# Trademark Your Logo With the USPTO: What It Actually Costs and How to Lock the IP Down

The USPTO charges $350 per class to file. Only about a third of applications clear examination without an office action. Here is the real cost and the real process.

Author: J.A. Watte
Published: July 31, 2026
Source: https://jwatte.com/blog/how-to-trademark-a-logo-uspto-cost/

---


You already own something. The moment you start using a logo in business, you have common-law trademark rights in the area where customers actually see it. Those rights are real, and they are also thin. They stop at the edge of your market, they are expensive to prove, and they do nothing when somebody in the next state files first and gets a registration certificate with your design on it.

Federal registration is what converts a thin claim into a hard one. What follows is what to check before you spend a dollar, the exact fees as of today, the decisions that quietly triple your cost, the odds of getting through without a fight, and the layers of protection that sit around the trademark itself.

Everything below is priced from the live USPTO fee schedule, last revised on 1 July 2026. Nothing here is legal advice, and for anything with real money behind it you want a trademark attorney. You should just walk into that conversation already knowing what the meter looks like.

## What registration actually buys you

The USPTO keeps two registers, and the difference matters. The Principal Register is the one people mean when they say "trademarked." Per the Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure at section 801.02(a), a Principal registration gives you:

- **Constructive notice** of your ownership claim nationwide (15 U.S.C. 1072), so nobody later gets to claim they had never heard of you.
- **A legal presumption** that you own the mark and have the exclusive right to use it for your goods or services (15 U.S.C. 1057(b) and 1115(a)). In a dispute, that flips who has to prove what.
- **A constructive use date** that reaches back to your application filing date (15 U.S.C. 1057(c)), not the date the certificate finally issues.
- **The right to sue in federal court** (15 U.S.C. 1121).
- **The right to record with U.S. Customs** to block infringing imports (15 U.S.C. 1124).
- **A path to incontestability** after five years (15 U.S.C. 1065).
- **A basis for filing abroad.**

The Supplemental Register is the consolation prize. It exists for marks that are not distinctive enough for the Principal Register yet but are capable of becoming distinctive. Under 15 U.S.C. 1094, Supplemental registrations are cut off from most of that list: no ownership presumption, no constructive use date, no constructive notice, no incontestability, and no Customs recordation. You get a registration number, the right to use the ® symbol, and a mark that shows up in other people's clearance searches. That last part is worth more than people think, but do not confuse it with the real thing.

## What a trademark does not cover

This trips up almost everyone with a logo. A trademark protects your logo **as a source identifier for specific goods and services**. It does not protect the artwork as artwork. The USPTO says this directly: you do not have rights to the design in general, only to how it is used with your specific goods or services.

That leaves a gap, and copyright fills part of it. Copyright protects the creative expression in the drawing itself, independent of what you sell. The two systems are formally blind to each other. Copyright Office Compendium section 310.11 says the existence of a design patent or trademark registration "is irrelevant" to whether a work is copyrightable, and 37 CFR 202.10(b) says a copyright registration "does not give the claimant rights available by trademark registrations."

So the honest framing is three layers, and most small businesses need one and a half of them:

| Layer | Protects | Costs | Term |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trademark | The logo as a brand signal, for your goods and services | $350 per class + surcharges | Indefinite, if you keep filing |
| Copyright | The original artwork itself, against copying | $45 or $65 flat | Life of author + 70 years |
| Design patent | Ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture | $520 to $2,600 in fees alone | 15 years from grant |

Trademark is the one that matters commercially. Copyright is cheap enough that skipping it is usually a mistake. Design patents are almost never the right tool for a logo, for reasons covered further down.

## Step 1: clear the mark before you spend anything

The single most expensive mistake in this whole process is filing on a mark that was never available. You lose the fee, you lose the months, and if you have been trading under it you may also lose the brand.

TESS is gone. The USPTO retired the Trademark Electronic Search System on 30 November 2023 and replaced it with a cloud system called simply **Trademark Search**, at [tmsearch.uspto.gov](https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/). It has a basic and an advanced interface, real search syntax, and an image search that lets you upload a design and find visually similar marks. That image search is the one people skip and the one that matters most for a logo.

The free official tools worth knowing:

- **Trademark Search** for the register itself.
- **The Trademark ID Manual** for pre-approved descriptions of goods and services. This one is also a money lever, covered below.
- **The Design Search Code Manual** for the six-digit codes the USPTO assigns to design elements. If your logo has a bird in it, examiners will find other birds by code, not by eye. Search the codes your design would be assigned.
- **TSDR** (Trademark Status and Document Retrieval) for the full file history of any application, including every office action the examiner issued. Reading the file wrapper of a similar mark that got refused is the cheapest legal education available.
- **TTABVUE** for Trademark Trial and Appeal Board proceedings, so you can see who opposes what.

And here is the part the USPTO admits itself: searching the federal register is not a clearance search. On its own page about hiring an attorney, the office describes clearance as covering federal registrations, **state** trademark databases, and "other sources for common law rights unregistered trademarks." Section 2(d) of the Lanham Act blocks registration based on a mark "previously used in the United States by another and not abandoned," registered or not. The examining attorney only searches USPTO records. An unregistered senior user who never shows up in examination can still oppose your application later, or sue you.

Practically, that means also checking state business-entity registries, domain registrations, app stores, and plain web search for the same name in your industry. The [Trademark Pre-Screen](/tools/trademark-prescreen/) tool on this site structures that pass and deep-links each database, and the [State Business Entity Lookup](/tools/state-business-lookup/) covers all fifty Secretary of State searches. Do that work first, then pay an attorney to look at what you found rather than paying them to do the first pass.

## Step 2: decide what you are actually filing

For a logo, this is the decision that determines what you own, and it is made before you touch the fee schedule.

The USPTO calls the picture of your mark a **drawing**, and there are two kinds:

- **Standard character drawing.** Text only, no design, no particular font, size, or color. NIKE. TARGET. VW.
- **Special form drawing.** The mark with stylization, design, graphics, or color. This is what a logo is.

A standard character registration is broader, because it covers the wording itself regardless of how you display it. TMEP 1207.01(c)(iii) puts it plainly: the owner of a standard character registration "is not limited to any particular depiction," the rights reside in the wording rather than in any display of it, and the registrant is entitled to all depictions regardless of font, size, or color. The consequence that matters commercially is that **a competitor cannot escape your standard character registration by stylizing their version.** A special form registration covers only the specific appearance you filed.

You also cannot economize by cramming both into one application. TMEP 807.01: an application must be limited to only one mark. Each variation is its own filing and its own per-class fee.

The USPTO's own guidance for a logo containing words is to file **separate applications**: one standard character application for the words, one special form for the stylized wording, one for the design element alone, and one for the combined design plus words. That is four filings, which at $350 per class each is $1,400 for a single class. Almost nobody does that.

The budget version: **if your logo contains your business name, file the standard character word mark first.** The name is what customers type, say, and search. It is what an infringer copies. The stylized treatment is the thing most likely to change in a rebrand. If you can only afford one filing, protect the words.

To be fair about it, the USPTO does not issue that as a directive. Its drawings page says the choice depends on which components you use most, which matter most to your brand identity, and your budget. The reasoning above is why the word mark usually wins that test, not an agency instruction.

One myth to discard while you are here. A lot of writing on this claims that in a word-plus-design composite mark, the words automatically dominate. They do not. TMEP 1207.01(c)(ii), quoting *In re Electrolyte Laboratories*, 913 F.2d 930 (Fed. Cir. 1990), says there is no general rule as to whether letters or designs will dominate, and that marks must be compared case by case in their entireties. A composite registration is a less predictable asset than a word mark. It is not simply "the words with extra steps."

File the design as a second application when you can, and file it in **black and white with no color claim**. That is the broader filing, because a black-and-white drawing covers the design in any color. Claiming color narrows you to that exact palette and requires a color drawing, a color claim naming every color, and a statement of where each one appears. Change your brand colors later and a color-claimed registration stops matching what you use.

Color by itself can be a trademark, but it is generally not inherently distinctive. TMEP 1202.05 puts it as "color marks generally are not inherently distinctive," and for a **single** color on goods or packaging the rule is absolute: it reaches the Principal Register only by proving acquired distinctiveness under Section 2(f). That follows from *Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co.*, 514 U.S. 159 (1995) and *Wal-Mart Stores v. Samara Brothers*, 529 U.S. 205 (2000).

There is a narrow exception worth knowing if your brand identity is a color scheme rather than one color. Since *In re Forney Industries*, 955 F.3d 940 (Fed. Cir. 2020), a **multi-color** mark applied to product packaging can be inherently distinctive, so the "never" you will read on older pages is out of date. Either way, a color claim is a project for a company with a marketing budget and survey money, not a startup.

## Step 3: classes, and the surcharge nobody sees coming

Trademarks are registered per class of goods or services under the Nice Classification. There are 45 classes: goods in 1 through 34, services in 35 through 45. Applications filed on or after 1 January 2026 use the 13th edition, version 2026 of the classification, so anything you read that references the 12th edition is out of date.

Every additional class multiplies the fee, because 37 CFR 2.22(a)(8) makes a filing fee for each class a base requirement. The base application fee is **$350 per class**, filed electronically, effective 18 January 2025 and unchanged since.

One thing worth understanding before you agonize over class numbers: classification is administrative. Section 30 of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. 1112, says classification exists "for convenience of Patent and Trademark Office administration, but not to limit or extend the applicant's or registrant's rights." **The identification wording controls your scope, not the class number.**

Then there are the surcharges, and this is where self-filers get hurt. The January 2025 restructure eliminated the old TEAS Plus and TEAS Standard tiers and replaced them with one base fee plus penalties for making the examiner work:

- **$200 per class** if you write your own free-form description of goods and services instead of picking entries from the Trademark ID Manual (37 CFR 2.6(a)(1)(v), triggered by failing 37 CFR 2.22(a)(20)).
- **$100 per class** if the application is missing required information, measured against the completeness requirements in 37 CFR 2.22(a).
- **$200 per affected class** for each additional group of 1,000 characters beyond the first 1,000.

Read that first one again, because it is the single most actionable cost lever in this entire post. Pick your goods and services from the [Trademark ID Manual](https://idm-tmng.uspto.gov/) and the $200 per class surcharge never applies. There is a related nuance: under 37 CFR 2.22(d), the per-1,000-character surcharge only triggers if you already failed the ID Manual requirement. Use the ID Manual and you cannot incur it at all, no matter how long your list.

Four things about that surcharge that almost nobody gets right:

1. **One free-form entry contaminates the entire application.** Use custom text anywhere and the $200 is charged for **every class**, including classes where you used nothing but ID Manual entries. The TMEP's own suggested workaround is to file a separate application for the clean classes. On a three-class filing, one lazy description costs $600, not $200.
2. **Copying ID Manual wording into the free-form box does not save you.** The fee attaches to the input method, not to the words. You have to select the entry inside the electronic form.
3. **It can be charged after you file.** If you misuse an ID Manual fill-in-the-blank entry by leaving it empty, putting something inappropriate in it, or bolting on unrelated goods, the examiner can impose the surcharge during examination, and you owe it even if you delete the bad wording afterwards.
4. **The character count includes everything.** Your ID Manual entries, punctuation, spaces, and the separator characters the filing system inserts automatically all count towards the 1,000. Mixing a wordy custom description with ID Manual picks in one class can tip you over and add another $200.

The arithmetic, straight off the fee schedule:

| Classes | ID Manual only | With any free-form entry |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | $350 | $550 |
| 2 | $700 | $1,100 |
| 3 | $1,050 | $1,650 |

A self-filer who writes their own description and also misses a required field pays $650 per class instead of $350.

There is one more reason to care, beyond money. USPTO dashboard data for fiscal year 2026 through 30 June 2026 shows base applications approved on first action **36.03%** of the time. Base applications carrying surcharges were approved on first action **10.56%** of the time. Under the old system the same pattern was starker: TEAS Plus filings, which required ID Manual entries, cleared first action 44.9% of the time against 13.1% for TEAS Standard. A conforming filing roughly triples your odds of never seeing an office action.

### Get the list right the first time

Under 37 CFR 2.71(a), an identification can be **narrowed but never broadened** after filing. That is a one-way door. You can delete goods later; you cannot add them. If you file too narrow, fixing it means a whole new application at a whole new per-class fee.

That cuts against the instinct to hedge, but pair it with the audit section further down before you overcorrect. The right target is an honest description of what you sell or are genuinely about to sell. The USPTO wants specificity in plain language: to specify "means to name in an explicit manner," using common terminology, and it warns that technical or esoteric language and long descriptions of characteristics are not appropriate. Vague wording can cost you a filing date.

## The full fee table

All figures below are electronic filing, from the USPTO fee schedule current as of 1 July 2026. Note carefully which are per class and which are flat, because that distinction is the most commonly botched thing in secondary write-ups.

**Getting registered**

| Item | Fee | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Base application (Sections 1 and 44) | $350 | Per class |
| Free-form goods/services surcharge | $200 | Per class |
| Insufficient information surcharge | $100 | Per class |
| Each extra 1,000 characters of free-form text | $200 | Per affected class |
| Section 66(a) application via Madrid | $600 | Per class, since 18 February 2025 |
| Extension of time to respond to an office action | $125 | Flat, per request |
| Amendment to Allege Use | $150 | Per class |
| Statement of Use | $150 | Per class |
| Six-month extension to file a Statement of Use | $125 | Per class |
| Petition to revive an abandoned application | $250 | Flat |
| Petition to the Director | $400 | Flat |
| Request to divide an application | $100 | Per new application created |

**Staying registered**

| Item | Fee | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Section 8 declaration of continued use | $325 | Per class |
| Section 9 renewal | $325 | Per class |
| Combined Section 8 and 9 (the ten-year filing) | $650 | Per class |
| Section 15 incontestability declaration | $250 | Per class |
| Combined Section 8 and 15 | $575 | Per class |
| Grace period surcharge (Section 8, 9, or 71) | $100 | Per class, each |
| Section 8 or 9 deficiency fee | $100 | Flat |
| Recording an assignment | $40 first mark, $25 each additional | Per document |

**When somebody fights you**

| Item | Fee | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Notice of opposition | $600 | Per class |
| Petition to cancel | $600 | Per class |
| First 30-day extension of time to oppose | $0 | Free |
| 90-day or second 60-day extension to oppose | $200 | Flat, per request |
| Final 60-day extension to oppose | $400 | Flat, per request |
| Ex parte appeal to the TTAB | $225 | Per class |
| Appeal brief | $200 | Per class |
| Request for oral hearing | $500 | Per proceeding |
| Letter of protest | $150 | Flat |
| Petition for expungement or reexamination | $400 | Per class |

Three traps in that set. The $125 extension of time to respond to an office action is **flat per request**, while the $125 six-month extension to file a Statement of Use is **per class**. Same dollar figure, different basis. The extension-of-time-to-oppose fees are per request, not per class, despite what a lot of summaries say. And the Section 66(a) fee is the one piece of the 2025 restructure that did not land on 18 January: it rose from $500 to $600 per class on **18 February 2025**, because WIPO regulations require three months' notice.

Paper filing exists on the schedule but essentially not in reality. Trademark filings have been electronic-only since 15 February 2020, the paper base application is $850 per class against $350 electronic, and filing on paper generally also requires a petition to the Director under 37 CFR 2.147 at the $500 paper petition rate. Assume electronic.

## Step 4: are you using the mark yet?

Your filing basis determines what you have to prove and when.

**Section 1(a), use in commerce.** You are already selling under the mark, in interstate commerce, for every good and service you list. You give a date of first use anywhere, a date of first use in commerce, one specimen per class, and a signed declaration. If everything clears, you get a registration certificate.

**Section 1(b), intent to use.** You have a bona fide intention to use the mark but have not started. This is the right basis if you are still building. It is a filing basis only, not a registration basis. After the mark clears examination and publication, the USPTO issues a **notice of allowance**, and you then have six months to file a Statement of Use at $150 per class, or buy time with six-month extensions at $125 per class. You can stretch that to a maximum of 36 months from the notice of allowance, which is five extension requests, or $625 per class in extension fees if you use them all.

The reason to take 1(b) seriously: your constructive use date reaches back to the filing date. Filing early on intent locks your place in line while you finish building the product.

Picking the basis honestly matters, but the risk is widely misdescribed in both directions.

The bar for "use in commerce" is lower than most business owners assume. Section 45 of the Act defines it as bona fide use in the ordinary course of trade, not use made merely to reserve a right, and "commerce" means all commerce Congress may regulate. Intrastate activity counts if in the aggregate it has a direct effect on interstate commerce. In *Christian Faith Fellowship Church v. Adidas AG*, 841 F.3d 986 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the sale of **two hats** to an out-of-state customer was held to be use in commerce. You do not need a national distribution network. You do need actual sales.

If you file 1(a) too early, it is usually not fatal during examination. You cannot fix it by moving your first-use date past the filing date, because 37 CFR 2.71(c)(1) forbids that. But TMEP 806.03(c) lets you substitute Section 1(b) and **keep your original filing date**, as long as you submit a verified statement of bona fide intent as of that date. Most premature filings die as a basis problem, not a scandal.

The genuine exposure is later, and it is worth being precise because this point is routinely overstated. Under 15 U.S.C. 1064(3), a petition to cancel on the ground that a registration was obtained fraudulently can be filed **at any time**, with no five-year cutoff. But the standard is high: *In re Bose Corp.*, 580 F.3d 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2009) held that fraud cannot rest on a finding that a party merely "knew or should have known" it was not using the mark on everything listed, overruling the earlier and much looser standard. Fraud requires a knowing, material misrepresentation made with intent to deceive, pleaded with particularity.

So the practical rule is not "you will be prosecuted for optimism." It is that a registration built on goods you never sold is a registration somebody can attack for as long as it exists, and it is the same list that will fail a post-registration audit. Both problems have the same fix: describe what you actually sell.

There are also foreign bases. **Section 44(d)** gives you a priority date from a foreign application filed in the last six months, but it is not a basis for registration by itself. **Section 44(e)** registers off a live foreign registration with no specimen required. **Section 66(a)** is an incoming Madrid extension of protection, and it comes with its own rules: it cannot be amended to any other basis, it cannot use the Supplemental Register, and it gets six months to respond to office actions with no extension available.

## What actually happens, and how long it takes

Current USPTO pendency, measured as of 30 June 2026:

- **Filing to first office action: 4.2 months** on average, against a USPTO target of 5.0.
- **Total pendency to registration or abandonment: 9.8 months** on average, against a target of 11.0.

Those are much better than the backlog years, and better than the "six to nine months" language still sitting on some USPTO timeline pages. The dashboard figures carry an explicit measurement date, so they are the ones to plan against.

The sequence:

1. **File** in [Trademark Center](https://trademarkcenter.uspto.gov/). This is where new applications go now. TEAS is being retired in stages, and although some downstream forms still live there, initial applications moved to Trademark Center on 18 January 2025.
2. **Verify your identity.** This is mandatory for USPTO.gov account holders who file trademarks, and has been since 6 August 2022. You do it through ID.me, either self-service with a selfie or a video call, usually under fifteen minutes. The paper alternative is a notarized form and two to three weeks. Do this before you are up against a deadline. If you are represented by a US-licensed attorney, you generally do not need to verify separately in order to sign what they send you.
3. **Wait for examination.** About four months.
4. **Respond to any office action** within three months, extendable once by three more for $125.
5. **Publication** in the Trademark Official Gazette, roughly a month after the examiner approves.
6. **Thirty-day opposition window.** Anyone who thinks they would be harmed can oppose. They can extend that window, but never past 180 days from publication.
7. **Registration** about three months after publication for a 1(a) filing, or a **notice of allowance** about two months after publication for a 1(b), which starts the Statement of Use clock.

One structural note on foreign applicants: since 3 August 2019 anyone domiciled outside the United States must be represented by a US-licensed attorney to file or prosecute a trademark here, and that attorney is the only practitioner the USPTO will correspond with. Canadian applicants are covered by the rule too, with some narrow provisions for reciprocally recognized Canadian trademark practitioners acting alongside the required US attorney. Every filer, foreign or domestic, must also give a domicile address, because domicile is what triggers the rule.

## The office action, and the odds

Only about a third of applications are approved on first action, so the rest draw an office action. That is the normal path, not a disaster. What matters is that the clock changed and a lot of people have not noticed.

Under the Trademark Modernization Act, for office actions issued on or after **3 December 2022**, the response deadline for Section 1 and Section 44 applications is **three months**, not six. You may buy one three-month extension for $125, taking you to six months total, but you have to request it **before the three months run out** and before you file any response. Examining attorneys have no discretion here. Miss it and the application goes abandoned. For post-registration office actions the same three-month deadline took effect 7 October 2023. Madrid Section 66(a) applicants are the exception: six months, no extension.

If it does go abandoned, a petition to revive costs $250 and requires showing the delay was unintentional. Do not plan around that.

## Why applications get refused

**Section 2(d), likelihood of confusion.** The controlling framework is *In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.*, 476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973), which lists thirteen factors. TMEP 1207.01 names two as the key considerations in any determination: how similar the marks are in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression, and how related the goods or services are as described in the application and the cited registration. Four more get weighed when there is evidence in the record: trade channels, purchasing conditions and buyer sophistication, the number of similar marks already in use, and any consent agreement with the owner of the cited mark.

That last one is worth remembering. A negotiated consent agreement is an enumerated factor the examiner must weigh, and it is sometimes cheaper than abandoning a brand.

**Section 2(e), descriptiveness and the rest.** This is where a lot of small-business names die. Marks sit on a spectrum, and where yours lands determines whether you own anything:

- **Fanciful.** Invented words. PEPSI, KODAK, EXXON. Strongest.
- **Arbitrary.** Real words with no connection to the product. APPLE for computers. OLD CROW for whiskey.
- **Suggestive.** Requires imagination to connect to the product. COPPERTONE for suntan products. NOBURST for antifreeze. Still registrable on the Principal Register without extra proof.
- **Merely descriptive.** Describes an ingredient, quality, feature, function, or purpose. "Creamy" for yogurt. BED & BREAKFAST REGISTRY for lodging reservations. Refused on the Principal Register unless you prove acquired distinctiveness.
- **Generic.** The common name for the thing. "Bicycle" for bicycles. Never registrable on either register, ever, no matter how much you spend.

Fanciful, arbitrary, and suggestive marks are inherently distinctive and register without an argument. Everything below that line is a project.

The related refusals under 2(e): primarily geographically descriptive, primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive, deceptively misdescriptive, and primarily merely a surname. Naming your company after the town you are in or after yourself both walk straight into this.

**Section 2(f), acquired distinctiveness.** If your mark is descriptive, you can try to prove it has come to mean you. Under 15 U.S.C. 1052(f), five years of substantially exclusive and continuous use can serve as prima facie evidence. Three warnings. First, it is not automatic; the USPTO may demand more, and the Federal Circuit confirmed that in *In re Louisiana Fish Fry Products*, 797 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Second, TMEP 1212.05(a) applies a sliding scale: the more descriptive the term, the heavier your burden, and a bare statement of five years' use generally will not carry a highly descriptive mark. Third, and this is the one people regret, filing a 2(f) claim is a **concession** that the mark is not inherently distinctive. You are giving up the argument that it was suggestive all along.

**Failure to function.** This one hits logo and merchandise businesses specifically. A design used as decoration is not a trademark. TMEP guidance on ornamentality turns on size, location, dominance, and significance: a small discrete design on the breast or pocket of a shirt can create a trademark impression, while the same design blown up across the front is decoration. A slogan across a t-shirt is almost always just a slogan.

Widely used messages fail for the same reason. The USPTO has refused DRIVE SAFELY, THINK GREEN, I LOVE YOU on bracelets, and ONCE A MARINE, ALWAYS A MARINE on clothing, because consumers read them as messages, not as brands.

If you get an ornamental refusal, the USPTO lists five ways out: submit a different specimen showing non-ornamental use that existed as of your filing date, move to the Supplemental Register, claim acquired distinctiveness, show secondary source (the mark already identifies you for other goods), or amend to intent-to-use and try again later.

## Specimens, which is where clean applications go to die

A specimen is proof of actual use. The requirements differ by type, and the difference surprises people.

**For goods:** the product itself bearing the mark, labels and tags attached to it, packaging, point-of-sale displays, e-commerce product pages **that include purchase functionality**, or download screens for software. Advertising alone does not work for goods.

**For services:** advertising **does** work. Brochures, signage, menus, invoices, letterhead used in delivering the service, commercials, and web pages offering the services.

Two hard rules. Any web page specimen must include the **URL and the date accessed or printed**, or it is rejected outright. And mockups are fatal: a printer's proof, a digitally altered image, a rendering of packaging you have not made yet, or a draft website is not evidence of use.

The USPTO trains examiners to spot fakes, and its published red flags read like a list of things people do in Photoshop: the mark appearing to float above the product, product features disappearing near the mark, pixelation around the mark, the same product photo submitted with different marks on it, the mark appearing on goods known to be sold under someone else's brand, and crudely applied labels. When a specimen looks digitally created, the examiner must refuse **and** issue a request for information demanding proof of real use. It escalates fast. Photograph the actual product.

## The copyright layer, and the freelancer trap

**If a freelancer or agency designed your logo, you probably do not own it.**

Copyright vests in the person who created the work. For a commissioned logo, the "work made for hire" doctrine almost never applies. Under 17 U.S.C. 101, a commissioned work can only be work-for-hire if it falls into one of nine enumerated categories: contribution to a collective work, part of a motion picture or audiovisual work, translation, supplementary work, compilation, instructional text, test, answer material for a test, or atlas. A standalone logo fits none of them. The Copyright Office is explicit that all four conditions must be met and that if a work fails any of them, it is not a work made for hire.

Which means a contract that simply says "this is a work made for hire" does not transfer anything. A logo designed by an employee within the scope of employment **is** work-for-hire and the company owns it. A logo designed by a contractor is not.

What you need is a signed written **assignment**. 17 U.S.C. 204(a): a transfer of copyright ownership is not valid unless it is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed. An oral agreement does not do it. An invoice with "you own it" in the notes field does not do it. If you have a logo you paid a contractor for and no signed assignment, go get one now, while the relationship is still cordial and the price is still zero. That is the highest-value ten minutes in this entire post.

You can also record the assignment with the Copyright Office. The base fee is **$95 electronic or $125 on paper**, covering one work identified by one title or registration number, with $60 for each additional group beyond that. Recordation is optional, but it creates a public chain of title, which is what a future acquirer or lender will ask for.

**Registering the copyright.** As of today, the fees are flat, not per class:

- **Single Application, electronic: $45.** Only if it is one work, one author, one claimant, and not made for hire.
- **Standard Application, electronic: $65.** Everything else, including any work with multiple authors or a claimant who acquired rights by assignment.
- **Paper Form VA: $125.**
- **Group registration of two-dimensional artwork, electronic: $85.**

One timing note. On 14 July 2026 the Register of Copyrights submitted a new proposed fee schedule to Congress, which under 17 U.S.C. 708(b) may take effect 120 days later unless Congress blocks it. The proposal raises the Single Application to $55, the Standard to $85, paper to $185, and group 2D artwork to $130, an average increase of about 43%. As of publication those are proposals, not law, but if you are reading this later in 2026, check the current schedule.

Current Copyright Office processing time averages **4.1 months** across all claims for cases closed between 1 October 2025 and 31 March 2026. An online application with a digital deposit and no correspondence averages 3.6 months; with correspondence, 5.0. Paper runs 6.3 to 8.1 months. The office corresponded on 27% of claims. Those numbers are inflated by the appropriations lapse from 1 October to 12 November 2025.

**Why register early rather than when you have a problem.** Two reasons, and the second is the expensive one:

1. *Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com* (2019) held unanimously that you cannot file a US copyright infringement suit until the Copyright Office has actually **registered** the work. Not applied. Registered. With a four-month average, discovering an infringement and starting the paperwork then means four months of watching it happen.
2. Under 17 U.S.C. 412, statutory damages and attorney's fees are unavailable for infringement that began before your registration took effect, unless you registered within three months of first publication. Without statutory damages you are limited to proving actual damages, which for a logo is often close to unprovable. That single provision is the difference between a demand letter with teeth and a demand letter.

**What the Copyright Office will not register.** Under 37 CFR 202.1, words and short phrases, names, titles, slogans, familiar symbols or designs, mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring, and typeface as typeface are all excluded. A wordmark set in a nice font is not copyrightable. Compendium section 914.1 gives a refusal example of a monogram made of linked letters, refused because letters alone cannot be registered and the arrangement lacked sufficient creativity.

The threshold is the *Feist* standard: independently created, with at least a minimal degree of creativity. Most illustrated logos clear it. Most typographic logos do not. And a filing tip straight from the Office: when you describe your authorship, describe the pictorial or graphic elements and **avoid the words "logo," "logotype," "mark," "symbol," or "trade dress design."** Using them invites correspondence or refusal.

## Design patents: almost certainly not

For completeness, because people ask. A design patent under 35 U.S.C. 171 covers a "new, original, and ornamental design for an **article of manufacture**." That last phrase is the problem. MPEP 1504.01(a) states that a patentable design is inseparable from the object it is applied to and cannot exist alone as a scheme of surface ornamentation. A free-floating logo is not patentable subject matter.

The numbers make it worse. Government fees alone run $2,600 undiscounted, $1,040 small entity, or $520 micro entity, and that is before a patent attorney and a draftsman. First action pendency for design applications was about 14 months as of May 2026, with 62,166 applications waiting. The term is 15 years from grant with no renewals, while a trademark can live forever.

The realistic use cases are narrow: an app or software icon claimed as a display panel with a computer-generated icon, or a logo used as surface ornamentation on a physical product you actually manufacture. For a normal business logo, spend the money on the trademark.

## What it really costs once a lawyer is involved

Government fees are the small part, and honest data on the rest is hard to come by.

The one genuinely defensible number is the USPTO's own. In Paperwork Reduction Act notices published in June and July 2026, the office values attorney time in trademark matters at **$550 per hour**, taken from the 2025 AIPLA Report of the Economic Survey. For Trademark Trial and Appeal Board work it uses a blended **$342 per hour**, averaging that attorney rate with a $134 paralegal rate.

Apply those to the USPTO's own burden estimates and you get useful floors:

- The office estimates **18 hours** to prepare a notice of opposition or petition to cancel, and 21 hours for each inter partes submission after that. At $342 an hour, 18 hours is roughly **$6,156 in professional time just to get the opposition filed**, on top of $600 per class in government fees. A proceeding that actually goes to trial costs multiples of that.

Two things to be careful about. The USPTO's PRA estimate of 50 minutes for an office action response measures **form completion** for regulatory accounting, not the legal analysis. Do not read it as "an office action costs an hour of lawyer time." And the AIPLA survey's task-level trademark figures, which would give real medians for clearance searches and single-class filings, sit behind a $495 paywall. Anyone quoting AIPLA trademark numbers for free should be asked where they got them.

For attorney flat fees, the honest answer is that published prices for a clearance search plus a single-class filing run roughly **$500 to $2,500 in attorney fees** on top of the $350 per class government fee, with national firms commonly quoting higher. That range comes from law firms' own published price pages, not survey data, and it is self-selected toward firms that compete on advertised price. Treat it as a starting point for asking, not a benchmark.

**Filing services** occupy the middle. As a category they charge roughly $99 to $900 in service fees. Most quote that separately from the $350 per class you would pay the government anyway, though some bundle it, so read the quote carefully before you compare two of them. Some employ or supervise licensed attorneys and some do not. The USPTO's stated concern is structural rather than about any particular brand: companies not affiliated with a licensed US attorney cannot lawfully provide legal services. Two things to watch regardless of who you use: monitoring subscriptions that auto-renew (one common tier runs $249 a year), and the fact that a service which is not your attorney of record cannot respond to a substantive refusal on your behalf. That is exactly when you need someone.

**Free help exists and is underused.** The USPTO's [Law School Clinic Certification Program](https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/ip-policy/public-information-about-practitioners/law-school-clinic-1) runs at more than 70 law schools, where supervised students handle trademark matters pro bono for entrepreneurs and small businesses. Acceptance is at each clinic's discretion. For board proceedings, the [TTAB Pro Bono Clearinghouse](https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/inventors-and-entrepreneurs/ttab-pro-bono-clearinghouse-program), run through INTA, matches financially qualifying applicants with volunteer attorneys for clearance, prosecution, office action responses, and TTAB cases. Both require an application and proof of need. Both are real.

## The mail that looks official and is not

Once your application publishes, your name, address, mark, and deadlines are public data. Scam operations scrape it and mail you invoices.

They work because they use your own data. The USPTO describes the pattern: notices that look like invoices, quoting fees **higher** than the real ones, populated with your actual filing details, sometimes with official-looking letterhead and a gold foil seal, demanding payment in 24 to 72 hours. Names the USPTO has publicly documented include Trademark Compliance Center, Patent and Trademark Bureau, U.S. Trademark Protector, Trademark Registration and Monitoring Office, World Trademark Register, and TM-DB Register of Protected Trademarks.

This is prosecuted, not just complained about. Viktors Suhorukovs was sentenced to more than four years in federal prison and ordered to pay over $4.5 million in restitution after pleading guilty to four counts of mail fraud for running entities called "Patent and Trademark Office" and "Patent and Trademark Bureau."

How to never fall for it:

- **Real USPTO email ends in @uspto.gov.** Nothing else is the USPTO.
- **Every official communication, including any request for payment, is uploaded to TSDR.** If a notice is not in your TSDR file, it is not from the government. Check TSDR for your real deadlines rather than trusting anything that arrives in the post.
- **Read the fine print.** These notices almost always disclose in small type that the sender is not a federal agency.
- **The real agency** identifies itself as the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, Virginia 22313.
- **Report it** to TMScams@uspto.gov and to the FTC at reportfraud.ftc.gov.

## Keeping the registration alive

A trademark can last forever, and it dies on a schedule if you ignore it. The calendar, from 15 U.S.C. 1058 and 1059:

- **Between the fifth and sixth anniversary of registration:** file a Section 8 declaration of continued use, $325 per class. Six-month grace period after that, with a $100 per class surcharge.
- **At the same time, optionally:** file a Section 15 declaration of incontestability, $250 per class, or $575 per class combined with the Section 8.
- **Within the year before every tenth anniversary:** file the combined Section 8 and Section 9 renewal, $650 per class. Same six-month grace period, and during grace it costs $850 per class because both surcharges apply.

Miss the window including grace and the Director cancels the registration. The USPTO says plainly it has no authority to waive or extend the deadline, and a registration cancelled this way cannot be revived. You start over with a new application, and you start over without your original priority date. The USPTO does send courtesy email reminders, but they are a convenience and the responsibility is yours whether one arrives or not.

If you are temporarily not using the mark, there is an escape valve. A Section 8 Declaration of Excusable Nonuse keeps the registration alive if the nonuse is genuinely temporary and you can show what is preventing use and what you are doing to resume. It is not a parking space.

### The audit nobody warns you about

This is the part that catches people, and it is the reason your goods and services list should describe what you actually sell.

Under 37 CFR 2.161(b) the USPTO can demand extra proof of use to "assess and promote the accuracy and integrity of the register." It uses that authority through a post-registration audit program that has been running since November 2017. Your registration is eligible for a random audit if it has **at least one class with four or more goods or services, or at least two classes with two or more each**. As of 28 October 2024 the office also runs directed audits aimed at files where the specimen looks digitally altered or came from a specimen-farm site.

The mechanics escalate quickly:

1. The first audit office action picks **two additional goods or services per audited class** and asks you to prove use of each.
2. If you cannot prove those two, the second office action demands proof of use for **every remaining good or service in that class**.
3. Deleting the items you cannot support costs **$250 per class**, because you are deleting after the Section 8 was filed. Refusing to pay it cancels the registration.
4. Failing to respond at all cancels the **entire registration**, not just the audited items.

The results are not theoretical. From the program's start through September 2025 the USPTO issued 35,942 first audit office actions. In 47.59% of them the owner responded by deleting goods, services, or classes, and 5,107 registrations were cancelled outright. Deletion rates ran 42.63% for use-based Section 1(a) registrations and 67.29% for Madrid Section 66(a) registrations, which makes sense: foreign-origin filings tend to carry long aspirational lists. And 83% of the owners who went through an audit were represented by a US attorney, so this is not a self-filer problem.

The lesson is cheap to apply. **List only what you actually sell, keep dated evidence of use for every item on the list, and delete dead goods before you file the Section 8, when deletion is free rather than $250 per class.**

### Incontestability, and what it does not cover

Five years after registration, if the mark has been in continuous use, is still in use, has no adverse final decision against it, and has no pending proceeding, you can file a Section 15 declaration. Under 15 U.S.C. 1115 the registration then becomes **conclusive evidence** of validity, of your ownership, and of your exclusive right to use the mark, rather than the merely prima facie evidence an ordinary registration provides.

The practical payoff is *Park 'N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park & Fly, Inc.*, 469 U.S. 189 (1985): an infringement suit based on an incontestable registration cannot be defended on the ground that the mark is merely descriptive. That argument is simply off the table.

Nine defenses survive it, though, and they are the ones that actually get raised: fraud in obtaining the registration, abandonment, use to misrepresent source, descriptive fair use or good-faith use of a personal name, a prior good-faith user's continuous use in a limited area, a prior registration not abandoned, antitrust misuse, functionality, and equitable defenses like laches and estoppel. Incontestability also creates no rights in a generic term, and genericness, functionality, abandonment, fraud, and never-having-been-used can be raised at any time under 15 U.S.C. 1064.

### How you lose a mark you already own

Three ways, all of them self-inflicted:

- **Non-use.** Under 15 U.S.C. 1127 a mark is abandoned when use stops with no intent to resume, and **three consecutive years of non-use is prima facie evidence** of exactly that. "Use" means bona fide use in the ordinary course of trade, so token shipments to keep a registration warm do not count.
- **Letting it go generic.** The same section treats any course of conduct by the owner, "including acts of omission as well as commission," that causes the mark to lose its significance as a mark, as abandonment. Not policing is a course of conduct.
- **Naked licensing.** If you let someone else use your mark without controlling the quality of what they put it on, you can lose it entirely. In *FreecycleSunnyvale v. The Freecycle Network*, 626 F.3d 509 (9th Cir. 2010), the Ninth Circuit held naked licensing "is inherently deceptive and constitutes abandonment of any rights to the trademark by the licensor." The court asked whether the licensor retained contractual quality-control rights, actually exercised control, or reasonably relied on the licensee. An informal email with no quality-control terms and no termination clause failed all three. If you license your logo to a distributor, franchisee, or manufacturer, the quality-control clause is not boilerplate.

### What happens when you redesign the logo

Every business eventually refreshes its mark, and this is where a registration quietly stops matching reality.

The governing concept is **material alteration**. Trademark Rule 2.72, 37 CFR 2.72, bars any amendment that materially alters the mark as filed, and Section 7(e), 15 U.S.C. 1057(e), with 37 CFR 2.173(d), applies the same standard after registration. The test in TMEP 807.14 is whether the modified mark contains the essence of the original and creates the impression of being essentially the same mark. The working question the office asks is whether the mark would have to be republished to fairly present it for opposition. If yes, it is "tantamount to a new mark appropriate for a new application." Adding anything that would require a fresh search is generally a material alteration. And the comparison is always against the mark **as originally registered**, not against whatever intermediate version you amended to last time.

Where this actually bites is the Section 8 filing. Under TMEP 1604.13 the specimen you submit has to show essentially the same mark you registered. If it does not, the Section 8 is refused on the ground that the registered mark is no longer in use, and the registration dies. The reassuring half of that rule: "mere changes in background or styling, or modernization, are not ordinarily considered to be material changes." A routine refresh usually survives. A redesign that changes the commercial impression does not.

If your change does clear the bar, amending a registration under Section 7 costs **$100, flat, not per class**. If it does not clear the bar, no fee helps. You file a new application at $350 per class and you start the clock over.

One hard trap for anyone who entered the US through Madrid: a registered Section 66(a) extension of protection **cannot have its mark amended at all**, not even slightly. The holder has to file a new international application.

## Enforcement, and the symbols

**Use ® only after registration.** Not while pending. Not because you filed. TMEP 906.04 treats deliberate improper use intended to deceive as fraud, and the practical consequences include refusal of your application and the misuse being raised as a defense against you. Innocent misuse, like a printer's error or reliance on a state registration, is generally curable, but do not gamble.

**Use TM and SM freely.** No filing required at all. TM for goods, SM for services. Use them from day one.

**And once you are registered, actually use the ®.** Under 15 U.S.C. 1111, if a registrant fails to give notice, either with the symbol or the statutory words, no profits and no damages are recoverable unless the defendant had actual notice of the registration. Leaving the symbol off your packaging can cost you the money in a case you otherwise win.

### What you can actually do without a lawsuit

Litigation is the expensive last resort. These are the levers a small business can pull:

- **Watch the register.** The Trademark Official Gazette publishes free every Tuesday at [tmog.uspto.gov](https://tmog.uspto.gov/), and it lists what is being published for opposition as well as what has been cancelled and renewed. The opposition window is only thirty days, but the first 30-day extension costs **nothing** and is granted on request, and the next 60 days for good cause costs $200. Buying time to evaluate a conflicting application is one of the cheapest things in the entire system. The final 60-day extension, which takes you to the 180-day ceiling, is harder: under 37 CFR 2.102 it requires the applicant's written consent or a showing of extraordinary circumstances, not merely good cause. Paid watch services exist too, and per-mark pricing is lower than most people expect; one published tier runs $39 a year for a US federal watch.
- **Knock out deadwood cheaply.** The Trademark Modernization Act created two ex parte routes that avoid the Board entirely. **Expungement** targets a registration where the mark was never used in commerce, and can be filed between three and ten years after registration. **Reexamination** targets a mark not in use as of the relevant filing date, and must be filed within the first five years. Each costs **$400 per class**. Any person may file, and in expungement the real party in interest can generally stay anonymous. If a dead registration is blocking your application, this is dramatically cheaper than a cancellation proceeding at $600 per class plus counsel.
- **Record with Customs.** A Principal Register registration can be recorded with U.S. Customs and Border Protection through the e-Recordation system, which puts your mark in front of the people who inspect imports. The fee set by regulation at 19 CFR 133.3(b) is **$190 per class**, with renewal at $80 per class. Supplemental Register marks are not eligible.
- **Enroll in platform brand programs.** Amazon Brand Registry is free and accepts either an active registered trademark **or a pending application**, so you can enroll while you are still in examination. The mark has to be a word mark or a design mark containing words, letters, or numbers.
- **Take back domains through UDRP.** If somebody registers your brand as a domain in bad faith, the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy is faster and cheaper than court. WIPO charges $1,500 for one to five domains with a single panelist. FORUM charges $1,330 for one or two domains. Provider fees are non-refundable and do not include drafting the complaint, but the whole exercise sits in the low four figures rather than the five or six a lawsuit would.

### What you have without any of this

Common-law rights are real. Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a), protects unregistered marks against false designation of origin and likelihood of confusion, with no registration required. You can sue on an unregistered mark.

The catch is geography. Under the Tea Rose-Rectanus doctrine, from *United Drug Co. v. Theodore Rectanus Co.*, 248 U.S. 90 (1918), adopting a mark does not "project the right of protection in advance of the extension of the trade." A good-faith junior user in a remote market gets to keep using it there. Your rights extend as far as your trade does, and no further.

Federal registration is what breaks that ceiling. Under 15 U.S.C. 1072, Principal Register registration is constructive notice nationwide, so nobody who starts after your filing date gets to claim they were an innocent remote adopter. That single mechanic is most of what you are buying for $350.

State registration sits in between and is weaker than people assume. California, as an example, charges $70 per class, the registration runs five years rather than ten, and renewal is $30. It is cheap, it is fast, and it does nothing outside the state. Practice varies a lot between states, so check your own before assuming those terms.

### Things that feel like trademark rights and are not

Worth stating plainly, because these three misconceptions cost people brands:

- **Forming an LLC or corporation gives you no trademark rights.** A state certificate authorizes you to do business under a name. It does not confer trademark rights, and a third party can still stop your use on likelihood-of-confusion grounds. The same goes for an assumed-name or fictitious-business-name filing.
- **Registering a domain gives you no trademark rights.** The USPTO says so directly, and a domain used only as a web address is not source-indicating trademark use at all.
- **Merely using a business name may not be trademark use either.** Using a name to identify your company is not the same as using a mark to identify the source of goods or services. The distinction matters when you get to specimens.

Trademark rights come from actual use in commerce. Registration is what makes them enforceable nationwide and cheap to prove.

## The order of operations, on a budget

If you are starting from nothing:

1. **Search first, thoroughly.** Trademark Search including the image search and design codes, plus state registries, domain records, and plain web search. Free.
2. **Get the assignment signed** from whoever designed the logo. Free, and it stops being free the moment the relationship sours.
3. **File the word mark in standard characters**, one class, every good and service selected from inside the ID Manual with no free-form text anywhere in the application. $350.
4. **Describe only what you actually sell**, and keep dated evidence of use for each item. This is the same decision that survives an audit in year six.
5. **Register the copyright** in the design if it has real artwork in it. $45 or $65, and do it within three months of first publication to keep statutory damages on the table.
6. **File the design mark in black and white**, no color claim, when you can afford the second $350.
7. **Diary the deadlines.** Three months for any office action. Five to six years for the Section 8. Ten years for the renewal. Put them in a calendar you will still be using in a decade.
8. **Use TM now, ® only after the certificate arrives**, and then use it consistently.

That is roughly $400 to $800 in government fees to get real, layered protection on a single-class brand, plus whatever counsel you buy. Against a forced rebrand, which routinely runs five figures once you count signage, packaging, domains, and the customers who cannot find you any more, it is the cheapest insurance a small business can buy.

If you are building the rest of the business alongside this, my book [The $97 Launch](https://www.amazon.com/author/jawatte) covers the launch stack the brand sits on top of, in the same plain terms as this post.

## Related reading

- [Before You File The LLC Or Print Business Cards, Spend 20 Minutes On A Trademark Pre-Screen](/blog/blog-tool-trademark-prescreen/), the clearance workflow that runs before everything above.
- [Every State's Business-Entity Search In One Place](/blog/blog-tool-state-business-lookup/), for the state-level half of a real clearance search.
- [The Content and Tool Protection Playbook for Indie Developers](/blog/blog-content-protection-playbook/), what to do about copying once you have something worth copying.
- [HTML Watermark Tokens for Clone Detection](/blog/blog-watermarking-for-clone-detection/), how to actually find out when your work has been lifted.
- [How to Generate Favicons and Brand Images with Midjourney and Ideogram](/blog/blog-ai-image-generation-brand-assets/), on making the logo in the first place, with the ownership questions AI generation raises.

## Fact-check notes and sources

- USPTO, [fee schedule](https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/fees-and-payment/uspto-fee-schedule), current version last revised 1 July 2026. Every dollar figure for trademark and design patent fees in this post comes from that schedule. The trademark amounts took effect 18 January 2025 under the final rule at [89 FR 91062](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/11/18/2024-26644/setting-and-adjusting-trademark-fees-during-fiscal-year-2025) (18 November 2024), with the 37 CFR 2.6 amendments beginning at page 91089, followed by a nonsubstantive correction at 90 FR 3037 (14 January 2025). No trademark fee change has taken effect since, and none is pending as of publication.
- USPTO, [summary of the 2025 trademark fee changes](https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/fees-payment-information/summary-2025-trademark-fee-changes), for the elimination of TEAS Plus and TEAS Standard and the surcharge structure.
- 37 CFR 2.6 (fee amounts), 2.22 (application completeness and the ID Manual requirement at 2.22(a)(20)), 2.52 (drawing types), 2.62 (office action response periods), 2.71 (amendments, including the bar on broadening an identification and on post-dating a first-use date), 2.72 and 2.173(d) (material alteration), 2.89 (extensions to file a Statement of Use), 2.102 (extensions of time to oppose), 2.160 and 2.182 (maintenance windows and grace periods), and 2.161(b) (audit authority).
- USPTO, [Trademark ID Manual](https://idm-tmng.uspto.gov/), and TMEP 1401 and 1402 for the Nice Classification, the 45 classes, and the current 13th edition version 2026 applicable to applications filed on or after 1 January 2026.
- TMEP 807.01 (one mark per application), 807.14 (material alteration), 806.03(c) (substituting a Section 1(b) basis while keeping the filing date), 1207.01(c)(ii) and (c)(iii) (standard character scope, and the absence of any rule that words dominate a composite mark), and 1604.13 (the specimen at the Section 8 stage must show essentially the registered mark).
- USPTO, [post-registration audit program](https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/maintain/post-registration-audit-program) and its [statistics page](https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/maintain/post-registration-audit-program-statistics), for the selection criteria, the two-items-then-everything escalation, and the results through September 2025: 35,942 first office actions, 47.59% of responses deleting goods or classes, and 5,107 cancellations. The "up to approximately 10%" random-audit rate comes from the 2017 final rule at 82 FR 6259 and has not been updated since; directed audits were added effective 28 October 2024.
- USPTO, [requesting expungement or reexamination](https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/protect/requesting-expungement-or-reexamination-proceeding), for the two Trademark Modernization Act proceedings at $400 per class and their timing windows.
- USPTO, [trademark processing wait times](https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/application-timeline): 4.2 months to first office action and 9.8 months total pendency, data updated as of 30 June 2026. Some USPTO timeline pages still carry older "six to nine months" language; the dashboard figures carry a measurement date and are the ones cited here.
- USPTO, [Trademarks Dashboard data](https://www.uspto.gov/dashboard/trademarks/), for applications approved on first action: 36.03% for base applications, 10.56% for base applications with surcharges, and 2.84% for Madrid Section 66(a) applications. Those are fiscal-year-to-date figures for FY2026 through 30 June 2026, not standalone quarterly rates; the dashboard reports cumulatively. The prior-system comparison, 44.9% for TEAS Plus against 13.1% for TEAS Standard, is final full-year FY2025 data.
- USPTO, [new deadlines to respond to office actions](https://www.uspto.gov/subscription-center/2022/uspto-implements-new-deadlines-respond-office-actions-applications-and), for the three-month response period effective 3 December 2022 and 7 October 2023 for post-registration actions.
- USPTO, [retiring TESS](https://www.uspto.gov/subscription-center/2023/retiring-tess-what-know-about-new-trademark-search-system), confirming TESS was retired 30 November 2023 and replaced by Trademark Search at tmsearch.uspto.gov.
- USPTO, [why hire a private trademark attorney](https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/why-hire-private-trademark-attorney), for the office's own description of what a clearance search must cover and its position on non-attorney filing services.
- USPTO, [trademark rule requiring foreign applicants to have US counsel](https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/laws/trademark-rule-requires-foreign-applicants-and-registrants-have-us), effective 3 August 2019.
- USPTO, [identity verification](https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/apply/identity-verification), mandatory since 6 August 2022.
- USPTO, [specimen refusals](https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/laws/specimen-refusal-and-how-overcome-refusal) and [ornamental refusals](https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/laws/ornamental-refusal-and-how-overcome-refusal-0).
- TMEP sections 801.02(a) (Principal Register benefits), 1202.05 (color marks), 1207.01 (likelihood of confusion), 1209.01 (the distinctiveness spectrum and its examples), 1212.05 (acquired distinctiveness and the sliding scale), and 906.04 (improper use of ®). Cited by section number rather than by link, because TMEP print URLs change between editions; the current edition is at [tmep.uspto.gov](https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/current).
- *In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.*, 476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973), for the likelihood-of-confusion factors. *In re Louisiana Fish Fry Products*, 797 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2015), for the USPTO's discretion to demand more than five years of use. *Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co.*, 514 U.S. 159 (1995), for color as a trademark. *In re Electrolyte Laboratories*, 913 F.2d 930 (Fed. Cir. 1990), for the absence of a words-always-dominate rule in composite marks. *Christian Faith Fellowship Church v. Adidas AG*, 841 F.3d 986 (Fed. Cir. 2016), for the two-hat sale as use in commerce. *In re Bose Corp.*, 580 F.3d 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2009), for the fraud standard, which overruled the earlier "knew or should have known" test. *Park 'N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park & Fly, Inc.*, 469 U.S. 189 (1985), for what incontestability forecloses. *FreecycleSunnyvale v. The Freecycle Network*, 626 F.3d 509 (9th Cir. 2010), for naked licensing as abandonment; note this is the Ninth Circuit's formulation of quality control, and other circuits phrase it differently. *United Drug Co. v. Theodore Rectanus Co.*, 248 U.S. 90 (1918), for the territorial limit on common-law rights.
- 15 U.S.C. 1052 (grounds for refusal), 1057(e) (amending a registration), 1058 and 1059 (maintenance and renewal windows), 1064 (cancellation grounds and which ones have no time limit), 1065 and 1115 (incontestability and the nine surviving defenses), 1072 (constructive notice), 1094 (Supplemental Register exclusions), 1111 (notice of registration and the damages consequence), 1112 (classification does not limit or extend rights), 1125(a) (protection for unregistered marks), and 1127 (definitions of use in commerce and abandonment).
- Enforcement fees: 19 CFR 133.3(b) and 133.7 for the $190 per class CBP recordation fee and the $80 per class renewal, cited to the regulation because CBP's own fee pages were not reachable during research. [WIPO UDRP fee schedule](https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/fees/) and the [FORUM UDRP fee schedule](https://www.adrforum.com/) for domain dispute costs. [Amazon Brand Registry requirements](https://sell.amazon.com/blog/brand-registry-requirements) for the registered-or-pending rule. Trademark watch pricing is vendor-published and varies widely; the figure quoted is one provider's published per-mark rate, not a market average.
- US Copyright Office, [fee schedule](https://www.copyright.gov/about/fees.html), for the current $45 Single Application, $65 Standard Application, $125 paper filing, $85 group registration of two-dimensional artwork, and the $95 electronic or $125 paper base fee to record a transfer. The [proposed fee schedule](https://www.copyright.gov/rulemaking/feestudy2026/proposed-fee-schedule.pdf) submitted to Congress on 14 July 2026 would raise these to $55, $85, $185, and $130 respectively, an average increase of about 43%. Under 17 U.S.C. 708(b) the Register may institute new fees 120 days after submission absent congressional action; no effective date had been announced as of publication.
- US Copyright Office, [registration processing times](https://www.copyright.gov/registration/docs/processing-times-faqs.pdf), for the 4.1-month average across claims closed 1 October 2025 to 31 March 2026, and the note about the appropriations lapse from 1 October to 12 November 2025.
- US Copyright Office, [Circular 30 on works made for hire](https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ30.pdf) and [Circular 33 on works not protected by copyright](https://copyright.gov/circs/circ33.pdf). Compendium of Copyright Office Practices, sections 310.11, 914, and 914.1.
- 17 U.S.C. 101 (the nine work-for-hire categories), 204(a) (the writing requirement for assignments), 412 (statutory damages and the three-month window), and 708(b). 37 CFR 202.1 (what is not copyrightable) and 202.10(b).
- [*Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, LLC*](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/17-571) (decided 4 March 2019, unanimous), holding that a copyright suit may be filed only after the Copyright Office registers the work, not upon application.
- *Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co.*, 499 U.S. 340 (1991), for the originality threshold.
- 35 U.S.C. 171 and 173, and MPEP 1504.01(a), for design patent subject matter and the 15-year term. USPTO, [progress on design patent examination](https://www.uspto.gov/subscription-center/2026/strong-progress-continues-design-patent-examination), for the 14-month first action pendency as of May 2026.
- USPTO Paperwork Reduction Act notices published 10 June 2026 and 17 July 2026, for the $550 per hour attorney rate drawn from the 2025 AIPLA Report of the Economic Survey (p. F-35), the $342 per hour blended TTAB rate, and the 18-hour preparation estimate for an opposition or cancellation. The AIPLA survey's own task-level trademark figures are paywalled and are not quoted here.
- USPTO, [examples of fraudulent and misleading solicitations](https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/protect/examples-fraudulent-misleading-solicitations) and [recognizing common scams](https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/protect/recognizing-common-scams). USPTO, [criminal conviction in a trademark renewal solicitation scam](https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/protect/criminal-conviction-trademark-renewal-solicitation-scam), for the Suhorukovs sentence and restitution figure.
- Attorney flat-fee ranges are drawn from law firms' own published price pages, not from survey data, and are self-selected toward firms that advertise fixed prices. They are presented as a range to ask against, not as a market median.

*This post is informational, not legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is created by reading it. Fees and deadlines are stated as of 31 July 2026 and change; verify against the current USPTO and Copyright Office schedules before you file. Mentions of third-party services are nominative fair use. No affiliation is implied.*


---

Canonical HTML: https://jwatte.com/blog/how-to-trademark-a-logo-uspto-cost/
RSS: https://jwatte.com/feed.xml
JSON Feed: https://jwatte.com/feed.json
Hero image: https://jwatte.com/images/how-to-trademark-a-logo-uspto-cost.webp