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.

From TEAS [Trademark Electronic Application System] to the Trademark Center

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 misinformation: 

• Build structured intake systems. Develop standardized digital questionnaires or client-facing forms that capture every required data point in a single step. The International Trademark Association (INTA) recommends creating uniform templates to ensure consistency across practitioners and reduce clerical errors. Collecting this information early avoids repetitive follow-ups, accelerates turnaround times, and prevents inadvertent billing increases.
• Prioritize comprehensive client communication. An early, detailed intake meeting establishes a strong foundation. Discuss the client’s business lines, marketing channels, and geographic scope of use, and review all relevant websites and social platforms. Guidance from World Trademark Review underscores that deeper initial discovery significantly reduces office actions related to inaccurate or incomplete applications.
• Build a strong first iteration. Before drafting, attorneys should research the client’s prior filings, review competitor marks, and identify potential conflicts or refusals through the Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS). Reviewing the client’s website and product pages ensures that the identification of goods and services aligns with real-world use—minimizing costly post-filing amendments.

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 Effectively

Use the ID Manual’s built-in filters (Class, Status, etc.), its “Fuzzy” option, and broad-to-narrow keyword strategies to find acceptable entries.

• Start broad, then refine. A search for “software” yields entries across Classes 9, 35, 41, and 42. Narrowing to “downloadable software” returns Class 9, while “software as a service” isolates Class 42.
• Use contextual phrasing. Searching “AI software” or “machine learning software” narrows to Class 42 entries covering SaaS, development, and data analytics.
• Filter by Class and Status. If you know the likely class, restrict results to that class and display only “Active” 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”.

When No Entry Fits

Gaps remain in areas like AI services, digital goods (e.g., NFTs or virtual apparel), and hybrid tech offerings. When no exact match exists:

• Choose the closest acceptable entry that covers the good or service’s core function.
• Propose a new entry using the USPTO’s ID Manual Suggestion Form (up to three per submission).
• Expect periodic updates after internal review; the USPTO notes that accepted suggestions are incorporated “as appropriate” during scheduled Manual updates.

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.

• Host focused training sessions. Develop short, recurring workshops that reinforce the essentials:
  • Navigating and searching the Trademark ID Manual effectively.
    
  • Understanding the new fee structure under Exam Guide 1-25 (USPTO), including how “Insufficient Information” and “Free-Form Text ID” penalties are assessed.
  • Recognizing what qualifies as an acceptable specimen under TMEP §904.03.
  • Evaluating online specimens for compliance with In re Siny Corp., ensuring true “use in commerce.” The USPTO’s free Trademark Basics Boot Camp and Trademark Webinar Series make excellent internal training resources.
• Create internal best-practice guides.
  Use your firm’s prior successful filings as teaching examples. Compare accepted and refused identifications or specimens to illustrate what examiners are currently flagging. Encourage attorneys to annotate filings with reasoning behind classification choices or specimen selection—turning everyday work into a living training tool.
  • An internal “Specimen Sufficiency Checklist” could draw from USPTO’s Acceptable Specimens Guidance and include confirmation that web specimens show purchasing functionality, URLs, and timestamps.
  • An “ID Manual Drafting Guide” might summarize commonly used classes and acceptable phrasing for the firm’s recurring industries (e.g., Class 42 for SaaS platforms, Class 35 for consulting, Class 9 for downloadable software)
    
• INTA CLE / Webinars
  The International Trademark Association (INTA) offers CLE/CPD credit for most of its educational events, including webcasts and conference programs. International Trademark Association
  • 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.
• Foster internal knowledge sharing.
  Hold monthly “prosecution roundtables” where team members discuss recent office actions or refusals, particularly those related to the new 2025 standards. Reviewing examiner comments collectively helps identify evolving patterns—such as shifts in how the USPTO interprets emerging technology or descriptive marks—and ensures that the next filing benefits from those insights.

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.

Specimens Under Heightened Scrutiny

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.

What Works Now: Specimen Submission Guidance for 2025

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.

Apply the “Siny Test” to Every Specimen

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.

For Goods: What Works vs. What Fails

What Works

• E-commerce webpages  showing the mark next to the product image with pricing and purchasing functionality.
  • Example: A screenshot reading “CASALANA™ Knit Blanket – $89.00 – Add to Cart,” captured with full URL and access date.
  • Meets the USPTO’s online specimen standards under TMEP §904.03(i)(C).
    
• Labels, tags, or packaging directly affixed to goods.
  • Example: A photo showing the mark “SUNFLOWER & CO.” printed on a candle’s packaging.
  • Acceptable under TMEP §904.03(a).
• Point-of-sale displays or product photographs showing the goods with the mark visible at the place of sale (e.g., shelf signage, trade show booths).

What Fails

• Advertising-only webpages — product descriptions without pricing, order forms, or “Buy Now” buttons.
  
• Mock-ups or digitally altered images that show the mark superimposed onto a product rendering.
• Catalogs or promotional flyers that do not offer a means of purchasing the goods.
  
• Ornamental use — decorative placement on apparel that doesn’t function as a source identifier (USPTO Ornamental Refusal Guidance).

For Services: What Works vs. What Fails

What Works

• Service webpages or brochures showing the mark in direct connection with the offering, along with a call-to-action (CTA) or contact mechanism.
  • Example: A consulting firm’s site displaying “STRATEGIX® — Business Strategy & Analytics Consulting” alongside a “Schedule Consultation” button or contact form.
    
  • Meets standards under TMEP §1301.04(h)(iv)(C) (web pages for services).
• Invoices or reports displaying the mark and identifying the services rendered (e.g., “SKYBRIDGE® Legal Research Services — March 2025”).

What Fails

• “Coming soon” webpages or teaser ads with no description of actual services provided.
  
• Generic branding pages that show a logo but make no mention of the underlying service.
• Business cards or letterhead displaying the mark without identifying the specific services performed.
  

Avoid Common Pitfalls

• Low-evidence or unclear images. Illegible photographs, screenshots cropped too tightly, or files lacking context routinely trigger refusal. Examiners must see both the mark and its commercial context.
  
• Omitting URLs and access dates. For digital specimens, always capture the full URL and date of access (USPTO Specimen Guidance). Submissions without these data points risk rejection as unverifiable.
• Prototypes and pre-launch materials. Mock-ups or prototypes do not show use in commerce, even if they display the mark. The product or service must be actively offered or sold at the time of filing.

Establish Version Control and Ongoing Monitoring

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.

How Page Vault Strengthens Compliance and Efficiency

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.

• USPTO-Ready Web Based Specimens 
  • Page Vault captures complete webpages as full-page, searchable PDFs.
  • Each capture meets USPTO requirements including Full URL and access date.
  • Attorneys can insert specimens directly into applications, Office Action responses, or TTAB filings without time-consuming reformatting. This also allows for pinpoint citation within filings — critical for clear examiner review

• Efficient Workflow Integration
  
  • Avoids the wasted time and cost of rejected screenshots or repeated specimen submissions.
    
    
  • Reduces staff training overhead, since the output is standardized and reliable every time.
  • Streamlines collaboration: captures can be organized, tagged, and stored consistently for future use in renewals, TTAB disputes, or enforcement actions.

• Client Confidence and Cost Control
  
  • By mitigating avoidable refusals and surcharges, Page Vault protects client budgets from unexpected fees under the 2025 structure.
  • Demonstrating the use of legal-grade capture tools also reassures clients that their evidence strategy meets the highest standard of defensibility.
    
    

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.

Conclusion

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.