a key driver of 
trademark fee collections, as initial filing fees account for more than 
half of total trademark fee collections. Changes in application filing 
levels immediately impact current year fee collections because fewer 
application filings mean the USPTO collects fewer fees to devote to 
production-related costs. The resulting reduction in production 
activities also creates an outyear revenue impact because less 
production output in one year leads to fewer ITU and maintenance fee 
payments in future years. Historically, fee collections from ITU and 
maintenance fees account for about one third of total trademark fee 
collections, which the agency uses to subsidize costs for filing and 
examination activities not fully covered by initial filing fees.
    The USPTO's five-year estimated aggregate trademark fee revenue 
(see Table 2) is based on, for each fiscal year, the number of 
trademark applications it expects to receive, work it expects to 
process (an indicator of the ITU fee workloads), expected examination 
and process requests, and the expected number of post-registration 
filings to maintain trademark registrations. The USPTO forecasts the 
same number of future year applications filed under the proposed fee 
schedule compared to the current fee schedule because outside research 
suggests that demand for trademark applications is inelastic. The USPTO 
does anticipate a larger share of filers will take measures to avoid 
the proposed surcharges compared to the share of filers that take 
advantage of the TEAS Plus option under the current fee schedule. The 
USPTO's Office of the Chief Economist periodically conducts economic 
studies and may, in the future, develop trademark fee price elasticity 
estimates for use in rulemakings.
    Within the iterative process for estimating aggregate revenue, the 
USPTO adjusts individual fee rates up or down based on cost and policy 
decisions, estimates the effective dates of new fee rates, and then 
multiplies the resulting fee rates by appropriate workload volumes to 
calculate a revenue estimate for each fee. In the aggregate revenue 
estimates presented below, the agency assumes that all proposed fee 
rates will become effective on November 15, 2024. Using these figures, 
the USPTO sums the individual fee revenue estimates, and the result is 
a total aggregate revenue estimate for a given year (see Table 2). The 
aggregate revenue estimate also includes collecting $10 million 
annually in other income associated with recoveries and reimbursements 
from other Federal agencies (offsets to spending).

                               Table 2--Trademark Financial Outlook, FY 2025-2029
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      FY 2025         FY 2026         FY 2027         FY 2028         FY 2029
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Dollars in millions
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projected fee collections.......             583             640             666             694             721
Other income....................              10              10              10              10              10
Total projected fee collections              593             650             676             704             731
 and other income...............
Budgetary requirements..........             594             611             635             664             690
Funding to (+) and from (-)                  (1)              40              40              40              41
 operating reserve..............
End-of-year operating reserve                 85             125             165             205             246
 balance........................
Over/(under) minimum level......            (52)            (16)              19              52              87
Over/(under) optimal level......           (212)           (181)           (153)           (127)            (99)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Rulemaking Goals and Strategies

A. Fee Setting Strategy

    The strategy of this proposed rule is to establish a fee schedule 
that generates sufficient multi-year revenue to recover the aggregate 
costs of maintaining USPTO trademark operations. The overriding 
principles behind this strategy are to operate within a sustainable 
funding model that supports the USPTO's strategic goals and objectives, 
such as optimizing trademark application pendency through the promotion 
of efficient operations and filing behaviors, issuing accurate and 
reliable trademark registrations, and encouraging access to

[[Page 20901]]

the trademark system for all stakeholders.
    The USPTO assessed this proposed rule's alignment with four key fee 
setting policy factors that promote a particular aspect of the U.S. 
trademark system. (1) Promoting innovation strategies seeks to ensure 
barriers to entry into the U.S. trademark system remain low, encourage 
high-growth and innovation-based entrepreneurship, and incentivize 
innovation and entrepreneurship by issuing registrations to stimulate 
additional entrepreneurial activity. (2) Aligning fees with the full 
costs of products and services recognizes that some applicants may use 
particular services in a more costly manner than other applicants 
(e.g., trademark applications cost more and take longer to examine when 
identifications of goods and services include thousands of characters), 
and charges those applicants appropriately rather than sharing the 
costs among all applicants. (3) Facilitating the effective 
administration of the trademark system seeks to encourage efficient 
prosecution of trademark applications, reducing the time it takes to 
obtain a registration. (4) Offering application processing options 
provides multiple paths, where feasible, in recognition that trademark 
prosecution is not a one-size-fits-all process. The reasoning for 
setting and adjusting individual fees is described in Part V: 
Individual Fee Rationale.

B. Fee Setting Considerations

    The balance of this sub-section presents the specific fee setting 
considerations the USPTO reviewed in developing the proposed trademark 
fee schedule: (1) historical cost of providing individual services; (2) 
the balance between projected costs and revenue to meet the USPTO's 
operational needs and strategic goals; (3) ensuring sustainable 
funding; and (4) TPAC's comments, advice, and recommendations on the 
USPTO's initial fee setting proposal. Collectively, these 
considerations informed the USPTO's chosen rulemaking strategy.
1. Historical Cost of Providing Individual Services
    The USPTO sets individual fee rates to further key policy 
considerations while considering the cost of a particular service. For 
instance, the USPTO has a longstanding practice of setting application 
filing fees below the actual cost of processing and examining 
applications to encourage brand owners to take advantage of the 
protections and rights offered by trademark registration.
    The USPTO considers unit cost data provided by its Activity Based 
Information (ABI) program to decide how to best align fees with the 
full cost of products and services. Using historical cost data, the 
USPTO can align fees to the costs of specific trademark products and 
services. When the USPTO implements a new process or service, 
historical activity-based information (ABI) data is typically not 
available. However, the USPTO will use the historical cost of a similar 
process or procedure as a starting point to estimate the full cost of a 
new activity or service.
    The document entitled ``USPTO Setting and Adjusting Trademark Fees 
During Fiscal Year 2025--Activity Based Information and Trademark Fee 
Unit Expense Methodology,'' available on the fee setting section of the 
USPTO website at https://www.uspto.gov/FeeSettingAndAdjusting, provides 
additional information on the agency's costing methodology in addition 
to the last three years of historical cost data. Part V: Individual Fee 
Rationale of this proposed rule describes the reasoning and anticipated 
benefits for setting some individual fees at cost, below cost, or above 
cost such that the USPTO recovers the aggregate cost of providing 
services through fees.
2. Balancing Projected Costs and Revenue
    In developing the proposed trademark fee schedule, the USPTO 
considered its current estimates of future year workload demands, fee 
collections, and costs to maintain core USPTO operations and meet its 
strategic goals, as found in the FY 2025 Budget and the Strategic Plan. 
The USPTO's strategic goals include: (1) driving inclusive U.S. 
innovation and global competitiveness; (2) promoting the efficient 
delivery of reliable IP rights; (3) promoting the protection of IP 
against new and persistent threats; (4) bringing innovation to impact; 
and (5) generating impactful employee and customer experiences by 
maximizing agency operations. The following subsections provide details 
regarding updated revenue and cost estimates, cost saving efforts taken 
by the USPTO, and planned strategic improvements.
a. Updated Revenue and Cost Estimates
    Projected revenue from the current fee schedule is insufficient to 
meet future budgetary requirements (costs) due largely to lower-than-
expected demand for trademark services compared to prior forecasts and 
higher-than-expected inflation in the broader U.S. economy that has 
increased the USPTO's operating costs. Consequently, aggregate 
operating costs will exceed aggregate revenue for the Trademarks 
program under the current schedule. Absent the proposed increase in 
fees or an unsustainable reduction in operating costs, the USPTO would 
deplete its operating reserves and significantly increase financial 
risk.
    Forecasts for aggregate revenue using current demand estimates are 
lower than prior forecasts. This lower-than-expected demand has 
coincided with changes to trademark owners' filing and renewal 
patterns, resulting in some imbalances in the overall fee structure. 
The USPTO sets application filing fees below its examination costs to 
maintain a low barrier to entry into the trademark registration system 
and relies on fees collected for post-registration maintenance and ITU 
extensions to subsidize the agency's losses on each application 
examined. However, changes in the mix of filers and their preferences 
have upset the traditional balance of the trademark fee structure. The 
share of applicants filing ITU applications is declining. Also, the 
percentage of registrants that choose to maintain their trademark 
registration is declining as a larger share of filers are groups that 
are historically less likely to renew their registrations at a rate 
that would be sufficient to recover examination costs. The USPTO 
believes these changes in the mix of filers are systemic and will 
continue.
    Following an unprecedented application surge in FY 2021, trademark 
application filings declined and began returning to historic filing 
levels in FY 2022, in line with the USPTO's expectations. Application 
filings were largely unchanged in FY 2023. Given the current economic 
outlook for the broader economy and filing activity over the past two 
years, the USPTO projects trademark application filings to decline 
slightly in FY 2024 and increase in line with historic growth rates in 
FY 2025.
    Higher-than-expected inflation starting in 2021 in the broader U.S. 
economy increased the USPTO's operating costs above previous estimates 
for labor and nonlabor activities such as benefits, service contracts, 
and equipment. Salaries and benefits comprise about two-thirds of all 
trademark-related costs, and employee pay raises enacted across all 
U.S. government agencies in FY 2023-24--including the USPTO--were much 
larger than previously budgeted. Federal General Schedule (GS) pay was 
raised by 4.6% in 2023 and 5.2% in 2024; before 2023 the last time GS 
pay was raised by at least 4% was in 2004. The FY 2025 Budget includes 
an estimated 2.0% civilian pay raise planned in calendar year (CY) 2025 
and assumed 3.0% civilian pay raises in CY 2026-29,

[[Page 20902]]

as well as inflationary increases for other labor and nonlabor 
activities.
b. Cost-Saving Measures
    The USPTO recognizes that fees cannot simply increase for every 
improvement deemed desirable. The USPTO has a responsibility to 
stakeholders to pursue strategic opportunities for improvement in an 
efficient, cost-conscious manner. Likewise, the USPTO recognizes its 
obligation to reduce spending when appropriate.
    The USPTO's FY 2025 Budget submission includes cost reducing 
measures such as releasing leased space in Northern Virginia and a 
moderate reduction in overall IT spending. In FY 2025, the USPTO 
estimates $4,569 million in total spending for patent and trademark 
operations. This is a $122 million net increase from the agency's FY 
2024 estimated spending level of $4,447 million. The net increase 
includes a $224 million upward adjustment for prescribed inflation and 
other adjustments, and a $102 million downward adjustment in program 
spending and other realized efficiencies. This estimate builds on the 
$40 million in annual real estate savings assumed in the FY 2024 Budget 
submission to include additional annual cost savings of $12 million 
through releasing more leased space in Northern Virginia. The combined 
reduction in real estate space amounts to almost 1 million square feet 
and an estimated annual cost savings of approximately $52 million. 
Also, the USPTO is actively pursuing IT cost containment. The FY 2025 
budget includes a relatively flat IT spending profile despite upward 
pressure from inflation, supply chain disruptions, and government-wide 
pay raises; ongoing IT improvements that offer business value to fee-
paying customers; and data storage costs increasing proportionally with 
the USPTO's forecasted growth in patent and trademark applications. The 
USPTO will achieve this cost containment goal via modern equipment in a 
new data center that will cost less to maintain and by retiring legacy 
IT systems. These cost containment measures will also improve the 
USPTO's cybersecurity posture and increase system resiliency.
c. Efficient Delivery of Reliable IP Rights: Quality, Backlog, and 
Pendency
    The USPTO's strategic goal to ``promote the efficient delivery of 
reliable IP rights'' recognizes the importance of innovation as the 
foundation of American economic growth and global competitiveness. 
Toward this end, the USPTO is committed to continuously improving 
trademark quality, as well as the accuracy and reliability of the 
trademark register. The agency will continue equipping trademark 
examining attorneys with updated tools, procedures, and clarifying 
guidance to effectively examine all applications. The USPTO will also 
retire legacy systems and integrate the use of emerging technologies to 
streamline work processes for greater efficiencies; adjust staffing 
levels; and refine core duties to ensure its ability to meet 
significant changes in filing volumes and a variety of improper filing 
behaviors.
    The USPTO is also committed to improving trademark application 
pendency. The agency recognizes that applying for trademark 
registration is a key step for creators, entrepreneurs, and established 
brand owners as they move from generating ideas for new products and 
services to commercializing the resulting innovations in the 
marketplace. The USPTO is focused on incentivizing creativity and 
product innovation by removing unnecessary impediments or delays in 
securing IP rights, thereby bringing goods and services to impact for 
the public good more quickly.
    The agency's recent trademark pendency challenge is the result of 
several years of sustained increases in trademark application filings 
punctuated by an unprecedented, year-long influx during FY 2021 that 
created a significant examination backlog. In addressing these 
challenges, the USPTO will: (1) reevaluate its operating posture to 
maximize efficiency; (2) set data-driven pendency goals; (3) realign 
the trademark workforce to maintain stability during workload 
fluctuations and optimize pendency goals; and (4) use available 
technology solutions to streamline and automate trademark work 
processes.
    The agency is working diligently to balance timely examination with 
trademark quality. Improvements include the deployment of a new 
browser-based, end-to-end examination system (TM Exam) designed to 
improve examination quality and efficiency, and establishment of a 
dedicated Trademark Academy to improve the training experience for new 
examiners.
    The USPTO is also developing and implementing several strategies to 
combat IP violations and protect the Trademark Register via 
legislation, IT enhancements, and tactical management programs. For 
example, the agency is implementing robotic process automation to 
validate trademark application addresses against the U.S. Postal 
Service's database, mitigating a key fraud risk. In addition, the USPTO 
recently formed the Register Protection Office (RPO), a new 
organization within the Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Trademark 
Examination Policy dedicated to register protection through efforts 
like scam education and prevention.
    The USPTO is also leveraging Trademark Modernization Act (TMA) 
cancellation provisions to help clear the Trademark Register of 
registrations not in use. See Public Law 116-260. The agency 
implemented the TMA nonuse cancellation provisions in December 2021, 
and in December 2022, implemented additional provisions that shortened 
the applicant response period for office actions from six to three 
months. See Changes To Implement Provisions of the Trademark 
Modernization Act of 2020, 86 FR 64300 (Nov. 17, 2021). The USPTO will 
finish implementing the TMA in spring or early summer 2024, when 
additional provisions to shorten the period for registrants to respond 
to post-registration office actions from six to three months take 
effect. See Changes To Implement Provisions of the Trademark 
Modernization Act of 2020; Delay of Effective Date, 88 FR 62463 (Sep. 
12, 2023).
    The USPTO is also committed to generating impactful employee and 
customer experiences by maximizing agency operations. The USPTO strives 
to be a model employer through its diversity, equity, inclusion, and 
accessibility (DEIA) practices. The agency will build upon its existing 
diversity and foster greater inclusion to empower the USPTO workforce 
to serve the IP community successfully. To accomplish this, the USPTO 
will research and implement leading-edge practices related to hiring, 
development, advancement, accessibility, and retention, based on 
behavioral science research and data, to better integrate DEIA 
practices throughout the agency.
    The USPTO recognizes that its core operating costs may increase in 
future years as the agency works to reduce trademark pendency, improve 
examination processes, enhance trademark quality and accuracy, and 
protect entrepreneurs and innovators from fraud.
3. Sustainable Funding
    The USPTO's five-year forecasts of aggregate trademark costs, 
aggregate trademark revenue, and the trademark operating reserve are 
inherently uncertain. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) 
recommends operating reserves as a best practice for fee-funded 
agencies like the

[[Page 20903]]

USPTO, and the trademark operating reserve allows the agency to align 
long-term fees and costs and manage fluctuations in actual fee 
collections and spending.
    The USPTO manages the trademark operating reserve within a range of 
acceptable balances and assesses options when projected balances fall 
either below or above the range. The agency develops minimum planning 
targets to address immediate, unplanned changes in the economic or 
operating environment as the reserve builds toward the optimal level. 
The USPTO reviews both its minimum and optimal planning targets every 
three years to ensure the reserve's operating range mitigates an array 
of financial risks. Based on the current risk environment, including 
various factors such as economic and funding uncertainty and the 
Trademarks program's high percentage of fixed costs, the agency 
recently established a minimum operating reserve planning level at 23% 
of total spending--about three months' operating expenses (estimated at 
$137 million and $159 million from FY 2025 through FY 2029)--and an 
optimal long-range target of 50% of total spending--about six months' 
operating expenses (estimated at $297 million and $345 million from FY 
2025 through FY 2029).
    Based on cost and revenue assumptions in the FY 2025 Budget, the 
USPTO forecasts that aggregate trademark costs will exceed aggregate 
trademark revenue during FY 2024. The agency will finance the shortfall 
in trademark operations via the trademark operating reserve. The USPTO 
projects that the fee proposals contained in this NPRM will increase 
trademark fee collections to sufficiently recover budgeted spending 
requirements; modest fee collections above budgeted spending 
requirements will replenish and grow the operating reserve each year 
from FY 2025 to FY 2029.
    These projections are point-in-time estimates and subject to 
change. For example, the FY 2025 Budget includes assumptions regarding 
filing levels, renewal rates, federally mandated employee pay raises, 
workforce productivity, and many other factors. A change in any one of 
these variables could have a significant cumulative impact on the 
trademark operating reserve balance. As shown in Table 2, presented in 
Part III: Estimating Aggregate Costs and Revenue, the operating reserve 
balance can change significantly over a five-year planning horizon. 
This highlights the agency's financial vulnerability to various risk 
factors and the importance of its fee setting authority.
    The USPTO will continue assessing the trademark operating reserve 
balance against its target balance annually, and at least every three 
years, the agency will evaluate whether the minimum and optimal target 
balances remain sufficient to provide stable funding. Per USPTO policy, 
the agency will consider fee reductions if projections show the 
operating reserve balance will exceed its optimal level by 25% for two 
consecutive years. In addition, the USPTO will continue to regularly 
review its operating budgets and long-range plans to ensure the prudent 
use of trademark fees.
4. Comments, Advice, and Recommendations From TPAC
    In its report prepared in accordance with the AIA fee setting 
authority, TPAC conveyed overall support for the USPTO's efforts to 
secure adequate revenue to recover the aggregate estimated costs of 
trademark operations. Specifically, the report states, ``[w]e [TPAC] 
have no doubt that overall increases are needed to ensure that the 
USPTO complies with its statutory mandate to set fees at a level 
commensurate with anticipated aggregate costs.'' TPAC Report at 3. TPAC 
also expressed general support for the USPTO's stated goals and methods 
for achieving aggregate cost recovery but was concerned about some 
individual fee adjustments and their potential impacts on trademark 
applicants and owners. This NPRM includes additional information that 
addresses these comments and additional feedback from the public.
    TPAC expressed support for the proposed adjustments to application 
filing fees but noted that many public comments centered on proposed 
surcharges. TPAC asked the USPTO to consider how it will implement any 
surcharges and whether entity discounts may be possible. To address 
these concerns, the USPTO includes in this NPRM: (1) information on 
specific deficiencies that will trigger the insufficient information 
surcharge; (2) additional details that explain the agency's rationale 
for the Custom ID proposal; and (3) additional details regarding the ID 
character limit proposal. See Part V: Individual Fee Rationale for 
additional details. With respect to entity discounts, section 10(a) of 
the AIA authorizes the Director to set or adjust any fee established, 
authorized, or charged under the Trademark Act but, but it does not 
include the authority to provide entity discounts for trademark fees.
    TPAC supported proposed fee increases for filing an amendment to 
allege use (AAU) and statement of use (SOU) but recommended that the 
USPTO modify the initial proposal to make the AAU fee less than the SOU 
fee to ``better align incentives for efficiency, because fewer 
resources are required to process an AAU.'' TPAC Report at 5. Based on 
this recommendation, the USPTO proposes setting the fees for both an 
AAU and SOU at $150. While the agency incurs different processing costs 
for these services, they have historically had identical fee rates; 
maintaining this symmetry will alleviate potential confusion among 
stakeholders and future USPTO customers.
    TPAC did not support increased fees for fourth and fifth extensions 
of time to file an SOU. The committee stated that filers in highly 
regulated industries with long product launch timelines, as well as 
resource-constrained startups and small businesses, often need 
additional extensions. Weighing the need for timely ITU decisions 
against potential adverse impacts on innovators and small filers, the 
USPTO has opted to not further pursue this proposal.
    TPAC expressed a general lack of support for increasing fees for 
renewals, declarations of use, and declarations of incontestability. 
TPAC is concerned the proposed increases could discourage registrants 
from maintaining their registrations and will likely lead to more 
common law investigations and higher clearance costs for many trademark 
owners. The USPTO acknowledges these concerns. However, the agency has 
an obligation to recover the aggregate costs of trademark operations 
through user fees, and above-cost post-registration maintenance fees 
recover costs incurred by the USPTO during examination. The share of 
applications from groups that have been historically less likely to 
maintain their registrations has increased. Therefore, the balance 
between aggregate revenue derived from application fees and post-
registration maintenance fees must be adjusted to sustain low barriers 
to filing new applications.
    Although TPAC did not favor higher maintenance fees in general, the 
committee offered support for increased fees for foreign and 
international registrants under sections 66, 44, and 71, noting that 
``[o]wners of these registrations have not been required to prove use 
prior to registration'' and ``are more likely to describe an excessive 
list of goods and services, to offer suspect specimens and 
declarations, and to require auditing.'' TPAC Report at 6. TPAC 
recognized that such a proposal could ``implicate many factors, 
including compliance with international treaty obligations.'' TPAC 
Report at 6.

[[Page 20904]]

The USPTO decided not to charge foreign or international registrants a 
higher fee than domestic registrants for these services. The agency 
notes that proposed and existing fees address some TPAC concerns 
regarding foreign and international registrants. All applications and 
registrants are subject to fees for deleting goods, services, and/or 
classes following a post-registration audit and would be subject to the 
proposed surcharge for each additional group of 1,000 characters.
    TPAC supported the proposals for petitions to revive and petitions 
to the Director as justified and appropriate.
    TPAC expressed support for the USPTO directly recovering a larger 
portion of the cost associated with processing letters of protest but 
objected to the size of the proposed fee increase, noting that most 
public commenters were opposed. TPAC recommended a smaller increase, 
given the perceived value of meritorious letters in the examination 
process and as a cost-effective mechanism for members of the public to 
provide information to examining attorneys. In response, the USPTO has 
revised the proposed letter of protest fee downward to $150. See Part 
V: Individual Fee Rationale for additional details.
    In summary, the USPTO appreciates the overall support and advice 
provided by TPAC and stakeholders to increase trademark fees to recover 
aggregate cost. After careful consideration of the comments, concerns, 
and advice provided in the TPAC Report, and keeping in mind the goals 
of this proposed rule, the USPTO elected to adjust two fee proposals 
and drop one proposal. The proposed fee structure will allow the USPTO 
to maintain trademark operations and pursue the goals and objectives 
outlined in its Strategic Plan. The agency looks forward to receiving 
additional feedback on this revised proposal during the public comment 
period.

C. Summary of Rulemaking Goals and Strategies

    The USPTO estimates that the proposed trademark fee schedule will 
produce sufficient aggregate revenue to recover the aggregate costs of 
trademark operations and ensure financial sustainability for effective 
administration of the trademark system. This proposed rule aligns with 
the USPTO's four key fee setting policy factors and supports the 
agency's mission-focused strategic goals.

V. Individual Fee Rationale

    Where unit cost data is available, the USPTO sets some fees at, 
above, or below their unit costs to balance the agency's four key fee 
setting policy factors as described in Part IV: Rulemaking Goals and 
Strategies. The USPTO does not maintain individual historical cost data 
for all fees, and therefore some fees are set solely based on the 
policy factors. For example, the USPTO sets initial filing fees below 
unit cost to promote innovation strategies by reducing barriers to 
entry for applicants. To balance the aggregate revenue loss of fees set 
below cost, the USPTO must set other fees above unit cost in areas less 
likely to impact entrepreneurship (e.g., renewal fees). By setting fees 
at particular levels to facilitate effective administration of the 
trademark system, the USPTO aims to foster an environment where 
examining attorneys can provide, and applicants can receive, prompt, 
high-quality examination decisions while recovering costs for workload-
intensive activities.
    This proposed rule maintains existing cost differentials for all 
paper filings; their processing is generally more costly than 
electronic submissions, and current fees do not recover these costs.

1. Trademark Application Filing Fees

                                   Table 3--Trademark Application Filing Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   FY 2022 unit
         Description             Current fee      Proposed fee     Dollar change  Percent change       cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Application (paper), per                 $750  $850.............            $100              13          $1,526
 class.
Base application                          n/a  350..............             n/a             n/a             n/a
 (electronic), per class.
Base application filed with               n/a  350..............             n/a             n/a             n/a
 WIPO (Sec.   66(a)), per
 class.
Base application filed with               n/a  350..............             n/a             n/a             n/a
 WIPO (Sec.   66(a))
 (subsequent designation),
 per class.
Application (TEAS Plus), per              250  Discontinue......             n/a             n/a             373
 class.
Application (TEAS Standard),              350  Discontinue......             n/a             n/a             504
 per class.
Fee for failing to meet TEAS              100  Discontinue......             n/a             n/a               3
 Plus requirements, per class.
Application fee filed with                500  Discontinue......             n/a             n/a             852
 WIPO (Sec.   66(a)), per
 class.
Subsequent designation fee                500  Discontinue......             n/a             n/a             819
 filed with WIPO (Sec.
 66(a)), per class.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The USPTO is proposing changes to application filing fees to 
incentivize more complete and timely filings and improve prosecution. 
Trademark applicants currently have two filing options via the 
Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS): TEAS Plus and TEAS 
Standard. TEAS Plus is the lowest-cost filing option currently provided 
by the USPTO but comes with more stringent initial filing requirements. 
These applications reduce manual processing and potential for data 
entry errors, making them more efficient and complete for both the 
filer and the agency. The USPTO incurs fewer costs and impediments 
during their examination, thereby expediting processing and reducing 
pendency. About half of all trademark applications are filed using TEAS 
Plus. TEAS Standard fees are higher than those for TEAS Plus and offer 
applicants more options during filing; the higher fees relate to the 
higher costs incurred by the USPTO in processing and examining the 
application.
    The USPTO proposes implementing a single electronic application 
filing option with most of the same requirements as TEAS Plus and 
eliminating TEAS Standard. In effect, the proposed fee schedule would 
discontinue both TEAS Plus and TEAS Standard filing fees, as well as 
fees for failing to meet the requirements of a TEAS Plus application, 
replacing them with a single electronic filing option. Similar to TEAS, 
applicants willing to comply with the proposed requirements in their 
initial filing (comparable to TEAS Plus) will pay the lowest fees under 
the proposed fee schedule, compared to applicants who fail to meet all 
of those requirements (comparable to TEAS Standard). The USPTO does not 
anticipate the total number of applications filed each year will change 
under the proposed schedule compared

[[Page 20905]]

to the current schedule. The USPTO does anticipate that a larger share 
of applicants will take measures to avoid the proposed surcharges 
compared to the share of applicants who use the TEAS Plus option under 
the current fee schedule. Applications that do not meet all 
requirements for the lowest cost electronic filing option are discussed 
below.
    The proposed fee schedule sets the fee for a base application, 
filed electronically, at $350, $100 more than a TEAS Plus application, 
to help the agency recover its costs. The USPTO proposes increasing the 
paper application fee by $100 to maintain the existing cost 
differential between a paper filing and the lowest cost electronic 
application.
    The USPTO proposes discontinuing current fees for filing an 
application under section 66(a) (Madrid Protocol) of the Trademark Act 
and setting new fees at $350 per class, as paid in Swiss francs to the 
World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), in line with the 
proposed base application fee under the new single electronic 
application filing option.
    The USPTO proposes administrative revisions to the regulatory text 
in 37 CFR to incorporate the proposed base application fee and 
discontinuation of TEAS application fees. These proposed revisions 
include replacing references to ``TEAS'' and ``ESTTA'' with 
``electronically'' in sections 2.6 and 7.6 to reflect the 
discontinuation of TEAS fees under this proposed rule. These 
generalized references for electronic filings are more dynamic and will 
more easily accommodate any future changes to the USPTO's electronic 
filing system.

2. Trademark Application Filing Surcharge Fees

                              Table 4--Trademark Application Filing Surcharge Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   FY 2022 unit
           Description              Current fee    Proposed fee    Dollar change  Percent change       cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fee for insufficient information             n/a            $100             n/a             n/a             n/a
 (Sec.  Sec.   1 and 44), per
 class..........................
Fee for using the free-form text             n/a             200             n/a             n/a             n/a
 box to enter the identification
 of goods/services (Sec.  Sec.
 1 and 44), per class...........
For each additional group of                 n/a             200             n/a             n/a             n/a
 1,000 characters beyond the
 first 1,000 (Sec.  Sec.   1 and
 44), per class.................
Fee for insufficient information             n/a             100             n/a             n/a             n/a
 (Sec.   66(a)), per class......
Fee for using the free-form text             n/a             200             n/a             n/a             n/a
 box to enter the identification
 of goods/services (Sec.
 66(a)), per class..............
For each additional group of                 n/a             200             n/a             n/a             n/a
 1,000 characters beyond the
 first 1,000 (Sec.   66(a)), per
 class..........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The USPTO also proposes surcharges to the base application filing 
fee to enhance the quality of incoming applications, encourage 
efficient application processing, ensure additional examination costs 
are paid by those submitting more time-consuming applications, and 
reduce pendency. Only those applicants submitting applications that do 
not comply with the base filing requirements would pay the proposed 
surcharges. Compared to the current TEAS Standard fee that is charged 
for applications when one or more TEAS Plus requirements are not met, 
the proposed system would impose individual surcharges when certain 
requirements are not met.
(i) Insufficient Information Fee
    Trademark applications that include the information listed below 
allow for more efficient prosecution. Accordingly, applicants who 
submit more complete applications benefit from the proposed fee 
schedule by avoiding this proposed surcharge, as the USPTO and its 
stakeholders benefit from efficient delivery of reliable IP rights. 
This proposed rule would impose a $100 fee per class, in addition to 
the base fee, on applications that do not include required information 
at the time of filing. The information required for a base application 
is similar to current TEAS Plus requirements and therefore applicants 
are not expected to expend more than a de minimis amount of additional 
resources compared to the current TEAS system. The USPTO proposes 
reordering and retitling these as ``Requirements for a base 
application,'' as provided in 37 CFR 2.22:
    (1) The applicant's name and domicile address;
    (2) The applicant's legal entity;
    (3) The citizenship of each individual applicant, or the state or 
country of incorporation or organization of each juristic applicant;
    (4) If the applicant is a domestic partnership, the names and 
citizenship of the general partners, or if the applicant is a domestic 
joint venture, the names and citizenship of the active members of the 
joint venture;
    (5) If the applicant is a sole proprietorship, the state of 
organization of the sole proprietorship and the name and citizenship of 
the sole proprietor;
    (6) One or more bases for filing that satisfy all the requirements 
of Sec.  2.34. If more than one basis is set forth, the applicant must 
comply with the requirements of Sec.  2.34 for each asserted basis;
    (7) If the application contains goods and/or services in more than 
one class, compliance with Sec.  2.86;
    (8) A filing fee for each class of goods and/or services, as 
required by Sec.  2.6(a)(1)(ii) or (iii);
    (9) A verified statement that meets the requirements of Sec.  2.33, 
dated and signed by a person properly authorized to sign on behalf of 
the owner pursuant to Sec.  2.193(e)(1);
    (10) If the applicant does not claim standard characters, the 
applicant must attach a digitized image of the mark. If the mark 
includes color, the drawing must show the mark in color;
    (11) If the mark is in standard characters, a mark comprised only 
of characters in the Office's standard character set, typed in the 
appropriate field of the application;
    (12) If the mark includes color, a statement naming the color(s) 
and describing where the color(s) appears on the mark, and a claim that 
the color(s) is a feature of the mark;
    (13) If the mark is not in standard characters, a description of 
the mark;
    (14) If the mark includes non-English wording, an English 
translation of that wording;
    (15) If the mark includes non-Latin characters, a transliteration 
of those characters;
    (16) If the mark includes an individual's name or likeness, either 
(i) a statement that identifies the living individual whose name or 
likeness the mark comprises and written consent of

[[Page 20906]]

the individual, or (ii) a statement that the name or likeness does not 
identify a living individual (see section 2(c) of the Act);
    (17) If the applicant owns one or more registrations for the same 
mark, and the owner(s) last listed in Office records of the prior 
registration(s) for the same mark differs from the owner(s) listed in 
the application, a claim of ownership of the registration(s) identified 
by the registration number(s), pursuant to Sec.  2.36;
    (18) If the application is a concurrent use application, compliance 
with Sec.  2.42;
    (19) An applicant whose domicile is not located within the United 
States or its territories must designate an attorney as the applicant's 
representative, pursuant to Sec.  2.11(a), and include the attorney's 
name, postal address, email address, and bar information; and
    (20) Correctly classified goods and/or services, with an 
identification of goods and/or services from the Office's Acceptable 
Identification of Goods and Services Manual within the electronic form.
    See Part VI: Discussion of Specific Rules for more information.
    The agency will not impose this fee on applications denied a filing 
date for failure to satisfy the requirements under 37 CFR 2.21.
(ii) Entering Identifications of Goods and/or Services in the Free-Form 
Text Field Fee
    Applicants may choose goods and/or services identifications by 
selecting them directly from the Trademark Next Generation ID Manual 
(ID Manual) in the electronic application or enter them manually in a 
free-form text box. The USPTO proposes a $200 fee per class for 
descriptions of goods and services entered in the free-form text field.
    Generally, examining attorneys do not need to review 
identifications of goods and/or services selected directly from the ID 
Manual within the electronic application form. Conversely, examining 
attorneys must carefully consider identifications entered in a free-
form text box to determine whether the descriptions are acceptable as 
written or require amendment to sufficiently specify the nature of the 
goods and/or services. Examining attorneys must review each entry to 
determine its acceptability, even in situations where an applicant 
types or pastes the ID Manual identification, because they do not know 
if wording in the free-form text field came from the ID Manual.
    Identifying an applicant's goods and/or services with sufficient 
specificity is necessary to provide adequate notice to third parties 
regarding the goods and/or services in connection with which the 
applicant intends to use, or is using, the mark. It also ensures the 
applicant pays the corresponding fee for each class of goods and/or 
services. Examining attorneys often spend substantial time reviewing 
identifications provided in the free-form text field and may initiate 
multiple communications with the applicant before determining an 
acceptable identification and collecting the appropriate fees. The 
proposed surcharge would help recover the additional costs associated 
with these more extensive reviews.
(iii) Each Additional 1,000 Characters Beyond 1,000, per Class Fee
    In addition to entering identifications in the free-form text 
field, some applicants submit extensive lists of goods and/or services. 
In more egregious cases, a list may comprise multiple pages and include 
goods and services in multiple classes. To ensure that applicants who 
submit lengthy identifications pay the costs of reviewing them, the 
USPTO proposes a fee of $200 for each additional group of 1,000 
characters beyond the first 1,000 characters in the free-form text 
field, including punctuation and spaces. The fee would also apply to 
amended identifications that exceed the character limit in a response 
to an office action. Approximately 9% of trademark applications contain 
identifications of goods and/or services that exceed 1,000 characters 
per class. Applicants who enter identifications directly from the ID 
Manual within the electronic application would not incur this fee, even 
if the identification exceeds 1,000 characters.
    The USPTO selected a character-based limit for operational 
efficiency, as the electronic application system can perform character 
counts in real time and alert the applicant when the limit has been 
exceeded. A limit based on other criteria, such as a count of separate 
goods and/or services, would require examiner review, as automating 
such counts is not technologically feasible. Such reviews by an 
examining attorney would increase the cost of examination, 
counteracting the purpose of the proposed fee, which is to ensure that 
applicants who submit lengthy identifications pay the costs of 
reviewing them.

3. Amendment To Allege Use and Statement of Use Fees

                                            Table 5--AAU and SOU Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   FY 2022 unit
           Description              Current fee    Proposed fee    Dollar change  Percent change       cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment to allege use (AAU),              $200            $250             $50              25             n/a
 per class (paper)..............
Statement of use (SOU), per                  200             250              50              25             n/a
 class (paper)..................
Amendment to allege use (AAU),               100             150              50              50            $117
 per class (electronic).........
Statement of use (SOU), per                  100             150              50              50             240
 class (electronic).............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The USPTO proposes a $50 fee increase for AAUs and SOUs (from $100 
to $150 per class for electronic filings and $200 to $250 per class for 
paper filings). The agency has not adjusted AAU and SOU fees since 
2002, even as processing costs increased during the subsequent two 
decades. This proposal improves cost recovery and helps rebalance the 
fee structure.

4. Post-Registration Maintenance Fees

                                   Table 6--Post-Registration Maintenance Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   FY 2022 unit
           Description              Current fee    Proposed fee    Dollar change  Percent change       cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   9 registration renewal               $500            $550             $50              10            $106
 application, per class (paper).
Sec.   8 declaration, per class              325             400              75              23             152
 (paper)........................
Sec.   15 declaration, per class             300             350              50              17             152
 (paper)........................

[[Page 20907]]

 
Sec.   71 declaration, per class             325             400              75              23             n/a
 (paper)........................
Sec.   9 registration renewal                300             350              50              17              24
 application, per class
 (electronic)...................
Sec.   8 declaration, per class              225             300              75              33              25
 (electronic)...................
Sec.   15 declaration, per class             200             250              50              25              25
 (electronic)...................
Sec.   71 declaration, per class             225             300              75              33               6
 (electronic)...................
Renewal fee filed at WIPO.......             300             350              50              17             n/a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The percentage of trademark registrants choosing to maintain their 
registrations is declining. The USPTO expects this trend to continue 
due to anticipated growth in application submissions from groups 
historically less likely to maintain a registration. Given these 
changes in demand and filing behaviors, the agency proposes rebalancing 
aggregate revenue derived from renewals and other post-registration 
maintenance fees, including declarations of use and incontestability, 
to keep barriers to entry low for new applicants.

5. Letter of Protest Fee

                                                             Table 7--Letter of Protest Fee
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                           FY 2022 unit
                            Description                                Current fee      Proposed fee    Dollar change    Percent change        cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Letter of protest..................................................             $50             $150             $100              200             $312
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The USPTO proposes a $100 fee increase for filing a letter of 
protest (from $50 to $150). The proposed fee is less than half the 
agency's cost of processing a letter of protest, which allows a third 
party to bring evidence to the USPTO on the registrability of a mark in 
a pending application without filing an opposition with the Trademark 
Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB). The letter of protest procedure is not a 
substitute for the statutory opposition and cancellation procedures 
available to third parties who believe they would be damaged by 
registration of the involved mark. Instead, it is intended to assist 
examination without causing undue delay or compromising the integrity 
and objectivity of the ex parte examination process, which involves 
only the applicant and the USPTO.
    The USPTO's costs for reviewing and processing each letter of 
protest are more than six times the current fee. This imbalance between 
the fee collected and the cost to perform the service are compounded by 
a substantial increase in letters of protest forwarded to the USPTO 
each year, which have risen from about 2,300 in FY 2016 to nearly 4,000 
in FY 2023. The agency estimates this volume will grow to more than 
5,000 letters annually by FY 2029, further increasing the USPTO's 
overall associated costs.
    When viewed in the context of USPTO actions because of letters of 
protest, the agency's costs are considerable, while the letters have a 
minor impact on examination outcomes. During FY 2022, the USPTO decided 
4,557 letters of protest, of which 1,433 (31%) were not in compliance 
with 37 CFR 2.149 and therefore not included in the record of 
examination. Of the letters entered into the record, examining 
attorneys issued a refusal based on the asserted ground(s) in 1,213 
cases (27% of letters decided). Examining attorneys likely would have 
issued a refusal in these cases even without a letter of protest. The 
USPTO only identified 27 (0.59%) letters in FY 2022 that corresponded 
to an error in publishing a mark for opposition, similar to historical 
shares of letters decided each year.

 Table 8--Letters of Protest Filed and Letters Corresponding to Situations Where the USPTO Published a Mark for
                                       Opposition in Error, by Fiscal Year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Letters
                                                             Letters of      corresponding to    Share of total
                      Fiscal year                         protest decided    a mark published   letters decided
                                                                                 in error             (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016...................................................              2,258                 17               0.75
2017...................................................              2,726                 13               0.48
2018...................................................              3,386                 28               0.83
2019...................................................              4,106                 43               1.05
2020...................................................              3,534                 22               0.62
2021...................................................              3,756                 39               1.04
2022...................................................              4,557                 27               0.59
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with the USPTO's fee setting policy factors, this 
proposal recovers more of the costs associated with letters of protest, 
although the fee remains below the agency's full costs.

[[Page 20908]]

6. Other Petition Fees

                                          Table 9--Other Petition Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   FY 2022 unit
           Description              Current fee    Proposed fee    Dollar change  Percent change       cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petition to the Director (paper)            $350            $500            $150              43             n/a
Petition to revive an                        250             350             100              40             n/a
 application (paper)............
Petition to the Director                     250             400             150              60             886
 (electronic)...................
Petition to revive an                        150             250             100              67              94
 application (electronic).......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Optional petitions are a valuable, though costly, part of the 
trademark registration process, and other trademark fees subsidize the 
USPTO's processing costs. The proposed fee schedule would recover more 
costs associated with the extensive and lengthy review these services 
require, while also encouraging more timely and efficient filing 
behaviors.

VI. Discussion of Specific Rules

    The following section describes the changes proposed in this 
rulemaking, including all proposed fee amendments, fee 
discontinuations, and changes to the regulatory text.

Section 2.6

    Section 2.6 is proposed to be amended by revising paragraph (a), to 
set forth trademark process fees as authorized under section 10 of the 
AIA. The changes to the fee amounts indicated in Sec.  2.6 are shown in 
Table 10.
    The USPTO proposes to revise the text to (a)(1)(iii) to provide for 
filing ``an application electronically'' rather than filing ``a TEAS 
Standard application.''
    The USPTO proposes to revise (a)(1)(iv) to provide for the proposed 
surcharge for insufficient information.
    The USPTO proposes to revise (a)(1)(v) to provide for the proposed 
surcharge for adding goods and/or services in the free-form text field.
    The USPTO proposes adding (a)(1)(vi) to provide for the proposed 
surcharge for each additional 1,000 characters.
    The USPTO proposes to revise the text to (a)(2)(ii), (a)(3)(ii), 
(a)(4)(ii), (a)(5)(ii), (a)(6)(ii), (a)(7)(ii), (a)(8)(ii), (a)(9)(ii), 
(a)(10)(ii), (a)(11)(ii), (a)(12)(ii) and (iv), (a)(13)(ii), 
(a)(14)(ii), (a)(15)(ii) and (iv), (a)(16)(ii), (a)(17)(ii), 
(a)(18)(ii), (v), and (vii), (a)(19)(ii), (a)(20)(ii), (a)(21)(ii), 
(a)(22)(ii), (a)(23)(ii), (a)(27), and (a)(28)(ii) and by replacing 
references to ``TEAS'' or ``ESTTA'' with ``electronically.''
    To clarify fees paid for services provided by the TTAB, the USPTO 
proposes to revise the text to (a)(18)(i) and (a)(18)(ii) by removing 
references to the TTAB and adding references to the TTAB to (a)(16), 
(a)(17), and (a)(18).

                                          Table 10--CFR 2.6 Fee Changes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Paper or
         CFR section              Fee code      Description       electronic      Current fee     Proposed fee
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.6(a)(1)(i).................  6001.........  Application      Paper..........            $750  $850.
                                               (paper), per
                                               class.
2.6(a)(1)(ii)................  7931.........  Application fee  Electronic.....             500  Discontinue.
                                               filed with
                                               WIPO (Sec.
                                               66(a)), per
                                               class.
2.6(a)(1)(ii)................  7933.........  Subsequent       Electronic.....             500  Discontinue.
                                               designation
                                               fee filed with
                                               WIPO (Sec.
                                               66(a)), per
                                               class.
2.6(a)(1)(ii)................  New..........  Base             Electronic.....             n/a  $350.
                                               application
                                               filed with
                                               WIPO (Sec.
                                               66(a)), per
                                               class.
2.6(a)(1)(ii)................  New..........  Base             Electronic.....             n/a  $350.
                                               application
                                               filed with
                                               WIPO (Sec.
                                               66(a))
                                               (subsequent
                                               designation),
                                               per class.
2.6(a)(1)(iii)...............  7009.........  Application      Electronic.....             350  Discontinue.
                                               (TEAS
                                               Standard), per
                                               class.
2.6(a)(1)(iii)...............  New..........  Base             Electronic.....             n/a  $350.
                                               application,
                                               per class.
2.6(a)(1)(iv)................  7007.........  Application      Electronic.....             250  Discontinue.
                                               (TEAS Plus),
                                               per class.
2.6(a)(1)(iv)................  New..........  Fee for          Paper..........             n/a  $100.
                                               insufficient
                                               information
                                               (Sec.  Sec.
                                               1 and 44), per
                                               class.
2.6(a)(1)(iv)................  New..........  Fee for          Electronic.....             n/a  $100.
                                               insufficient
                                               information
                                               (Sec.  Sec.
                                               1 and 44), per
                                               class.
2.6(a)(1)(iv)................  New..........  Fee for          Electronic.....             n/a  $100.
                                               insufficient
                                               information
                                               (Sec.
                                               66(a)), per
                                               class.
2.6(a)(1)(v).................  6008.........  Fee for failing  Paper..........             100  Discontinue.
                                               to meet TEAS
                                               Plus
                                               requirements,
                                               per class.
2.6(a)(1)(v).................  7008.........  Fee for failing  Electronic.....             100  Discontinue.
                                               to meet TEAS
                                               Plus
                                               requirements,
                                               per class.
2.6(a)(1)(v).................  New..........  Fee for using    Paper..........             n/a  $200.
                                               the free-form
                                               text box to
                                               enter the
                                               identification
                                               of goods/
                                               services (Sec.
                                                Sec.   1 and
                                               44), per class.
2.6(a)(1)(v).................  New..........  Fee for using    Electronic.....             n/a  $200.
                                               the free-form
                                               text box to
                                               enter the
                                               identification
                                               of goods/
                                               services (Sec.
                                                Sec.   1 and
                                               44), per class.

[[Page 20909]]

 
2.6(a)(1)(v).................  New..........  Fee for using    Electronic.....             n/a  $200.
                                               the free-form
                                               text box to
                                               enter the
                                               identification
                                               of goods/
                                               services (Sec.
                                                 66(a)), per
                                               class.
2.6(a)(1)(vi)................  New..........  For each         Paper..........             n/a  $200.
                                               additional
                                               group of 1,000
                                               characters
                                               beyond the
                                               first 1,000
                                               (Sec.  Sec.
                                               1 and 44), per
                                               class (paper).
2.6(a)(1)(vi)................  New..........  For each         Electronic.....             n/a  $200.
                                               additional
                                               group of 1,000
                                               characters
                                               beyond the
                                               first 1,000
                                               (Sec.  Sec.
                                               1 and 44), per
                                               class.
2.6(a)(1)(vi)................  New..........  For each         Electronic.....             n/a  $200.
                                               additional
                                               group of 1,000
                                               characters
                                               beyond the
                                               first 1,000
                                               (Sec.
                                               66(a)), per
                                               class.
2.6(a)(2)(i).................  6002.........  Amendment to     Paper..........             200  $250.
                                               allege use
                                               (AAU), per
                                               class.
2.6(a)(2)(ii)................  7002.........  Amendment to     Electronic.....             100  $150.
                                               allege use
                                               (AAU), per
                                               class.
2.6(a)(3)(i).................  6003.........  Statement of     Paper..........             200  $250.
                                               use (SOU), per
                                               class.
2.6(a)(3)(ii)................  7003.........  Statement of     Electronic.....             100  $150.
                                               use (SOU), per
                                               class.
2.6(a)(5)(i).................  6201.........  Sec.   9         Paper..........             500  $550.
                                               registration
                                               renewal
                                               application,
                                               per class.
2.6(a)(5)(ii)................  7201.........  Sec.   9         Electronic.....             300  $350.
                                               registration
                                               renewal
                                               application,
                                               per class.
2.6(a)(12)(i)................  6205.........  Sec.   8         Paper..........             325  $400.
                                               declaration,
                                               per class.
2.6(a)(12)(ii)...............  7205.........  Sec.   8         Electronic.....             225  $300.
                                               declaration,
                                               per class.
2.6(a)(13)(i)................  6208.........  Sec.   15        Paper..........             300  $350.
                                               declaration,
                                               per class.
2.6(a)(13)(ii)...............  7208.........  Sec.   15        Electronic.....             200  $250.
                                               declaration,
                                               per class.
2.6(a)(15)(i)................  6005.........  Petition to the  Paper..........             350  $500.
                                               Director.
2.6(a)(15)(ii)...............  7005.........  Petition to the  Electronic.....             250  $400.
                                               Director.
2.6(a)(15)(iii)..............  6010.........  Petition to      Paper..........             250  $350.
                                               revive an
                                               application.
2.6(a)(15)(iv)...............  7010.........  Petition to      Electronic.....             150  $250.
                                               revive an
                                               application.
2.6(a)(25)...................  7011.........  Letter of        Electronic.....              50  $150.
                                               protest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 2.22

    Section 2.22 is proposed to be amended by revising the section 
heading and paragraph (a) to set forth the requirements for a base 
application fee.
    The USPTO proposes to revise the section heading to read 
``Requirements for base application fee.''
    The USPTO proposes to revise the introductory text to paragraph (a) 
to reflect the requirements for an application for registration under 
section 1 or section 44 of the Act that meet the requirements for a 
filing date under Sec.  2.21 to pay the base application fee.
    The USPTO proposes to remove paragraph (a)(7) and redesignate 
paragraphs (a)(8) through (a)(20) as paragraphs (a)(7) through (a)(19).
    The USPTO proposes to revise the text to redesignated paragraph 
(a)(11) by replacing the reference to ``TEAS Plus form'' with 
``application.''
    The USPTO proposes to revise the text in paragraph (17) 
introductory text and (17)(ii) by replacing references to ``portrait'' 
with ``likeness'' to maintain consistency within the paragraph.
    The USPTO proposes adding paragraph (a)(20) which establishes the 
requirement of using correctly classified goods and/or services from 
the ID Manual.
    The USPTO proposes to revise paragraph (b) to provide that an 
applicant must pay the proposed fee for insufficient information, per 
class if the application fails to satisfy any of the requirements in 
paragraph (a)(1) through (19) of this section.
    The USPTO proposes to revise paragraph (c) to provide that an 
applicant must pay the proposed fee for using the free-form text box to 
enter the identification of goods/services, per class if the 
application fails to satisfy the requirements of paragraph (a)(20) of 
this section.
    The USPTO proposes to revise paragraph (d) to provide that an 
applicant must pay the proposed fee for each additional group of 1,000 
characters beyond the first 1,000, per class, if the application fails 
to satisfy the requirements of paragraph (a)(20) of this section, and 
the identification of goods and/or services in any class exceeds 1,000 
characters.

Section 2.71

    Section 2.71 is proposed to be amended by revising the introductory 
text and paragraph (a) to set forth amendments to correct 
informalities.
    The USPTO proposes to revise the introductory text by replacing the 
period at the end of the paragraph with a colon.
    The USPTO proposes to revise paragraph (a) by redesignating 
paragraph (a) as paragraph (a)(1). The USPTO proposes adding paragraph 
(a)(2) to provide that amendments to the identification of goods and/or 
services

[[Page 20910]]

that result in the identification exceeding 1,000 characters in any 
class will be subject to the proposed fee for each additional 1,000 
characters beyond the first 1,000, per class.

Section 7.6

    Section 7.6 is proposed to be amended by revising paragraph (a) to 
set forth the schedule of U.S. process fees as authorized under section 
10 of the AIA. The changes to the fee amounts indicated in Sec.  7.6 
are shown in Table 11.
    The USPTO proposes to revise the text to (a)(1)(ii), (a)(2)(ii), 
(a)(3)(ii), (a)(4)(ii), (a)(5)(ii), and (a)(6)(ii) and (iv) and replace 
references to ``TEAS'' or ``ESTTA'' with ``electronically.''

                                      Table 11--CFR Section 7.6 Fee Changes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Paper or
         CFR section              Fee code        Description       electronic      Current fee    Proposed fee
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7.6(a)(6)(i).................            6905  Sec.   71         Paper..........            $325            $400
                                                declaration,
                                                per class.
7.6(a)(6)(ii)................            7905  Sec.   71         Electronic.....             225             300
                                                declaration,
                                                per class.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Rulemaking Considerations

A. America Invents Act

    This proposed rule seeks to set and adjust fees under section 10(a) 
of the AIA as amended by the SUCCESS Act. Section 10(a) authorizes the 
Director to set or adjust by rule any trademark fee established, 
authorized, or charged under the Trademark Act for any services 
performed by, or materials furnished by, the USPTO (see section 10 of 
the AIA, Pub. L. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284, 316-17, as amended by Pub. L. 
115-273, 132 Stat. 4158). Section 10 authority includes flexibility to 
set individual fees in a way that furthers key policy factors, while 
taking into account the cost of the respective services.
    Section 10(e) sets forth the general requirements for rulemakings 
that set or adjust fees under this authority. In particular, section 
10(e)(1) requires the Director to publish in the Federal Register any 
proposed fee change under section 10 and include in such publication 
the specific rationale and purpose for the proposal, including the 
possible expectations or benefits resulting from the proposed change. 
For such rulemakings, the AIA requires that the USPTO provide a public 
comment period of not less than 45 days.
    TPAC advises the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual 
Property and Director of the USPTO on the management, policies, goals, 
performance, budget, and user fees of trademark operations. When 
adopting fees under section 10, the AIA requires the Director to 
provide TPAC with the proposed fees at least 45 days prior to 
publishing them in the Federal Register. TPAC then has at least 30 days 
within which to deliberate, consider, and comment on the proposal, as 
well as hold a public hearing(s) on the proposed fees. TPAC must make a 
written report available to the public of the comments, advice, and 
recommendations of the committee regarding the proposed fees before the 
USPTO issues any final fees. The USPTO is required to consider and 
analyze any comments, advice, or recommendations received from TPAC 
before finally setting or adjusting fees.
    Consistent with this framework, on May 8, 2023, the Director 
notified TPAC of the USPTO's intent to set and adjust trademark fees 
and submitted a preliminary trademark fee proposal with supporting 
materials. The preliminary trademark fee proposal and associated 
materials are available on the fee setting section of the USPTO website 
at https://www.uspto.gov/FeeSettingAndAdjusting. TPAC held a public 
hearing at the USPTO's headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia, on June 5, 
2023, and members of the public were given the opportunity to provide 
oral testimony. A transcript of the hearing is available on the USPTO 
website at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/TPAC-Fee-Setting-Hearing-Transcript-20230605.pdf. Members of the public were 
also given the opportunity to submit written comments for TPAC to 
consider, and these comments are available on Regulations.gov at 
https://www.regulations.gov/docket/PTO-T-2023-0016. On August 14, 2023, 
TPAC issued a written report setting forth in detail its comments, 
advice, and recommendations regarding the preliminary proposed fees. 
The TPAC Report is available on the USPTO website at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/TPAC-Report-on-2023-Fee-Proposal.docx. The USPTO considered and analyzed all comments, advice, 
and recommendations received from TPAC before publishing this NPRM. 
Further discussion of the TPAC Report can be found in the section 
titled ``Fee Setting Considerations.''

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    The USPTO publishes this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
(IRFA) as required by the RFA (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) to examine the 
impact of the USPTO's proposed changes to trademark fees on small 
entities and to seek the public's views. Under the RFA, whenever an 
agency is required by 5 U.S.C. 553 (or any other law) to publish an 
NPRM, the agency must prepare and make available for public comment an 
IRFA, unless the agency certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that the 
proposed rule, if implemented, will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities (see 5 U.S.C. 603, 
605). This IRFA incorporates discussion of the proposed changes in Part 
VI: Discussion of Proposed Rule Changes above.
    Items 1-5 below discuss the five items specified in 5 U.S.C. 
603(b)(1)-(5) to be addressed in an IRFA. Item 6 below discusses 
alternatives to this proposal that the USPTO considered, as specified 
in 5 U.S.C. 603(c).
1. A Description of the Reasons Why the Action by the Agency Is Being 
Considered
    Section 10 of the AIA authorizes the Director of the USPTO to set 
or adjust by rule any trademark fee established, authorized, or charged 
under title 35, U.S.C., for any services performed, or materials 
furnished, by the USPTO. Section 10 prescribes that trademark fees may 
be set or adjusted only to recover the aggregate estimated costs for 
processing, activities, services, and materials relating to trademarks, 
including USPTO administrative costs with respect to such trademark 
fees. The proposed fee schedule will recover the aggregate costs of 
trademark operations while enabling the USPTO to predictably finance 
the agency's daily operations and mitigate financial risks.
2. The Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, the Proposed Rule
    The policy objectives of this proposed rule are to: (1) recover 
aggregate costs to finance the mission, strategic goals, and priorities 
of the USPTO; (2) enable financial sustainability; (3) better align 
fees with costs of provided services; (4) improve processing 
efficiencies; (5) enhance the quality of incoming

[[Page 20911]]

applications; and (6) offer affordable processing options to 
stakeholders. Additional information on the USPTO's goals and operating 
requirements may be found in the ``USPTO FY 2025 President's Budget 
Request,'' available on the USPTO website at https://www.uspto.gov/about-us/performance-and-planning/budget-and-financial-information. The 
legal basis for this proposed rule is section 10 of the AIA, as 
amended, which provides authority for the Director to set or adjust by 
rule any fee established, authorized, or charged under the Trademark 
Act. See also section 31 of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. 1113.
3. A Description of and, Where Feasible, an Estimate of the Number of 
Affected Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rule Will Apply
    The USPTO does not collect or maintain statistics in trademark 
cases on small-versus large-entity applicants, and this information 
would be required to determine the number of small entities that would 
be affected by this proposed rule.
    This proposed rule would apply to any entity filing trademark 
documents with the USPTO. The USPTO estimates, based on the assumptions 
in the FY 2025 Budget, that during the first full fiscal year under the 
fees as proposed (FY 2026), the USPTO would collect approximately $144 
million more in trademark processing and TTAB fees compared to 
projected fee collections under the current fee schedule. The USPTO 
would receive an additional $99 million in application filing fees, 
including applications filed through the Madrid Protocol and 
application surcharges; $4 million more from petitions, letters of 
protest, and requests for reconsideration; $7 million more from SOU and 
AAU fees; and $35 million more for post-registration maintenance fees, 
including sections 9 and 66 renewals and sections 8, 71, and 15 
declarations.
    The USPTO collects fees for trademark-related services at different 
points in the trademark application examination process and over the 
registration life cycle. In FY 2023, application filing fees made up 
about 54% of all trademark fee collections. Fees for proceedings and 
appeals before the TTAB comprised 3% of revenues. Fees from other 
trademark activities, petitions, assignments and certifications, and 
Madrid processing totaled approximately 5% of revenues. Fees for post-
registration and intent-to-use filings, which subsidize the costs of 
filing, search, examination, and the TTAB, comprised 38%.
    The USPTO bases its five-year estimated aggregate trademark fee 
revenue on the number of trademark applications and other fee-related 
filings it expects for a given fiscal year; work it expects to process 
in a given fiscal year (an indicator of fees paid after the agency 
performs work, such as SOU fees); expected examination and process 
requests in a given fiscal year; and the expected number of post-grant 
decisions to maintain trademark protection in a given fiscal year. 
Within its iterative process for estimating aggregate revenue, the 
USPTO adjusts individual fee rates up or down based on policy and cost 
considerations and then multiplies the resulting fee rates by 
appropriate workload volumes to calculate a revenue estimate for each 
fee, which is then used to calculate aggregate revenue. Additional 
details about the USPTO's aggregate revenue, including projected 
workloads by fee, are available on the fee setting section of the USPTO 
website at https://www.uspto.gov/about-us/performance-and-planning/fee-setting-and-adjusting.
4. A Description of the Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements of the Proposed Rule, Including an Estimate of 
the Classes of Small Entities Which Will Be Subject to the Requirement 
and the Type of Professional Skills Necessary for Preparation of the 
Report or Record
    This proposed rule imposes no new reporting or recordkeeping 
requirements. The main purpose of this proposed rule is to set and 
adjust trademark fees.
5. Identification, to the Extent Practicable, of All Relevant Federal 
Rules Which May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rules
    This proposed rule would not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with 
any other Federal rules.
6. A Description of Any Significant Alternatives to the Proposed Rules 
Which Accomplish the Stated Objectives of Applicable Statutes and Which 
Minimize Any Significant Economic Impact of the Proposed Rules on Small 
Entities
    The USPTO considered four alternatives, based on the assumptions 
found in the FY 2025 Budget, before recommending this proposal: (1) the 
adjustments included in this proposal; (2) fees set at the unit cost of 
providing individual services based on FY 2022 costs; (3) an across-
the-board fee adjustment of 27%; and (4) no change to the baseline of 
current fees. The four alternatives are explained here with additional 
information regarding the development of each proposal and aggregate 
revenue estimate. A description of the Aggregate Revenue Estimating 
Methodology is available on the fee setting section of the USPTO 
website at http://www.uspto.gov/about-us/performance-and-planning/fee-setting-and-adjusting.
a. Alternative 1: Proposed Alternative--Set and Adjust Trademark Fees
    The USPTO proposes to set and adjust trademark fees codified in 37 
CFR parts 2 and 7. This proposal adjusts fees for all application 
filing types (i.e., paper applications, electronic applications, and 
requests for extension of protection under section 66(a) of the 
Trademark Act (15 U.S.C. 1141f)), including new surcharge fees. The 
USPTO also proposes to increase other trademark fees to promote 
effective administration of the trademark system, including fees for 
post-registration maintenance under sections 8, 9, and 71, certain 
petitions to the Director, and filing a letter of protest.
    The USPTO chose the alternative proposed in this rule because it 
will enable the agency to achieve its goals effectively and efficiently 
without unduly burdening small entities, erecting barriers to entry, or 
stifling incentives to innovate. The alternative proposed here finances 
the USPTO's objectives for meeting its goals outlined in the Strategic 
Plan. These goals include optimizing trademark application pendency 
through the promotion of efficient operations and filing behaviors, 
issuing accurate and reliable trademark registrations, and encouraging 
access to the trademark system for all stakeholders. The proposed 
alternative will benefit all applicants and registrants by allowing the 
agency to grant registrations sooner and more efficiently. All 
trademark applicants should benefit from the efficiencies realized 
under the proposed alternative.
    The USPTO anticipates that the impact of an increased fee on letter 
of protest filers would be small. The proposed fee of $150 is set at a 
level low enough to enable the filing of relevant, well-supported 
letters, but high enough to recover some additional processing costs. 
The USPTO enacted the current fee for letters of protest on November 
17, 2020 (85 FR 73197) and implemented it on January 2, 2021. Despite 
this fee, the USPTO received almost 4,000 letters in each of the last 
two fiscal years and expects the volume will grow to more than 5,000 
letters per year by FY 2029.

[[Page 20912]]

    The proposed fee schedule for this alternative is available on the 
fee setting section of the USPTO website at https://www.uspto.gov/FeeSettingAndAdjusting, in the document titled ``Setting and Adjusting 
Trademark Fees During Fiscal Year 2025-IRFA Tables.''
b. Other Alternatives Considered
    In addition to the proposed fee schedule set forth in Alternative 
1, the USPTO considered three other alternative approaches. The agency 
calculated proposed fees and the resulting revenue derived from each 
alternative scenario. The proposed fees and their corresponding revenue 
tables are available on the fee setting section of the USPTO website at 
https://www.uspto.gov/FeeSettingAndAdjusting. Please note, only the 
fees outlined in Alternative 1 are proposed in this NPRM; other 
alternative scenarios are shown only to demonstrate the analysis of 
other options.
Alternative 2: Unit Cost Recovery
    The USPTO considered an alternative that would set all trademark 
fees to recover 100% of unit costs associated with each service, based 
on historical unit costs. The USPTO uses the ABI to determine the unit 
costs of activities that contribute to the services and processes 
associated with individual fees. It is common practice in the Federal 
Government to set a particular fee at a level that recovers the cost of 
a given good or service. OMB Circular A-25, User Charges, states that 
user charges (fees) should be sufficient to recover the full cost to 
the Federal Government of providing the particular service, resource, 
or good when the Government is acting in its capacity as sovereign. 
Under the USPTO's unit cost recovery alternative, fees are generally 
set in line with the FY 2022 costs of providing the service. The agency 
recognizes that this approach does not account for changes in the fee 
structure or inflationary factors that could likely increase the costs 
of certain trademark services and necessitate higher fees in the 
outyears. However, the USPTO contends that FY 2022 data is the best 
available to inform this analysis.
    This alternative does not align well with the strategic and policy 
goals of this proposed rule. It would produce a structure in which 
application and processing fees would increase significantly for all 
applicants, and post-registration maintenance filing fees would 
decrease dramatically when compared with current fees. The USPTO 
rejected this alternative because it does not address improvements in 
fee design to accomplish the agency's stated objectives of encouraging 
broader usage of IP rights-protection mechanisms and participation by 
more trademark owners, as well as practices that improve process 
efficiency.
    The fee schedule for this alternative is available on the fee 
setting section of the USPTO website at https://www.uspto.gov/FeeSettingAndAdjusting, in the document titled ``Setting and Adjusting 
Trademark Fees During Fiscal Year 2025--IRFA Tables.''
Alternative 3: Across-the-Board Adjustment
    The USPTO considered a 27% across-the-board increase for all fees. 
This alternative would maintain the status quo structure of cost 
recovery, where processing and examination costs are subsidized by fees 
for ITU extensions and post-registration maintenance filings (which 
exceed the cost of performing these services), given that all fees 
would be adjusted by the same escalation factor. This fee schedule 
would continue to promote innovation strategies and allow applicants to 
gain access to the trademark system through fees set below cost, while 
registrants pay maintenance fees above cost to subsidize the below-cost 
front-end fees. This alternative would also generate sufficient 
aggregate revenue to recover aggregate operating costs.
    The agency ultimately rejected this proposal. Unlike the proposed 
fee schedule, it would not enhance the efficiency of trademark 
processing and offer no new incentives for users to file more efficient 
and complete applications.
    The proposed fee schedule for this alternative is available in the 
document titled ``Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Tables'' at http://www.uspto.gov/about-us/performance-and-planning/fee-setting-and-adjusting.
Alternative 4: Baseline (Current Fee Schedule)
    The final alternative the agency considered would leave all 
trademark fees as currently set. The USPTO rejected this alternative 
because, due to changes in demand for certain services and rising 
costs, a fee increase is necessary to meet future budgetary 
requirements as described in the FY 2025 Budget. Under this 
alternative, the USPTO would expect to collect sufficient revenue to 
continue executing only some, but not all, trademark priorities. This 
approach would not provide sufficient aggregate revenue to accomplish 
the USPTO's rulemaking goals as stated in Part IV: Rulemaking Goals and 
Strategies. Improvement activities, including better protecting the 
Trademark Register through legislation, enhanced IT, and tactical 
management programs would continue, but at a significantly slower rate 
as increases in core trademark examination costs crowd out funding for 
other improvements. Likewise, without a fee increase, the USPTO would 
deplete its trademark operating reserve, leaving the agency vulnerable 
to fiscal and economic events. This alternative would expose core 
operations to unacceptable levels of financial risk and position the 
USPTO to return to making inefficient, short-term funding decisions.
    The fee schedule for this alternative is available on the fee 
setting section of the USPTO website at https://www.uspto.gov/FeeSettingAndAdjusting, in the document titled ``Setting and Adjusting 
Trademark Fees During Fiscal Year 2025--IRFA Tables.''

C. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review)

    This rulemaking has been determined to be Significant for purposes 
of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (Sept. 30, 1993), as amended by E.O. 
14094 (April 6, 2023), Modernizing Regulatory Review.

D. Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review)

    The USPTO has complied with E.O. 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 
this proposed rule; (2) tailored this proposed 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) involved the public in an open exchange of 
information and perspectives among experts in relevant disciplines, 
affected stakeholders in the private sector, and the public as a whole, 
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.

[[Page 20913]]

E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    This rulemaking does not contain policies with federalism 
implications sufficient to warrant preparation of a Federalism 
Assessment under E.O. 13132 (Aug. 4, 1999).

F. Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)

    This rulemaking will not: (1) have substantial direct effects on 
one or more Indian tribes; (2) impose substantial direct compliance 
costs on Indian tribal governments; or (3) preempt tribal law. 
Therefore, a tribal summary impact statement is not required under E.O. 
13175 (Nov. 6, 2000).

G. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)

    This rulemaking is not a significant energy action under E.O. 13211 
because this proposed rulemaking is not likely to have a significant 
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. 
Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required under E.O. 
13211 (May 18, 2001).

H. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This rulemaking meets applicable standards to minimize litigation, 
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden as set forth in sections 3(a) 
and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988 (Feb. 5, 1996).

I. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)

    This rulemaking does not concern an environmental risk to health or 
safety that may disproportionately affect children under E.O. 13045 
(Apr. 21, 1997).

J. Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

    This rulemaking will not affect a taking of private property or 
otherwise have taking implications under E.O. 12630 (Mar. 15, 1988).

K. 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 rule and other required information to the United States 
Senate, the United States House of Representatives, and the Comptroller 
General of the GAO. The changes in this proposed rule are expected to 
result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million 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 
proposed rule is a ``major rule'' as defined in 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

L. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    The proposed 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 (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 (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.

M. National Environmental Policy Act

    This rulemaking will not have any effect on the quality of the 
environment and is thus categorically excluded from review under the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. See 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.

N. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    The requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology 
Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) are not 
applicable because this rulemaking does not contain provisions that 
involve the use of technical standards.

O. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) 
requires that the USPTO consider the impact of paperwork and other 
information collection burdens imposed on the public. This proposed 
rule involves information collection requirements which are subject to 
review by the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 
3501-3549). The collection of information involved in this proposed 
rule has been reviewed and previously approved by OMB under control 
numbers 0651-0009, 0651-0050, 0651-0051, 0651-0054, 0651-0055, 0651-
0056, 0651-0061, and 0651-0086.
    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required 
to respond to nor shall any 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.

P. E-Government Act Compliance

    The USPTO is committed to compliance with the E-Government Act to 
promote the use of the internet and other information technologies, to 
provide increased opportunities for citizen access to government 
information and services, and for other purposes.

List of Subjects

37 CFR Part 2

    Administrative practice and procedure, Courts, Lawyers, Trademarks.

37 CFR Part 7

    Administrative practice and procedure, Trademarks.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, and under the authority 
contained in section 10(a) of the AIA, 15 U.S.C. 1113, 1123, and 35 
U.S.C. 2, as amended, 37 CFR parts 2 and 7 are proposed to be amended 
as follows:

PART 2--RULES OF PRACTICE IN TRADEMARK CASES

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

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1113, 1123; 35 U.S.C. 2; sec. 10, Pub. L. 
112-29, 125 Stat. 284; Pub. L. 116-260, 134 Stat. 1182, unless 
otherwise noted. Sec. 2.99 also issued under secs. 16, 17, 60 Stat. 
434; 15 U.S.C. 1066, 1067.

0
2. Section 2.6 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (v);
0
b. Adding paragraph (a)(1)(vi); and
0
c. Revising paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (ii), (3)(i) and (ii), (4)(ii), 
(5)(i) and (ii), (6)(ii), (7)(ii), (8)(ii), (9)(ii), (10)(ii), 
(11)(ii), (12)(i), (ii), and (iv), (13)(i) and (ii), (14)(ii), (15)(i) 
through (iv), (16) introductory text, (16)(ii), (17) introductory text, 
(17)(ii), (18) introductory text, (18)(i), (ii), (v), (vii), (19)(ii), 
(20)(ii), (21)(ii), (22)(ii), (23)(ii), (25), (27), and (28)(ii).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  2.6  Trademark fees.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) For filing an application on paper, per class--$850.00.
    (ii) For filing an application under section 66(a) of the Act, per 
class--$350.00.
    (iii) For filing an application electronically, per class--$350.00.
    (iv) Additional fee under Sec.  2.22(b), per class--$100.00.
    (v) Additional fee under Sec.  2.22(c), per class--$200.00.

[[Page 20914]]

    (vi) Additional fee under Sec.  2.22(d) for each additional 1,000 
characters in identifications of goods/services beyond the first 1,000 
characters, per class--$200.00.
    (2) * * *
    (i) For filing an amendment to allege use under section 1(c) of the 
Act on paper, per class--$250.00.
    (ii) For filing an amendment to allege use under section 1(c) of 
the Act electronically, per class--$150.00.
    (3) * * *
    (i) For filing a statement of use under section 1(d)(1) of the Act 
on paper, per class--$250.00.
    (ii) For filing a statement of use under section 1(d)(1) of the Act 
electronically, per class--$150.00.
    (4) * * *
    (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 electronically, per class--$125.00.
    (5) * * *
    (i) For filing an application for renewal of a registration on 
paper, per class--$550.00.
    (ii) For filing an application for renewal of a registration 
electronically, per class--$350.00.
    (6) * * *
    (ii) Additional fee for filing a renewal application during the 
grace period electronically, per class--$100.00.
    (7) * * *
    (ii) For filing to publish a mark under section 12(c), per class 
electronically--$100.00.
    (8) * * *
    (ii) For issuing a new certificate of registration upon request of 
registrant, request filed electronically--$100.00.
    (9) * * *
    (ii) For a certificate of correction of registrant's error, request 
filed electronically--$100.00.
    (10) * * *
    (ii) For filing a disclaimer to a registration electronically--
$100.00.
    (11) * * *
    (ii) For filing an amendment to a registration electronically--
$100.00.
    (12) * * *
    (i) For filing an affidavit under section 8 of the Act on paper, 
per class--$400.00.
    (ii) For filing an affidavit under section 8 of the Act 
electronically, per class--$300.00.
    (iv) For deleting goods, services, and/or classes after submission 
and prior to acceptance of an affidavit under section 8 of the Act 
electronically, per class--$250.00.
    (13) * * *
    (i) For filing an affidavit under section 15 of the Act on paper, 
per class--$350.00.
    (ii) For filing an affidavit under section 15 of the Act 
electronically, per class--$250.00.
    (14) * * *
    (ii) Additional fee for filing a section 8 affidavit during the 
grace period electronically, per class--$100.00.
    (15) * * *
    (i) For filing a petition under Sec.  2.146 or Sec.  2.147 on 
paper--$500.00.
    (ii) For filing a petition under Sec.  2.146 or Sec.  2.147 
electronically--$400.00.
    (iii) For filing a petition under Sec.  2.66 on paper--$350.00.
    (iv) For filing a petition under Sec.  2.66 electronically--
$250.00.
    (16) Petition to cancel to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.
* * * * *
    (ii) For filing a petition to cancel electronically, per class--
$600.00.
    (17) Notice of opposition to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.
* * * * *
    (ii) For filing a notice of opposition electronically, per class--
$600.00.
    (18) Ex parte appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.
    (i) For filing an ex parte appeal on paper, per class--$325.00.
    (ii) For filing an ex parte appeal electronically, per class--
$225.00.
* * * * *
    (v) For filing a second or subsequent request for an extension of 
time to file an appeal brief electronically, per application--$100.00.
* * * * *
    (vii) For filing an appeal brief electronically, per class--
$200.00.
    (19) * * *
    (ii) Request to divide an application filed electronically, per new 
application created--$100.00.
    (20) * * *
    (ii) For correcting a deficiency in a section 8 affidavit via 
electronic filing--$100.00.
    (21) * * *
    (ii) For correcting a deficiency in a renewal application via 
electronic filing--$100.00.
    (22) * * *
    (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) electronically--
$200.00.
    (23) * * *
    (ii) For filing a request for an extension of time to file a notice 
of opposition under Sec.  2.102(c)(3) electronically--$400.00.
* * * * *
    (25) Letter of protest. For filing a letter of protest, per subject 
application--$150.00.
* * * * *
    (27) Extension of time for filing a response to a non-final Office 
action under Sec.  2.93(b)(1). For filing a request for extension of 
time for filing a response to a non-final Office action under Sec.  
2.93(b)(1) electronically--$125.00.
    (28) * * *
    (ii) For filing a request for an extension of time for filing a 
response to an Office action under Sec.  2.62(a)(2) electronically--
$125.00.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 2.22 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the section heading; and
0
b. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text, and (a)(7) through (20), 
and (b) through (d).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  2.22  Requirements for base application fee.

    (a) An application for registration under section 1 and/or section 
44 of the Act that meets the requirements for a filing date under Sec.  
2.21 will be subject only to the filing fee under Sec.  2.6(a)(1)(iii), 
and an application under section 66(a) of the Act will be subject only 
to the filing fee under Sec.  2.6(a)(1)(ii), if it includes:
* * * * *
    (7) If the application contains goods and/or services in more than 
one class, compliance with Sec.  2.86;
    (8) A filing fee for each class of goods and/or services, as 
required by Sec.  2.6(a)(1)(ii) or (iii);
    (9) A verified statement that meets the requirements of Sec.  2.33, 
dated and signed by a person properly authorized to sign on behalf of 
the owner pursuant to Sec.  2.193(e)(1);
    (10) If the applicant does not claim standard characters, the 
applicant must attach a digitized image of the mark. If the mark 
includes color, the drawing must show the mark in color;
    (11) If the mark is in standard characters, a mark comprised only 
of characters in the Office's standard character set, typed in the 
appropriate field of the application;
    (12) If the mark includes color, a statement naming the color(s) 
and describing where the color(s) appears on the mark, and a claim that 
the color(s) is a feature of the mark;
    (13) If the mark is not in standard characters, a description of 
the mark;
    (14) If the mark includes non-English wording, an English 
translation of that wording;
    (15) If the mark includes non-Latin characters, a transliteration 
of those characters;
    (16) If the mark includes an individual's name or likeness, either 
(i) a statement that identifies the living

[[Page 20915]]

individual whose name or likeness the mark comprises and written 
consent of the individual, or (ii) a statement that the name or 
likeness does not identify a living individual (see section 2(c) of the 
Act);
    (17) If the applicant owns one or more registrations for the same 
mark, and the owner(s) last listed in Office records of the prior 
registration(s) for the same mark differs from the owner(s) listed in 
the application, a claim of ownership of the registration(s) identified 
by the registration number(s), pursuant to Sec.  2.36;
    (18) If the application is a concurrent use application, compliance 
with Sec.  2.42;
    (19) An applicant whose domicile is not located within the United 
States or its territories must designate an attorney as the applicant's 
representative, pursuant to Sec.  2.11(a), and include the attorney's 
name, postal address, email address, and bar information; and
    (20) Correctly classified goods and/or services, with an 
identification of goods and/or services from the Office's Acceptable 
Identification of Goods and Services Manual within the electronic form.
    (b) If an application fails to satisfy any of the requirements of 
paragraph (a)(1)-(19) of this section, the applicant must pay the fee 
required by Sec.  2.6(a)(1)(iv).
    (c) If an application fails to satisfy the requirements of 
paragraph (a)(20) of this section, the applicant must pay the fee 
required by Sec.  2.6(a)(1)(v).
    (d) If an application fails to satisfy the requirements of 
paragraph (a)(20) of this section, and the identification of goods and/
or services in any class exceeds 1,000 characters, the applicant must 
pay the fee required by Sec.  2.6(a)(1)(vi) for each affected class.
0
4. Section 2.71 is amended by:
0
a. Revising introductory text,
0
b. Redesignating paragraph (a) as paragraph (a)(1); and
0
c. Adding paragraph (a)(2).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  2.71  Amendments to correct informalities.

    The applicant may amend the application during the course of 
examination, when required by the Office or for other reasons:
    (a)(1) The applicant may amend the application to clarify or limit, 
but not to broaden, the identification of goods and/or services or the 
description of the nature of the collective membership organization.
    (2) An amendment to the identification of goods and/or services 
that results in the identification exceeding 1,000 characters in any 
class is subject to payment of the fee required by Sec.  2.6(a)(1)(vi) 
for each affected class.
* * * * *

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

0
1. The authority citation for 37 CFR part 7 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority:  15 U.S.C. 1123, 35 U.S.C. 2, Pub. L. 116-260, 134 
Stat. 1182, unless otherwise noted.

0
2. Section 7.6 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1)(ii), (2)(ii), 
(3)(ii), (4)(ii), (5)(ii), (6)(i), (ii) and (iv), (7)(ii), and (8)(ii) 
to read as follows:


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

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) For certifying an international application based on a single 
basic application or registration filed electronically, per class--
$100.00.
    (2) * * *
    (ii) For certifying an international application based on more than 
one basic application or registration filed electronically, per class--
$150.00.
    (3) * * *
    (ii) For transmitting a subsequent designation under Sec.  7.21, 
filed electronically--$100.00.
    (4) * * *
    (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 electronically--$100.00.
    (5) * * *
    (ii) For filing a notice of replacement under Sec.  7.28 
electronically, per class--$100.00.
    (6) * * *
    (i) For filing an affidavit under section 71 of the Act on paper, 
per class--$400.00.
    (ii) For filing an affidavit under section 71 of the Act 
electronically, per class--$300.00.
* * * * *
    (iv) For deleting goods, services, and/or classes after submission 
and prior to acceptance of an affidavit under section 71 of the Act 
electronically, per class--$250.00.
    (7) * * *
    (ii) Surcharge for filing an affidavit under section 71 of the Act 
during the grace period electronically, per class--$100.00.
    (8) * * *
    (ii) For correcting a deficiency in a section 71 affidavit filed 
electronically--$100.00.
* * * * *

Katherine Kelly Vidal,
Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of 
the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
[FR Doc. 2024-06186 Filed 3-25-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-16-P