Navigate the USPTO's 2025 rule changes with expert tips for efficient trademark filings, avoiding surcharges, and meeting heightened specimen standards.
Last Updated October 2025
The practice of trademark prosecution has always required precision, but the changes that took effect at the USPTO in January 2025 decisively changed how that precision is measured. The retirement of the long-familiar TEAS Plus and TEAS Standard filing options, the rollout of the new Trademark Center, the introduction of significant surcharges for incomplete or inefficient applications, and the continued tightening of specimen standards together mark a new era for practitioners.
Success in this environment now demands not only an understanding of the new rules, but also an intentional recalibration of workflows to avoid unnecessary cost and delay. This post walks through the USPTO’s 2025 rules, specimen standards, and offers concrete drafting tips, ID Manual strategies, specimen capture guidance, and workflow tweaks—so you can file cleanly, avoid surcharges, and keep matters on time and on budget.
For decades, practitioners relied on a two-track filing system—TEAS Plus (lower fees, stricter conditions) and TEAS Standard (greater flexibility, higher cost)—but as of January 18, 2025, both options have been retired. All new applications now proceed through a single Base Application in the USPTO’s Trademark Center, with saved TEAS drafts removed after the January 17 cutoff.
Trademark Center adds practical improvements (auto-save, draft storage, modernized interface), but the bigger shift is financial: the baseline filing fee is $350 per class, and new surcharges tie cost to completeness and drafting discipline.
If any of the items (1)–(19) under 37 C.F.R. § 2.22(a) are missing—such as applicant identity or citizenship, verified statements, translations/transliterations where applicable, or a proper drawing—the USPTO assesses an “Insufficient Information” fee of $100 per class. The 20th item under § 2.22(a)(20), requiring use of the ID Manual to identify goods/services in the electronic form, is enforced separately via the $200 per-class “Free-Form Text ID” fee (Exam Guide 1-25).
Free-form identifications that exceed 1,000 characters incur an additional $200 surcharge per 1,000-character block per class, and that count includes both ID Manual entries and any free-form text added for that class. The surcharge only triggers if free-form language is used and the total length exceeds the 1,000-character limit (USPTO Fee Schedule).
Consolidating the forms, modernizing the workflow, and tying cost to quality all push in the same direction: do it right the first time, protect the register, and—most importantly for clients—control spend through careful front-end preparation.
Fee-Smart Drafting: Efficiency Incentivized, Inefficiency Penalized
The USPTO’s 2025 fee overhaul has done more than raise prices—it has redefined efficiency as a billable skill. Each stage of the application process now carries a tangible financial consequence. Complete, precise filings proceed at the $350 per-class baseline; those with omissions, vague identifications, or bloated descriptions trigger surcharges that clients feel directly.
To stay competitive, firms must shift from reactive corrections to proactive, fee-smart drafting—front-loading diligence, improving client collaboration, and making strategic use of the ID Manual as a standard, not a suggestion.
Conduct a Pre-Filing Compliance Audit
Before submitting an application, confirm that all nineteen required data elements are captured and verified with the client. These include fundamentals—applicant information, mark depiction, disclaimers, and translations—as well as nuanced details such as entity type, correspondence preferences, and foreign priority claims. The USPTO assesses a $100 per-class Insufficient Information fee if any required element (1)–(19) under 37 C.F.R. § 2.22(a) is missing; the 20th item, ID Manual usage, is covered by the separate $200 free-form fee.
To minimize the likelihood of insufficient information:
This level of upfront diligence not only eliminates avoidable surcharges but also enhances client satisfaction by delivering faster filings, fewer corrections, and more predictable billing.
Treat the ID Manual as Default, Not Secondary
The Trademark ID Manual is no longer a soft reference—it is the USPTO’s primary standard for acceptable goods and services identifications. Applications that use free-form descriptions outside the Manual now incur a $200 per-class surcharge and are more likely to face examiner pushback under the 2025 fee structure. To work efficiently, attorneys should treat the ID Manual as the starting point, not an afterthought.
How to Search the ID Manual Strategically
The Trademark ID Manual is now the USPTO’s definitive source for acceptable identifications. Applications using free-form descriptions face a $200 per-class fee and closer examiner scrutiny. The Manual must be your first stop, not your fallback.
Use the ID Manual’s built-in filters (Class, Status, etc.), its “Fuzzy” option, and broad-to-narrow keyword strategies to find acceptable entries.
For official guidance, see the USPTO’s help page, “Searching the Trademark ID Manual”, or Alt Legal’s explainer, “Everything You Never Knew You Needed to Know About the Trademark ID Manual”.
Gaps remain in areas like AI services, digital goods (e.g., NFTs or virtual apparel), and hybrid tech offerings. When no exact match exists:
Submitting a well-drafted suggestion not only resolves a current client need but also helps shape future practice. According to Alt Legal’s 2025 overview, firms that make routine suggestions have found examiners more receptive to nuanced language in later filings.
Mind the Word Count
The USPTO assesses a $200 surcharge per additional 1,000 characters per class when a description uses free-form language exceeding 1,000 characters. The total count includes both ID Manual entries and free-form text for that class. Draft succinctly and precisely—over-explaining can get expensive. Where lengthy identifications are unavoidable, evaluate whether separate applications are more economical.
Draft succinctly and purposefully: focus on functional clarity rather than exhaustive detail. When a client insists on a long list of products or services, evaluate whether splitting the portfolio across multiple applications is more economical than paying compounding length surcharges. Clear, concise drafting signals professionalism to both clients and examiners.
Integrate Training and Internal Knowledge Sharing
The USPTO’s 2025 procedural and fee updates have introduced a new learning curve for trademark teams. Junior associates and paralegals often prepare initial drafts, yet without proper training, even small oversights—such as missing required data fields or misusing free-form identifications—can trigger the new surcharges or office actions. The most successful firms are treating these changes as a chance to formalize team knowledge and standardize practice quality.
Their Trademark Basics Webcast Series is one example of on-demand training modules for trademark procurement, strategy, and prosecution.
Recommended practice: Require new attorneys and paralegals to complete key INTA modules early in their tenure, and track completion across your team.
When firms invest in structured learning and information-sharing systems, they not only lower the risk of surcharges and refusals but also signal professionalism and consistency to clients. In a regulatory environment that increasingly ties cost to quality, well-trained teams are both more compliant and more profitable.
If the 2025 filing and fee changes emphasize front-end discipline, the treatment of specimens underscores the need for rigor on the back end. The USPTO has for years distinguished between “mere advertising” and genuine “use in commerce,” but recent examination practices show less tolerance for borderline submissions.
The Federal Circuit’s decision in In re Siny Corp., 920 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2019) remains the touchstone. There, the applicant submitted a webpage showing the mark CASALANA adjacent to product information for knitted fabrics. The absence of any purchasing mechanism — no “Add to Cart” button, no pricing, no ordering instructions — proved fatal. The examining attorney refused registration under TMEP §904.03(i)(C) (ordering information required), the TTAB affirmed, and the Federal Circuit agreed. The court held that mere advertising without the ability to purchase does not establish use in commerce. The application was lost, not because the mark lacked distinctiveness, but because the specimen failed to demonstrate actual commercial use.
This precedent has only grown more influential. In 2025, the USPTO is increasingly applying Siny’s logic to digital specimens. Web captures must show ordering information, pricing, or some purchase pathway. Mock-ups, decorative displays, or static advertisements are more likely than ever to be refused outright. The May 2025 update to the Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure, incorporating Exam Guide 1-25, reflects this emphasis on robust evidence of use.
The USPTO’s stricter stance on specimens means the margin for error has narrowed significantly. Examiners are looking for clear, contextual, and contemporaneous evidence of use in commerce — particularly in digital submissions. The takeaway for practitioners is simple: if a consumer couldn’t buy it or engage with it based on what your specimen shows, it’s not enough.
The Federal Circuit’s decision in In re Siny Corp., 920 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2019), remains the guiding example for how online specimens are evaluated. In Siny, the applicant sought to register CASALANA for knitted fabrics. The specimen — a webpage showing the mark and a brief product description — was refused because it lacked pricing, an “Add to Cart” button, or any way to order the goods. Both the TTAB and the Federal Circuit agreed with the examining attorney: advertising alone, without a clear path to purchase, is not use in commerce under TMEP §904.03(i)(C).
Attorneys should evaluate each specimen through this lens: does it show genuine commercial use? Does the webpage include pricing or an ordering mechanism? Is the mark unmistakably tied to the goods or services being offered? If the answer is no, the specimen is vulnerable to refusal.
What Works
What Fails
What Works
What Fails
Web content evolves quickly. A webpage that met USPTO standards at the time of filing might look different by the time an examining attorney reviews it. Firms should archive multiple, date-stamped versions of each specimen and regularly monitor client websites for changes that could undermine previously filed evidence. Maintaining this “chain of use” documentation can be invaluable if a specimen’s validity is ever challenged.
The USPTO’s 2025 changes have elevated the stakes for quality and procedural precision. Every missed requirement or weak specimen can now translate directly into new surcharges, refusals, or client frustration. Page Vault is built to help attorneys not only comply with these heightened standards, but to do so efficiently and defensibly.
In short, Page Vault turns what could be a liability under the USPTO’s stricter 2025 regime into an operational advantage. Attorneys can file with confidence that their evidence will withstand scrutiny, while maintaining efficiency and cost predictability for clients.
The 2025 rule changes represent more than an administrative update; they mark a philosophical shift. By tying costs directly to practitioner diligence and by holding specimens to a heightened evidentiary bar, the USPTO is signaling that trademark prosecution must be practiced with greater precision and accountability. For attorneys, the mandate is clear: adapt workflows to the new regime, invest in processes that eliminate errors and inefficiencies, and leverage tools that provide defensible, examiner-ready evidence. Those who do will not only protect their clients’ marks more effectively, but also preserve the efficiency and cost control that are critical in today’s competitive legal marketplace.
👉 Want to see how Page Vault helps trademark teams? Schedule a demo and learn how we streamline specimen capture and documentation—so you can focus on strategy, not technicalities.