[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 134 (Wednesday, July 15, 2026)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43339-43342]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2026-14240]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Patent and Trademark Office
37 CFR Part 7
[Docket No. PTO-T-2026-0166]
RIN 0651-AD95
References to Electronic Filing Systems in Rules of Practice in
Filings Pursuant to the Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement
Concerning the International Registration of Marks
AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Department of
Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO or
Office) issues this final rule to effectuate a nomenclature change by
substituting generic terminology for references to particular
electronic filing systems used to submit correspondence related to
international applications originating with the United States under the
Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International
Registration of Marks (Madrid Protocol). This amendment clarifies
terminology without changing filing requirements or statutory
obligations.
DATES: This rule is effective July 15, 2026.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jessica Ludeman, Office of the Deputy
Commissioner for Trademark Examination Policy, at 571-272-7183 or
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final rule amends 37 CFR part 7 to
replace references to the USPTO's electronic filing system names,
``Trademark Electronic Application System'' and
[[Page 43340]]
``TEAS'' with generic terminology for the filing systems used to submit
documents as part of international applications and subsequent
designations originating in the United States under the Madrid
Protocol.
The Madrid Protocol went into effect in the United States on
November 2, 2003, and was implemented under 15 U.S.C. 1141 et seq. and
37 CFR parts 2 and 7. The International Bureau (IB) of the World
Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in Geneva, Switzerland
administers the Madrid system for international trademark registration.
The Regulations Under the Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement
Concerning the International Registration of Marks (Regs. Rule) set
forth the procedures regarding the administration of the Madrid
Protocol, pursuant to Madrid Protocol Article (Article) 10(2)(iii). The
Madrid Protocol Implementation Act of 2002 amended the U.S. Trademark
Act to provide that the owner of a U.S. trademark registration or
pending application (basic registration or basic application) may seek
protection of its mark in any of the member countries of the Madrid
Protocol by submitting a single international application originating
in the United States if the owner is a national of, is domiciled in, or
has a real and effective industrial or commercial establishment in the
United States. 15 U.S.C. 1141a; Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure
(TMEP) 1902.01.
The USPTO Madrid Processing Unit (MPU) reviews international
applications to determine whether the information contained therein
corresponds to the information in the associated basic application or
basic registration. If the international application meets the
requirements of 37 CFR 7.11(a), the MPU will certify the application
and forward it to the IB. 15 U.S.C. 1141b; 37 CFR 7.13(a).
Once the IB receives the certified international application from
the USPTO, the IB will examine the application for completeness. If an
international application is not complete, the IB will notify both the
applicant and the USPTO of the irregularity. TMEP 1902.07. The
irregularity notice will specify whether the response must be provided
by the USPTO or the applicant. See 37 CFR 7.14; TMEP 1902.07; Regs.
Rule 11.
Applicants must file responses to irregularities regarding the
classification and/or identification of goods and/or services through
the USPTO. See TMEP 1902.07(c). For responses to IB notices of
irregularity that must be submitted by the applicant through the USPTO,
the response must be filed through the Trademark Electronic Application
System (TEAS) unless the filer is a national of a country that has
acceded to the Trademark Law Treaty but not to the Singapore Treaty on
the Law of Trademarks. 37 CFR 7.4(a), (c). If TEAS is unavailable, or
in an extraordinary situation, an applicant or registrant under this
section who is required to file a submission through TEAS may submit a
petition to the Director under 37 CFR 2.146(a)(5) and (c) of this
chapter to accept the submission filed on paper. 37 CFR 7.4(d).
Further, the holder of an international registration may request an
extension of protection of the international registration to additional
Contracting Parties after the IB registers the mark. This request for
an extension of protection is known as a subsequent designation. 37 CFR
7.21(b). A holder may file a subsequent designation originating with
the USPTO if: (1) the international registration is based on a basic
application filed with the USPTO and/or a basic registration issued by
the USPTO and (2) the holder is a national of, is domiciled in, or has
a real and effective industrial or commercial establishment in the
United States. 15 U.S.C. 1141d; 37 CFR 7.21(a)-(b); TMEP 1902.01.
The nomenclature change in this final rule supports a technology
update that will enable filers to submit international applications and
responses to irregularity notices through the Madrid e-Filing system
(Madrid e-Filing), a WIPO-operated electronic filing system, that has
been designated by the Director of the USPTO for filing. Although
Madrid e-Filing will be the primary method of filing these documents,
TEAS will remain available for filing U.S. office of origin
international applications until at least September 2026 and responses
to notices of irregularity until all international applications
originally filed through TEAS have reached a final disposition. The
holder of a U.S. office of origin international registration who is a
national of, is domiciled in, or has a real and effective business or
commercial establishment in the United States will continue to have the
option to submit a subsequent designation through the IB or through the
USPTO using TEAS, and eventually Trademark Center, which is another
trademark electronic filing system that will replace TEAS.
The rule does not change any statutory obligations under 15 U.S.C.
1141-1141c or the filing requirements of 37 CFR part 7. However, when
applicants use Madrid e-Filing to submit a U.S. office of origin
international application, all fees are paid directly to WIPO, and
therefore the fees required by 37 CFR 7.6(a)(1)-(2) and 7.7(a)(1) will
be charged in the Swiss franc equivalent of the U.S. dollar amount at
the time of transaction. See Regs. Rule 35(1).
Discussion of Regulatory Changes
The USPTO amends Sec. 7.1 to revise paragraph (c) to replace ``The
acronym TEAS means the Trademark Electronic Application System'' with
``Trademark electronic filing system means the electronic filing system
designated by the Director'' and to replace ``TEAS'' with ``the
trademark electronic filing system.''
The USPTO amends Sec. 7.4 to revise paragraphs (a) and (d) to
replace references to ``TEAS'' with ``the trademark electronic filing
system.''
The USPTO amends Sec. 7.6 to revise paragraph (b) to add ``or the
U.S. dollar equivalent if the fee is paid directly to the International
Bureau at the time of submission of the requested action.''
The USPTO amends Sec. 7.7 to revise paragraph (a) to replace
``TEAS'' with ``the trademark electronic filing system.'' The USPTO
revises paragraph (b)(1)(ii) to remove ``In this case, an applicant or
holder's submission to the Office must include the International Bureau
receipt number for payment of the fees.''
The USPTO amends Sec. 7.11 to revise paragraphs (a) and (a)(10) to
replace the ``TEAS'' with ``the trademark electronic filing system.''
The USPTO amends Sec. 7.21 to revise paragraphs (b) and (b)(8) to
replace ``TEAS'' with ``the trademark electronic filing system.''
Rulemaking Requirements
A. Administrative Procedure Act: This final rule amends the
regulations to implement a nomenclature change by substituting generic
terminology for references to TEAS, the USPTO's trademark electronic
filing system used to submit documents as part of international
applications and subsequent designations originating in the United
States under the Madrid Protocol system. The amendments in this final
rule do not change the substantive criteria for the registration of an
international trademark originating with the United States under the
Madrid Protocol. Therefore, the changes in this rulemaking involve
rules of agency practice and procedure and/or interpretive rules and do
not require notice-and-comment rulemaking pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(B). See Perez v. Mortg. Bankers Ass'n, 575 U.S. 92, 97, 101
(2015) (explaining that interpretive rules ``advise the public of
[[Page 43341]]
the agency's construction of the statutes and rules which it
administers'' and do not require notice-and-comment when issued or
amended); Cooper Techs. Co. v. Dudas, 536 F.3d 1330, 1336-37 (Fed. Cir.
2008) (stating that 5 U.S.C. 553, and thus 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2)(B), do not
require notice-and-comment rulemaking for ``interpretative rules,
general statements of policy, or rules of agency organization,
procedure, or practice''); In re Chestek PLLC, 92 F.4th 1105, 1110
(Fed. Cir. 2024) (noting that rule changes that ``do[ ] not alter the
substantive standards by which the USPTO evaluates trademark
applications'' are procedural in nature and thus ``exempted from
notice-and-comment rulemaking.''); and JEM Broad. Co. v. F.C.C., 22
F.3d 320, 328 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (``[T]he `critical feature' of the
procedural exception [in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A)] `is that it covers agency
actions that do not themselves alter the rights or interests of
parties, although [they] may alter the manner in which the parties
present themselves or their viewpoints to the agency.' '' (quoting
Batterton v. Marshall, 648 F.2d 694, 707 (D.C. Cir. 1980))).
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act: As prior notice and an opportunity
for public comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 or any
other law, neither a Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis nor a
certification under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) is required. See 5 U.S.C. 603.
C. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review): This
rulemaking has been determined to be not significant for purposes of
Executive Order 12866 (Sept. 30, 1993).
D. Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory
Review): The USPTO has complied with Executive Order 13563 (Jan. 18,
2011). Specifically, and as discussed above, the USPTO has, to the
extent feasible and applicable: (1) made a reasoned determination that
the benefits justify the costs of the rule; (2) tailored the rule to
impose the least burden on society consistent with obtaining the
regulatory objectives; (3) selected a regulatory approach that
maximizes net benefits; (4) specified performance objectives; (5)
identified and assessed available alternatives; (6) 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.
E. Executive Order 14192 (Deregulation): This regulation is not an
Executive Order 14192 regulatory action because it has been determined
to be not significant under Executive Order 12866.
F. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism): This rulemaking pertains
strictly to federal agency procedures and does not contain policies
with federalism implications sufficient to warrant preparation of a
Federalism Assessment under Executive Order 13132 (Aug. 4, 1999).
G. 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 Executive Order 13175 (Nov. 6,
2000).
H. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects): This rulemaking is not a
significant energy action under Executive Order 13211 because this
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 Executive Order 13211 (May 18,
2001).
I. 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
Executive Order 12988 (Feb. 5, 1996).
J. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children): This rulemaking
does not concern an environmental risk to health or safety that may
disproportionately affect children under Executive Order 13045 (Apr.
21, 1997).
K. Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property): This
rulemaking will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630 (Mar. 15, 1988).
L. 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.), the USPTO will submit a report containing
the final rule and other required information to the United States
Senate, the United States House of Representatives, and the Comptroller
General of the Government Accountability Office. The changes in this
rulemaking are not 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 rulemaking is not expected to result in
a ``major rule'' as defined in 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
M. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995: The changes set forth in
this rulemaking do not involve a Federal intergovernmental mandate that
will result in the expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments,
in the aggregate, of $100 million (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.
N. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969: 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.
O. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995: 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.
P. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995: This final rule does not
involve information collection requirements that are subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
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
has a currently valid OMB control number.
Q. 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
[[Page 43342]]
access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 7
Administrative practice and procedure, Trademarks.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the USPTO amends 37 CFR
part 7 as follows:
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 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. Amend Sec. 7.1 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 7.1 Definitions of terms as used in this part.
* * * * *
(c) Trademark electronic filing system means the electronic filing
system designated by the Director and, as used in this part, includes
all related electronic systems required to complete an electronic
submission through the trademark electronic filing system.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 7.4 by revising paragraphs (a) and (d) to read as
follows:
Sec. 7.4 International applications and registrations originating
from the USPTO--Requirements to electronically file and communicate
with the Office.
(a) Unless stated otherwise in this chapter, all correspondence
filed with the USPTO relating to international applications and
registrations originating from the USPTO must be submitted through the
trademark electronic filing system and include a valid email address
for correspondence.
* * * * *
(d) If the trademark electronic filing system is unavailable, or in
an extraordinary situation, an applicant or registrant under this
section who is required to file a submission through the trademark
electronic filing system may submit a petition to the Director under
Sec. 2.146(a)(5) and (c) of this chapter to accept the submission
filed on paper.
* * * * *
0
4. Amend Sec. 7.6 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 7.6 Schedule of U.S. process fees.
* * * * *
(b) The fees required in paragraph (a) of this section must be paid
in U.S. dollars at the time of submission of the requested action or
the U.S. dollar equivalent if the fee is paid directly to the
International Bureau at the time of submission of the requested action.
See Sec. 2.207 of this chapter for acceptable forms of payment and
Sec. 2.208 of this chapter for payments using a deposit account
established in the Office.
0
5. Amend Sec. 7.7 by revising paragraphs (a) introductory text and
(b)(1)(ii) to read as follows:
Sec. 7.7 Payments of fees to International Bureau.
(a) For documents filed through the trademark electronic filing
system, the following fees may be paid either directly to the
International Bureau or through the Office:
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Directly to the International Bureau using any other
acceptable method of payment; or
* * * * *
0
6. Amend Sec. 7.11 by revising paragraphs (a) introductory text and
(a)(10) to read as follows:
Sec. 7.11 Requirements for international application originating
from the United States.
(a) The Office will grant a date of receipt to an international
application that is filed through the trademark electronic filing
system in accordance with Sec. 7.4(a), or typed on the official paper
form issued by the International Bureau, if permitted under Sec.
7.4(c) or accepted on petition pursuant to Sec. 7.4(d). The
international application must include all of the following:
* * * * *
(10) If the application is filed through the trademark electronic
filing system, the international application fees for all classes, and
the fees for all designated Contracting Parties identified in the
international application (see Sec. 7.7); and
* * * * *
0
7. Amend Sec. 7.21 by revising paragraphs (b) introductory text and
(b)(8) to read as follows:
Sec. 7.21 Subsequent designation.
* * * * *
(b) The Office will grant a date of receipt to a subsequent
designation that is filed though the trademark electronic filing system
in accordance with Sec. 7.4(a), or typed on the official paper form
issued by the International Bureau, if permitted under Sec. 7.4(c) or
accepted on petition pursuant to Sec. 7.4(d). The subsequent
designation must contain all of the following:
* * * * *
(8) If the subsequent designation is filed through the trademark
electronic filing system, the subsequent designation fees (see Sec.
7.7).
* * * * *
John A. Squires,
Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of
the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
[FR Doc. 2026-14240 Filed 7-14-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-16-P