直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

INCONTESTABLE® Blog

USPTO Proposes Reduction in Trademark Fees

May 13, 2014

Authored and Edited by Naresh Kilaru

In what should be regarded as welcome news for trademark owners, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has announced that it is considering fee reductions for certain trademark applications and renewals filed online.

In a notice of proposed rulemaking that issued on May 9, 2014, the PTO proposed reducing fees as follows:

  • $325 to $275 per class for applications filed under Section 1 or Section 44 of the Lanham Act, if (1) the application is filed through the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) and (2) applicants agree to receive all communications by e-mail and file all responses and other documents through TEAS during the prosecution of the application.  This option would be known as a TEAS Reduced Fee application.
  • $275 to $225 per class for a TEAS Plus application if the applicant files through TEAS and agrees to electronic communication. A TEAS Plus application is where an applicant selects its description of goods/services from the PTO’s Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual.
  • $400 to $300 per class for a TEAS application for renewal of a registration.

The reduced fee option will not be available to applications filed via the Madrid Protocol, since such applications cannot be filed through TEAS. Also, the filing fee of $375 per class for applications filed on paper and the filing fee of $400 per class for renewal of a registration filed on paper will not change.

According to the PTO, the proposed reductions are intended to promote efficiency for both the PTO and its customers through increased electronic communication. Among other things, the PTO has found that filing through TEAS and authorizing email communication expedites processing, shortens pendency, and minimizes manual processing and the potential for data entry errors.

Tags

patent filing fees

Contacts

Naresh Kilaru
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4236
Email

Copyright © 2014 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. 


DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.

Related Insights

Lecture

IPIC/McGill Summer IP Course 2026: Understanding Trademarks

July 14, 2026

Montreal

Conference

7th International Conference on Biofuels and Bioenergy

June 25-26, 2026

Edinburgh

Articles

California Reaches Record $12.75 Million CCPA Settlement with General Motors Over Driver Data

June 4, 2026

Conference

17th Summit on Biosimilars & Innovator Biologics

June 2-3, 2026

New York

Articles

Article_D.-Mass-Patent-Litigation-Update-October-2024

D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update: April 2026

June 1, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Consistency Is Key – USPTO Issues Three New Informative Decisions

May 29, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Discretion All the Way Down: USPTO Uses a Discretionary IPR Denial to Justify a    
§ 325(d) EPR Denial

May 28, 2026

Articles

Colorado Replaces Landmark AI Act: An Overview of the New SB 26-189 Framework

May 26, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

IPR and PGR Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in March and April 2026

May 26, 2026

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP