How Much Do USPTO Trademark Filing Fees Cost in 2026?

Current USPTO Application Fee Structure

As of September 30, 2026, a standard USPTO trademark application filed through the Trademark Electronic Application System normally costs $350 for the first class of goods or services and $125 for each additional class in the same application. The USPTO generally applies a per-class fee rather than charging separately for each individual good or service, so an applicant with closely related offerings may be able to use fewer classes than a commercial inventory suggests. That savings should not be confused with an unlimited-use application: the application must still identify the goods and services reasonably associated with the mark, and adding an initially omitted class later normally requires a new application and new fees. Official filing fees should be paid through USPTO electronic systems, and the fee is not refundable merely because the applicant changes its mind or receives an office action.

Also worth reading: How Is AI Trademark Review Changing Clearance, Filing, and Brand Protection in 2026? · How Should Businesses Run an AI Trademark Search Before Filing in 2026? · How Do You Clear an AI Logo Before Filing a Trademark in 2026?

The fee schedule can change, particularly when Congress authorizes a new fee structure or the USPTO revises its fee regulations. The USPTO announced a fee increase for many trademark filings beginning in 2025, which makes older screenshots, attorney articles, and third-party calculators unreliable indicators of the amount payable today. Applicants should therefore treat $350 per class as the current standard-filing figure only after confirming it in the USPTO fee schedule displayed during checkout. The filing itself is separate from the eventual registration and maintenance program: applicants seeking registration through use must also budget for declaration-of-use and renewal fees later in the mark’s life.

What Determines the Total Price?

The total USPTO filing cost depends on the filing route, number of classes, filing basis, and whether additional services or responses are required. A straightforward first filing by one owner ordinarily begins at $350 when it covers one class. Two classes would ordinarily be $475, three classes $600, and four classes $725 under the standard application fee schedule applicable in 2026. Those examples do not include international-application fees, foreign-based Section 44(e) filings under special provisions, Madrid charges, publication delays, opposition costs, appeals, or charges imposed by an outside filing company. A low government fee therefore does not guarantee a low all-in professional bill.

Applicants also need to distinguish application costs from prosecution costs. The USPTO fee pays for processing the application and does not buy attorney advice, clearance analysis, specification drafting, specimen preparation, or monitoring. The office may issue an office action that requires payment for the initial application, but a substantive response can trigger another fee unless the filer has selected appropriate fees in advance under the USPTO’s continuing-prosecution rules. The USPTO permits certain fees to be paid at filing for the handling of some later events, which can reduce the likelihood of a lapsed docket due to an unpaid small fee. Those prepaid fees should be used only if the applicant understands the estimated service periods and refund limitations.

## TEAS Plus, Madrid E-Filing, and Other Filing Routes

TEAS Plus remains a USPTO filing option designed for applicants who choose from the filing system’s approved descriptions of goods and services. It may reduce the risk that a broad custom description will be rejected as indefinite, but it does not automatically reduce the USPTO application fee or eliminate prosecution costs. In addition, a filing house may charge separately for preparing a TEAS Plus submission even though the USPTO form is available directly to the public. TEAS Standard allows greater customization, which can be useful for unusual commercial activities, but the applicant bears more responsibility for drafting acceptable wording. Neither option is categorically better: the proper route depends on the applicant’s business, filing basis, and ability to identify its goods and services accurately.

The USPTO also participates in the Madrid System for international trademark applications. For a qualifying U.S. applicant, the application may be submitted through the USPTO’s Madrid e-Filing service, with charges associated with the international filing, home-country office, and U.S. application. For a foreign applicant seeking designation of the United States, treatment depends on the home country’s Madrid membership and whether it has an office in the United States. International filing is not simply a cheaper substitute for the TEAS route. It can be economically attractive for brands pursuing coordinated protection in multiple Madrid-member countries, but applicants should examine per-country designation costs, renewal structures, representations, refusals, and the consequences of centralized versus direct national filings.

Self-Filing Compared With Attorney-Assisted Filing

A self-filed application avoids a filing attorney’s professional fee and allows the applicant to control the process directly. The USPTO application system is publicly accessible, and applicants can pay the government fee without using a trademark filing company. This option can be sensible for a small, straightforward one-class filing when the owner understands the selected filing basis, can describe the commercial activity precisely, and can monitor deadlines. It is less attractive when the filing involves several classes, confusing channels of trade, foreign filing rights, uncertain specimens, anticipated disputes, or a business model that may change. The principal tradeoff is therefore not merely fee savings; it is whether the applicant can perform legal and administrative work competently without legal advice.

Attorney-assisted filing generally costs more because the quoted service may include a search, risk assessment, application drafting, filing, docket monitoring, and communication about office actions. The USPTO attorney fee is private-market pricing rather than a uniform government tariff, so no single national number is authoritative. Some firms offer a flat filing fee for uncomplicated matters, while others charge more for urgent filings, multi-class applications, foreign bases, comprehensive searches, or later proceedings. Applicants should request a written scope identifying the number of classes, search level, government fees, filing basis, prosecution work, publication handling, and what happens if the examiner raises an issue.

## Why the USPTO Does Not Charge Merely to Start an Application?

The USPTO filing fee supports examination and processing of trademark applications; registration is not created by filing alone. After filing, the application may undergo examination, publication, opposition, and, in a use-based proceeding, evidence of use. Registration can be challenged and later canceled or canceled under statutory procedures. A trademark owner must also avoid abandoning the mark because failing to file timely affidavits or renewal requests can cause cancellation. The fee schedule therefore separates front-end filing charges from later charges tied to registration, use declarations, renewal, and other specified events.

Trademark registration can be based on use in commerce, intent to use, a U.S. registration under Section 44(e), or extension of a foreign application under Section 66(a), subject to eligibility and evidentiary requirements. The filing basis can affect both fees and the applicant’s future burden. A Section 1(a) use-based application generally requires a specimen showing the mark in use for the registered goods or services. An intent-to-use application normally must eventually be supported by a statement of use, and certain requests to abandon the intent-to-use basis after filing do not entitle the applicant to retain the application as fully paid. Intent-to-use is not a device for indefinitely holding a reservation without a legitimate commercial plan.

Practical Steps Before Paying the USPTO

The first step is to identify the filing basis and list the commercial activities with enough precision to support the intended scope of protection. Applicants should then review the USPTO’s current filing-fee table, select the proper electronic system, and confirm the class count before checkout. Small-business owners should not equate the number of website categories with the number of legal trademark classes. Conversely, listing only one generic description may expose part of the business to refusal or leave later expansion difficult. A classification decision is legal and strategic, not simply a fee-minimization exercise.

The applicant should also assemble the filing information, including the owner’s exact legal name, domicile, mark format, goods and services, filing basis, and required specimen when applicable. Payment details must correspond accurately to the intended owner, and foreign entities should obtain any authorization needed from officers, parents, or affiliates. Before submission, the owner should save the confirmation, recording receipt, serial number, and filing date and enter the docket into a reliable calendar system. The filing date is not necessarily the date on which the USPTO receives or completes processing, and a missing receipt can make proof of timely filing harder to establish.

Cost control continues after checkout. Applicants should review the application before allowing publication when possible, respond accurately to office actions, track publication and opposition periods, and preserve proof of use. A deadline-management system should account for the filing, office-action response period, publication date, statement-of-use event when relevant, registration fee deadline, maintenance windows, and renewal cycle. Filing at the USPTO can take many months and is not an instant registration service. Professional reviews can be worthwhile where the legal consequences of a weak description or missed deadline exceed the additional filing expense.

Common Filing-Fee Mistakes

One frequent error is relying on an old price from a filing article, forum post, or third-party search result. Trademark fees can change through USPTO rulemaking and statutory authority, and bundled professional fees may also change without notice. Another error is assuming that one payment covers unlimited goods, services, or owners. USPTO applications ordinarily identify one owner, and each class carries the applicable fee. Unpaid fees can lead to abandonment, but adding classes or goods after filing commonly requires a new filing rather than an informal fee correction.

Applicants also err by treating the lowest advertised filing service as equivalent to a complete trademark strategy. Search engines, filing houses, and law firms may package different services under similar labels, while a bare USPTO fee excludes most legal judgment. Paying a filing company does not guarantee favorable examination, registration, or freedom to use. Conversely, filing directly does not make professional advice unnecessary. The appropriate comparison is between the expected legal work and the owner’s risk, including whether another business, a parent company, or a planned product line creates a need for clearance outside the application itself.

When a Filing May Not Be the Best First Move

An application should not be filed merely because a fee is affordable. If the proposed mark is highly similar to a registered mark in the same commercial area, clearance may be wiser before incurring filing costs. A full clearance search can also reveal conflicts with common-law use that a federal register search misses. If the owner does not yet control the exact wording, the application may be rejected as indefinite, and repeated filing under alternative versions may not solve the underlying problem. For business names, domains, and product names, searching federal records, state registries, business records, and actual marketplace use is prudent.

Timing matters as well. Filing before opening can support an intent-to-use strategy when use is genuinely planned, but an unsupported intent-to-use filing is not free insurance. Evidence of use must reflect the mark in the relevant marketplace and connect to the identified services. For international portfolios, the owner should compare Madrid designations with direct national applications rather than selecting solely on the initial USPTO fee. Foreign counsel fees, translation, local agency charges, opposition rules, and renewal requirements can reverse an apparent cost advantage.

At the same time, waiting too long can create avoidable risk. Common-law priority can arise through actual use before filing, and a launch may expose the owner to conflicting demands even if no federal application exists. The best time is therefore not a universal calendar date; it is the point at which the owner has sufficiently settled the mark, identified the initial commercial activities, performed proportionate clearance, and can pay not only the filing fee but also later prosecution and maintenance costs. For AI Trademark Review, the relevant point is to evaluate those operational and legal decisions transparently rather than treating the USPTO charge as the total price of protection.

The bottom line is that a standard U.S. trademark application normally starts at $350 for the first class and adds $125 for each additional class under the 2026 schedule. Real costs may rise substantially when the application requires professional services, multiple filings, international coordination, responses, or later registration and renewal steps. Because fees and procedures are subject to change, the authoritative amount is the charge displayed in the USPTO system after the applicant confirms the filing route and class count.