72694 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 204 / Friday, October 21, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

navigation position during the deviation DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE key policy considerations, while taking period. into account the cost of the respective DATES: This deviation is effective from Patent and Trademark Office services. Section 10 also establishes 7:30 a.m. to 11 a.m. on October 23, certain procedural requirements for 2016. 37 CFR Parts 2 and 7 setting or adjusting fee regulations, such as public hearings and input from the ADDRESSES: The docket for this [Docket No. PTO–T–2016–0005] Trademark Public Advisory Committee deviation, [USCG–2016–0941], is RIN 0651–AD08 (TPAC) and oversight by Congress. available at http://www.regulations.gov. Accordingly, on October 14, 2015, the Type the docket number in the Trademark Fee Adjustment Director notified the TPAC of the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click ‘‘SEARCH’’. AGENCY: United States Patent and Office’s intent to set or adjust trademark Click on Open Docket Folder on the line fees and submitted a preliminary associated with this deviation. Trademark Office, Commerce. ACTION: Final rule. trademark fee proposal with supporting FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If materials. you have questions on this temporary SUMMARY: The United States Patent and The TPAC held a public hearing in deviation, call or email David H. Trademark Office (Office or USPTO) is Alexandria, Virginia on November 3, Sulouff, Chief, Bridge Section, Eleventh amending its rules to set or increase 2015 and released its report regarding Coast Guard District; telephone 510– certain trademark fees, as authorized by the preliminary proposed fees on 437–3516, email David.H.Sulouff@ the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act November 30, 2015. The Office uscg.mil. (AIA). The fees will allow the Office to considered the comments, advice, and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: California further USPTO strategic objectives by: recommendations received from the Department of Transportation has Better aligning fees with the full cost of TPAC and the public in proposing the requested a temporary change to the the relevant products and services; fees set forth in the notice of proposed operation of the Tower Drawbridge, protecting the integrity of the register by rulemaking published in the Federal mile 59.0, over Sacramento River, at incentivizing more timely filing or Register on May 27, 2016, at 81 FR Sacramento, CA. The vertical lift bridge examination of applications and other 33619. The proposed rule included navigation span provides a vertical filings and more efficient resolution of links to the preliminary trademark fee clearance of 30 feet above Mean High appeals and trials; and promoting the proposal and associated materials and to Water in the closed-to-navigation efficiency of the process, in large part the TPAC report. The Office considered position. The draw operates as required through lower-cost electronic filing all public comments received during the by 33 CFR 117.189(a). Navigation on the options. The changes will also continue comment period in the development of waterway is commercial and to recover the aggregate estimated cost this final rule. recreational. of Trademark and Trademark Trial and The USPTO protects consumers and The drawspan will be secured in the Appeal Board (TTAB) operations and provides benefits to businesses by closed-to-navigation position from 7:30 USPTO administrative services that effectively and efficiently carrying out a.m. to 11 a.m. on October 23, 2016, to support Trademark operations. the trademark laws of the United States. The final rule will advance key policy allow the community to participate in DATES: This rule is effective on January considerations, while taking into the Golden Arches Run event. This 14, 2017. temporary deviation has been account the cost of individual services. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For example, the increased fees for coordinated with the waterway users. Jennifer Chicoski, Office of the Deputy No objections to the proposed paper filings aim to better align the Commissioner for Trademark required fees with the cost of processing temporary deviation were raised. Examination Policy, by email at Vessels able to pass through the paper filings and incentivize electronic [email protected], or by telephone at filings to promote efficiency of the bridge in the closed position may do so (571) 272–8943. at anytime. The bridge will not be able registration process. Other trademark SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: to open for emergencies and there is no fees are increased to encourage timely Purpose: Section 10 of the AIA immediate alternate route for vessels to filings and notices to further promote (Section 10) authorizes the Director of pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the efficiency of the process. the USPTO (Director) to set or adjust by the users of the waterway through our The fee schedule implemented in this rule any fee established, authorized, or Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners rulemaking will also continue to recover charged under the Trademark Act of of the change in operating schedule for the aggregate estimated costs to the 1946, 15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq., as the bridge so that vessel operators can Office to achieve strategic and amended (the Trademark Act or the Act) arrange their transits to minimize any operational goals, such as maintaining for any services performed by, or impact caused by the temporary an operating reserve, implementing materials furnished by, the Office. See deviation. measures to maintain trademark In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), Section 10 of the AIA, Public Law 112– pendency and high quality, the drawbridge must return to its regular 29, 125 Stat. 284, 316–17. Section 10 modernizing the trademark information operating schedule immediately at the prescribes that fees may be set or technology (IT) systems, continuing end of the effective period of this adjusted only to recover the aggregate programs for stakeholder and public temporary deviation. This deviation estimated costs to the Office for outreach, and enhancing operations of from the operating regulations is processing, activities, services, and the TTAB. authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. materials relating to trademarks, Summary of Major Provisions: The including administrative costs to the Office herein sets or adjusts 42 Dated: October 17, 2016. Office with respect to such Trademark trademark processing and service fees. D.H. Sulouff, and TTAB operations. The Director may The fee structure increases the per-class District Bridge Chief, Eleventh Coast Guard set individual fees at, below, or above fee for an initial application filed on District. their respective cost. Section 10 paper by $225 to $600, and increases the [FR Doc. 2016–25479 Filed 10–20–16; 8:45 am] authority includes flexibility to set fees for 31 other paper filings by BILLING CODE 9110–04–P individual fees in a way that furthers between $75 and $200 (per class, where

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:30 Oct 20, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21OCR1.SGM 21OCR1 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 204 / Friday, October 21, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 72695

applicable). The per-class fee for an cost of processing paper filings and over 500,000 classes were filed in fiscal initial application filed using the regular incentivize lower-cost electronic year (FY) 2015, the seventh consecutive Trademark Electronic Application options. Additionally, adjustments to year of increased filings, and the Office System (TEAS) option is increased by TTAB fees, which have not been projects this trend of increased filings to $75 to $400. This increase also applies adjusted, depending on the fee, for 15– continue for the foreseeable future. to requests for extension of protection 25 years, will bring the fees closer to Additionally, to maintain trademark and subsequent designations filed under current processing costs, and new fees pendency and quality goals with the the Madrid Protocol. 15 U.S.C. 1141e; for extensions of time to file a notice of increased filings, the Office must ensure Madrid Protocol Article 8(7)(a). As opposition will allow recovery of some it continues to have adequate resources discussed below, in response to of the cost of processing these filings. and IT systems to support future comments regarding requests for Protect the Integrity of the Trademark processing and examination extensions of time to file a statement of Register: The second fee-setting requirements. The Office is in the midst use filed electronically, the USPTO is objective is to set or adjust fees to of a multi-year IT systems and reducing the fee for such extensions. In further the policy objective of protecting infrastructure upgrade, which is critical addition, 10 TTAB-related fees are the accuracy of the trademark register by to the future of the U.S. trademark established or revised, six of which incentivizing timely filings and registration system and long sought after differentiate the fees for initiating a examination, as well as efficient trial by stakeholders. proceeding, as filed electronically or on and appeal resolutions. These fees are Maintaining the current fee schedule paper, and increase these as compared used to encourage actions that help to is unlikely to meet budgetary to the prior undifferentiated fees; and facilitate efficient processing and requirements, including: Full costs four that establish electronic and paper encourage the prompt conclusion of associated with the projected increases filing fees for requests to extend time to application prosecution. An accurate in filings; the full costs necessary to file a notice of opposition in certain register allows the public to rely on the support Trademark and TTAB circumstances. A link to a full list of register to determine potential operations; and necessary investments current and final rule fees, including the trademark rights. Filings that may result in IT systems, intellectual property (IP) unit cost by fee from fiscal years 2013, in a less-accurate register are among policy, and USPTO programs. The 2014, and 2015, is available at: http:// those filings targeted under this USPTO FY 2017 President’s Budget was www.uspto.gov/about-us/performance- objective. the basis for the initial fee proposal. It Promote the Efficiency of the and-planning/fee-setting-and-adjusting. includes two revenue estimates based Trademark Process: The third fee- Rulemaking Goals and Strategies: on the projected demand for trademark setting objective pertains to furthering This final rule will allow the Office to products and services and fee rates: (1) key policy objectives and meeting achieve the dual goals of furthering key The current fee schedule; and (2) the policy considerations while continuing stakeholder expectations by improving initial fee proposal as submitted to the to recover prospective aggregate costs of the efficiency of the trademark TPAC and discussed in its public operation. One of the overall objectives registration process, and related appeals hearing and report. It also includes of this rulemaking is to set individual and trial cases, primarily by information on estimated aggregate cost fees to further key IP-protection policy incentivizing electronic filings. To reach that may be found in the USPTO FY considerations while taking into this objective, the Office targets changes 2017 President’s Budget (Figure #4, page account the cost of the particular to fees that could administratively 23) at http://www.uspto.gov/sites/ service. The Office seeks to enhance improve application processing by default/files/documents/fy17pbr.pdf. trademark protection for IP rights encouraging more electronic filing. holders by offering application filing Electronic filing expedites processing, The Office notes that because the FY options and promoting the shortens pendency, minimizes manual 2017 President’s Budget was submitted Administration’s innovation strategies. processing and the potential for data- prior to the USPTO making final This final rule is based on furthering entry errors, and is more efficient for decisions on the fee adjustments, and three key policy considerations: (1) To both the filer and the USPTO. The given that the Office reduced several better align fees with full costs; (2) to Office believes that the increase in fees fees from the initial proposal in protect the integrity of the register; and for paper filings, in conjunction with response to comments from the TPAC (3) to promote the efficiency of the such prior rulemakings as the TEAS and the public, and further reduced fees trademark process. Reduced Fee (TEAS RF) rulemaking that in response to comments submitted Better Align Fees with Full Costs: The took effect in January 2015 (79 FR 74633 regarding the proposed rule, as first fee-setting objective is to set and (Dec. 16, 2014)) and increased discussed herein, the aggregate revenue adjust trademark fees to better align electronic-filing options at lower rates, projected for FY 2017–FY 2021 is higher those fees with the full costs of will continue to result in a greater in that document than the projections providing the relevant services to percentage of electronic filings, in turn for this final rule. Under the fee achieve aggregate cost recovery. In improving the efficiency of the schedule in this final rule, assuming the determining which fees to set or adjust, trademark process. same level of budgetary requirements, the Office targeted changes to fees Consistent with the Office’s goals and optimal operating reserves are projected where the gap between the cost of the obligations under the AIA, another by FY 2021. The USPTO would use its service and the current fee rate was the overall objective of this rulemaking is to existing authority going forward to greatest. Paper filings are generally more ensure the fee schedule continues to adjust fees to cover budgetary expensive to process than electronic generate sufficient revenue to recover requirements and to maintain the filings. Currently, however, most fees the prospective aggregate costs of optimal operating reserve balance. If the for paper filings are not set at full cost; Trademark and TTAB operations and actual operating reserve exceeds the instead they are subsidized by the associated administrative costs. Fees estimated optimal level by 15 percent electronic filers. Because of this, across- must be set at levels projected to cover for two consecutive years, the USPTO the-board increases in fees for paper future aggregate costs, which include would consider lowering fees. filings are implemented herein to bring budgetary requirements and an Aggregate costs are estimated through the respective fees closer to the actual operating reserve. A record number of the USPTO budget-formulation process

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:30 Oct 20, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21OCR1.SGM 21OCR1 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES 72696 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 204 / Friday, October 21, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

with the annual preparation of a five- Strategic Plan that are specifically efficiency of the trademark process in year performance-based budget request. related to the goals of this rulemaking FY 2017 and beyond while recovering These fee-schedule goals are are: Ensuring optimal IT service to all prospective aggregate costs of operation. consistent with strategic goals and users, maintaining trademark pendency It will also create a better and fairer objectives detailed in the USPTO 2014– and high quality, continuing and cost-recovery system that balances 2018 Strategic Plan (Strategic Plan) that enhancing stakeholder and public subsidizing costs to encourage broader is available at: http://www.uspto.gov/ outreach, and enhancing operations of _ usage of IP rights-protection sites/default/files/documents/USPTO the TTAB. mechanisms and participation by more 2014-2018_Strategic_Plan.pdf. The The trademark fee schedule trademark owners. Strategic Plan defines the USPTO’s implemented herein will achieve the mission and long-term goals and goals of furthering the key policy The following table shows the current presents the actions the Office will take considerations of better aligning fees and final fee amounts implemented by to realize those goals. The significant with full costs, protecting the integrity this rulemaking for paper-filed actions the Office describes in the of the register, and promoting the applications and documents.

FEES FOR PAPER FILINGS

Final rule 37 CFR Fee code Description Current fee fee Change

2.6(a)(1)(i) ...... 6001 Filing an Application on Paper, per Class ...... $375 $600 $225 2.6(a)(19)(i) ...... 6006 Request to Divide an Application Filed on 100 200 100 Paper, per New Application Created. 2.6(a)(1)(v) ...... 6008 Additional Processing Fee under § 2.22(c) or 50 125 75 § 2.23(c), per Class. 2.6(a)(5)(i) ...... 6201 Filing an Application for Renewal of a Registra- 400 500 100 tion on Paper, per Class. 2.6(a)(6)(i) ...... 6203 Additional Fee for Filing a Renewal Application 100 200 100 During the Grace Period on Paper, per Class. 2.6(a)(21)(i) ...... 6204 Correcting a Deficiency in a Renewal Applica- 100 200 100 tion via Paper Filing. 2.6(a)(12)(i) ...... 6205 Filing an Affidavit under § 8 of the Act on Paper, 100 225 125 per Class. 2.6(a)(14)(i) ...... 6206 Additional Fee for Filing a § 8 Affidavit During 100 200 100 the Grace Period on Paper, per Class. 2.6(a)(20)(i) ...... 6207 Correcting a Deficiency in a § 8 Affidavit via 100 200 100 Paper Filing. 2.6(a)(13)(i) ...... 6208 Filing an Affidavit under § 15 of the Act on 200 300 100 Paper, per Class. 2.6(a)(7)(i) ...... 6210 Filing to Publish a Mark under § 12(c) on Paper, 100 200 100 per Class. 2.6(a)(8)(i) ...... 6211 Issuing New Certificate of Registration upon Re- 100 200 100 quest of Registrant, Request Filed on Paper. 2.6(a)(9)(i) ...... 6212 Certificate of Correction of Registrant’s Error, 100 200 100 Request Filed on Paper. 2.6(a)(10)(i) ...... 6213 Filing a Disclaimer to a Registration, on Paper .. 100 200 100 2.6(a)(11)(i) ...... 6214 Filing an Amendment to a Registration, on 100 200 100 Paper. 2.6(a)(2)(i) ...... 6002 Filing an Amendment to Allege Use under § 1(c) 100 200 100 of the Act on Paper, per Class. 2.6(a)(3)(i) ...... 6003 Filing a Statement of Use under § 1(d)(1) of the 100 200 100 Act on Paper, per Class. 2.6(a)(4)(i) ...... 6004 Filing a Request under § 1(d)(2) of the Act for a 150 225 75 Six-Month Extension of Time for Filing a Statement of Use under § 1(d)(1) of the Act on Paper, per Class. 7.6(a)(1)(i) ...... 6901 Certifying an International Application Based on 100 200 100 a Single Application or Registration, Filed on Paper, per Class. 7.6(a)(2)(i) ...... 6902 Certifying an International Application Based on 150 250 100 More Than One Basic Application or Registra- tion Filed on Paper, per Class. 7.6(a)(4)(i) ...... 6903 Transmitting a Request to Record an Assign- 100 200 100 ment or Restriction, or Release of a Restric- tion, under § 7.23 or § 7.24 Filed on Paper. 7.6(a)(5)(i) ...... 6904 Filing a Notice of Replacement under § 7.28 on 100 200 100 Paper, per Class. 7.6(a)(6)(i) ...... 6905 Filing an Affidavit under § 71 of the Act on 100 225 125 Paper, per Class. 7.6(a)(7)(i) ...... 6906 Surcharge for Filing an Affidavit under § 71 of 100 200 100 the Act During Grace Period on Paper, per Class. 7.6(a)(3)(i) ...... 6907 Transmitting a Subsequent Designation under 100 200 100 § 7.21, Filed on Paper.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:30 Oct 20, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21OCR1.SGM 21OCR1 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 204 / Friday, October 21, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 72697

FEES FOR PAPER FILINGS—Continued

Final rule 37 CFR Fee code Description Current fee fee Change

7.6(a)(8)(i) ...... 6908 Correcting a Deficiency in a § 71 Affidavit Filed 100 200 100 on Paper. 2.6(a)(16)(i) ...... 6401 Filing a Petition to Cancel on Paper, per Class .. 300 500 200 2.6(a)(17)(i) ...... 6402 Filing a Notice of Opposition on Paper, per 300 500 200 Class. 2.6(a)(18)(i) ...... 6403 Ex Parte Appeal to the Trademark Trial and Ap- 100 300 200 peal Board Filed on Paper, per Class. 2.6(a)(22)(i) ...... New Filing a Request for an Extension of Time to ...... 200 n/a File a Notice of Opposition under § 2.102(c)(3) on Paper. 2.6(a)(23)(i) ...... New Filing a Request for an Extension of Time to ...... 300 n/a File a Notice of Opposition under § 2.102(c)(1)(ii) or (c)(2) on Paper. 2.6(a)(15)(i) ...... 6005 Petitions to the Director Filed on Paper ...... 100 200 100

Comments and Responses increases are for paper filings. The less- $225, from $375 per International Class expensive electronic filing method can to $600 per International Class. The USPTO published a proposed be used by all types of filers, including Additionally, all trademark processing rule on May 27, 2016 soliciting small companies and individuals fees for paper filings are increased by comments on the proposed fee focused on minimizing costs, and the $75 to $200 more than current fees (per schedule. In response, the USPTO Office’s experience is that small class, when applicable). received comments from four companies and individual filers have The costs of processing paper filings intellectual property organizations and proven particularly adept at finding and are generally higher than electronic seven individual commenters choosing lower-cost filing options. filings and higher than current fee representing law firms, corporations, The USPTO also received public schedules. A full list of current and new and individuals. These comments are comments expressing concerns with fees including the unit cost by fee from posted on the USPTO’s Web site at several individual fees. In the interest of fiscal years 2013, 2014, and 2015 is http://www.uspto.gov/trademark/ providing context to those comments, available in the Table of Trademark trademark-updates-and- they are summarized and responded to Fees—Current, Final Rule and Unit Cost announcements/comments-proposed- in the general discussion of the at: http://www.uspto.gov/about-us/ rulemaking-relating-trademark-fee. individual fee rationale below. performance-and-planning/fee-setting- The Office received comments both Individual Fee Rationale: The Office and-adjusting. An increase in the fees generally supporting and objecting to projects the aggregate revenue generated for these filings will help to offset the the fee increases. Three commenters from trademark fees will recover the higher processing costs and come closer objected to any increase in fees, as they prospective aggregate cost, including the to recovering the total processing costs. believed such increases placed attainment and maintenance of an Furthermore, setting a higher fee for hardships on individual filers and adequate operating reserve for its paper filings incentivizes electronic small-business owners. Two of these Trademark and TTAB operations. In filings, which are more cost efficient for commenters suggested that fees be addition, as described above, some of the Office to process and which reduce maintained at their current levels for the fees are set to balance several key the possibility of data-entry errors. As a these groups and one suggested that the policy factors, and executing these result, adjustments of 5–10% in the Office consider lowering the fees for policy factors in the trademark fee estimated number of paper filings have individual entrepreneurs, artisans, and schedule is consistent with the goals been made in projecting filings and crafts people. Alternatively, one and objectives outlined in the Strategic estimating revenue considering the commenter expressed support of the Plan. Once the key policy factors are impact of the fee increase on the Office’s goal of incentivizing use of considered, fees are set at, above, or behavior of applicants and parties to electronic filings, the proposed fee below individual cost-recovery levels TTAB proceedings and the resulting increases on certain paper filings, and for the service provided. For more revenues. The rationale behind this fee the increase of the application fee for information regarding the cost increase is consistent with prior fee the regular TEAS application. methodologies used to derive the reductions for electronic filings. The USPTO appreciates the historical fee unit expenses, please refer At present, the vast majority of filings commenter’s support of the objective of to USPTO Fee Setting—Activity Based are electronic. For example, in FY 2015, incentivizing electronic filing, but it Information and Trademark Fee Unit only 0.4% of initial applications for also appreciates the concerns of the Expense Methodology available at: registration were filed on paper, commenters regarding the impact of the http://www.uspto.gov/about-us/ increasing the unit costs as filings increased fees on individuals and small- performance-and-planning/fee-setting- decrease. Additionally, more than 95% business owners. After review of the and-adjusting. of all fee-paid requests were filed comments to the fee proposal, the Fees for Paper Filings: The final rule electronically in FY 2015. Thus, the USPTO is reducing the current fee for increases the fees for paper filings in increase in all paper filing fees will have electronically filed requests for order to meet two objectives: Better virtually no impact on the vast majority extensions of time to file a statement of align fees with costs and improve the of applicants and registrants who file use and the proposed increases for efficiency of the trademark process. The documents electronically. affidavits under sections 8 and 71. fee for filing a trademark application for Three commenters objected to the Furthermore, the majority of the fee registration on paper is increased by amounts of the proposed fee increases

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:30 Oct 20, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21OCR1.SGM 21OCR1 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES 72698 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 204 / Friday, October 21, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

for paper filings. The USPTO unable to attach an electronic file to a a statement of use from $150 to $125 per understands the concerns to keep costs TEAS form. Until such time as all forms class and reduces the increase for filing low for all filers. The objections to these accept such attachments, the USPTO such a request on paper to $225, rather fees have been carefully considered. has provided a workaround approach than the proposed increase to $250. However, some of the amended fees are for submitting such files via email. Initial Application Filed Through set to balance several key policy factors, The USPTO makes every effort to TEAS: The final rule increases the fee and executing these policy factors in the have TEAS and the Electronic System for an initial application filed through trademark fee schedule is consistent for Trademark Trials and Appeals TEAS as a regular TEAS application in with the goals and objectives outlined in (ESTTA) for trademark and TTAB order to better align the fee with the the Strategic Plan. In addition, given the filings, respectively, available 24 hours costs and to incentivize subsequent costs to process paper filings, the a day, 7 days a week. Sometimes, TEAS electronic filing and communications. USPTO has determined that a fee or ESTTA may be unavailable because The fee is increased from $325 to $400 increase is necessary at this time in of routine maintenance or are to bring the fee closer to the full order to bring the fees charged closer to unexpectedly inaccessible. In such processing cost of the service. Unlike the costs of processing the filings. The cases, the USPTO provides information the TEAS Plus and TEAS RF application USPTO encourages the use of electronic about the outage on its Web site and options, the regular TEAS application filing as a preferred filing method makes every attempt to restore service does not require the applicant to because it is less expensive, with lower as soon as possible. The USPTO also commit to communicating electronically processing fees and costs. It is also more provides information regarding filing with the Office throughout the course of efficient, because electronic filing documents during an outage at http:// prosecution of the application. expedites processing by eliminating the www.uspto.gov/trademarks-application- Increasing the fee for this application need for individual data entry as well as process/filing-online/filing-documents- option will encourage applicants to decreasing the potential for data-entry during-outage. Requests to waive a fee commit to complete electronic errors. The USPTO provides guidance because a document had to be filed on processing using one of the lower-cost on using TEAS electronic filing forms paper due to a system outage or other application options. Corresponding on its Web site at http://www.uspto.gov/ circumstance are considered on a case- increases to the individual fee for trademarks-getting-started/trademark- by-case basis. In order to properly assess requests for protection of an basics/teas-nuts-and-bolts-videos. the circumstances and evidence International Registration through the Two commenters suggested a waiver regarding each request for a fee waiver, Madrid Protocol are also affected by of any higher fee for paper filing in the appropriate mechanism is to file a invoking the relevant provisions under situations where electronic filing is petition to the Director under 37 CFR the Protocol and its Common unavailable, whether due a system 2.146. Regulations to adjust fees at the request outage or to TEAS limitations regarding Other Trademark-Processing Fees: of a contracting party. the submission of evidence or The Office also increases certain other One commenter stated that the specimens in video format. One of the trademark-processing fees in order to proposed increase of ‘‘from $75 a class commenters also suggested that the further key policy considerations, and to $400 a class’’ for regular TEAS difference in fees in such situations be reduces one fee. The rule increases the applications is extremely burdensome waived by some mechanism other than per-class fee for an initial application on small companies and individuals, a petition to the Director. filed through TEAS from $325 to $400. and suggested reducing the fee to no The USPTO notes that it is currently This fee increase applies to both U.S. more than $150 per class. The USPTO possible to submit electronic files and foreign filers as well as to appreciates the commenter’s concerns containing sound or multimedia applications submitted under the regarding the increased price for the specimens or evidence directly through Madrid Protocol as requests for regular TEAS application and assumes TEAS in all initial application forms as extension of protection and subsequent that the commenter is referring to the well as response forms, allegation-of-use designation. The rule also increases the $75 increase from the current fee of forms, petitions forms, and post- processing fee for failure to meet the $325 per class to $400 per class. The registration maintenance forms. The requirements for a TEAS Plus or TEAS USPTO notes that all filers, including complete list of forms is available on the RF filing from $50 to $125 per small companies and individuals, have USPTO Web site at http:// International Class to better align the less-expensive filing options. Filers www.uspto.gov/trademarks-application- resulting total charge with the fee for seeking lower-cost alternatives may process/filing-online/trademark- filing a regular TEAS application. In select between the TEAS Plus electronic-application-system-teas- addition, the final rule increases the fees application, at $225 per class, and the 1#164074. The USPTO is also for affidavits under sections 8 and 71 of TEAS RF option, which has fewer filing enhancing additional forms to permit the Act in the amount of $25 per class requirements than the TEAS Plus direct submission of sound or for electronic filings and $125 per class option, at $275 per class. The USPTO multimedia files on an ongoing basis, for paper filings. However, as a result of has no plans to introduce a lower-cost with the next enhancement planned for public comments, the rule reduces the filing option at this time as these fees October 2016. Therefore, there are few current fee for electronically filing a are set based on the reasons mentioned situations in which a party would be request for an extension of time to file above.

OTHER TRADEMARK-PROCESSING FEES [Initial application filed through TEAS]

Final rule 37 CFR Fee code Description Current fee fee Change

2.6(a)(1)(ii) ...... 7001 Filing and Application through TEAS, per Class $325 $400 $75

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:30 Oct 20, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21OCR1.SGM 21OCR1 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 204 / Friday, October 21, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 72699

(1) Processing Fee for Failure to Meet meeting certain requirements, including maintain the discounted application Requirements for TEAS Plus or TEAS a requirement to file certain documents status by meeting all TEAS Plus and RF: The final rule increases the fee for electronically. Applicants who fail to TEAS RF requirements to avoid being failure to meet TEAS Plus or TEAS RF meet the requirements are charged a assessed the additional processing fee. filing requirements in order to promote per-class processing fee. This fee is Thus, the Office will continue to the efficiency of the trademark increased from $50 to $125 to address promote use of electronic filings, which application process by incentivizing the difference between the filing fees for are more efficient and cost-effective to electronic filings and communication. these applications and the filing fee for review. Both TEAS Plus and TEAS RF feature a regular TEAS application, and to reduced filing fees in exchange for further encourage applicants to

OTHER TRADEMARK-PROCESSING FEES [Processing fee for failure to meet requirements for TEAS plus or TEAS RF]

Final rule 37 CFR Fee code Description Current fee fee Change

2.6(a)(1)(v) ...... 6008 Additional Processing Fee under § 2.22(c) or $50 $125 $75 § 2.23(c), per Class (paper). 2.6(a)(1)(v) ...... 7008 Additional Processing Fee under § 2.22(c) or 50 125 75 § 2.23(c), per Class (electronic).

(2) Affidavits under sections 8 and 71 goods and/or services identified in the accurate trademark register. Increased of the Act: In addition to aligning the registration. The findings of the pilot fees are required to recover the costs fees with full costs, the increase in fees program demonstrated a need for associated with the additional review. for submitting affidavits under sections ongoing measures for additional review The USPTO has reassessed its 8 and 71 will help to ensure the of these filings on a permanent basis. aggregate cost and determined that a accuracy and integrity of the trademark Such additional measures, which are register. Costs are set to increase for currently under development in a reduction in the proposed increase for these filings as a result of the need for separate rulemaking (see ‘‘Changes in affidavits under sections 8 and 71 that increased legal examination. In 2012, Requirements for Affidavits or are filed on paper is appropriate. The the USPTO began the Post Registration Declarations of Use, Continued Use, or fee for such affidavits filed using TEAS Proof of Use Pilot Program, during Excusable Nonuse in Trademark Cases’’ is increased by $25, rather than the which 500 registrations (for which (81 FR 40589; June 22, 2016)), will help proposed increase of $50. The fee for section 8 or 71 affidavits were filed) identify and remove registrations with such affidavits filed on paper is were reviewed to assess the accuracy insufficient maintenance filings, thereby increased by $125, rather than the and integrity of the trademark register as reducing the number of invalid proposed increase of $150. to the actual use of the mark with the registrations, and resulting in a more

OTHER TRADEMARK-PROCESSING FEES [Affidavits under § 8 and § 71 of the Act]

Final rule 37 CFR Fee code Description Current fee fee Change

2.6(a)(12)(i) ...... 6205 Filing an Affidavit under § 8 of the Act on Paper, $100 $225 $125 per Class. 2.6(a)(12)(ii) ...... 7205 Filing an Affidavit under § 8 of the Act through 100 125 25 TEAS, per Class. 7.6(a)(6)(i) ...... 6905 Filing an Affidavit under § 71 of the Act on 100 225 125 Paper, per Class. 7.6(a)(6)(ii) ...... 7905 Filing an Affidavit under § 71 of the Act through 100 125 25 TEAS, per Class.

(3) Extension of Time to File a such extensions and the TEAS fee. The still serve to incentivize electronic Statement of Use: Two commenters comment is well-taken, and the USPTO filing, a more efficient process than encouraged the USPTO to reduce the fee will reduce the fee for electronically paper filing. for extensions of time to file a statement filed extensions of time to file a of use filed through TEAS, given the statement of use from $150 to $125 per disparity between the cost to process class. Although reduced, the fee will

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:30 Oct 20, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21OCR1.SGM 21OCR1 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES 72700 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 204 / Friday, October 21, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

OTHER TRADEMARK-PROCESSING FEES [Extension of time to file a statement of use]

Final rule 37 CFR Fee code Description Current fee fee Change

2.6(a)(4)(i) ...... 6004 Filing a Request under § 1(d)(2) of the Act for a $150 $225 $75 Six-Month Extension of Time for Filing a Statement of Use under § 1(d)(1) of the Act on Paper, per Class. 2.6(a)(4)(i) ...... 7004 Filing a Request under § 1(d)(2) of the Act for a 150 125 (25) Six-Month Extension of Time for Filing a Statement of Use under § 1(d)(1) of the Act through TEAS, per Class.

Trademark Service Fees: The final because the service will be provided by with a set fee of $160 for expedited rule discontinues two trademark service a third-party vendor. Additionally, the service and $40 for overnight delivery. fees and replaces two ‘‘at-cost’’ service USPTO is not moving forward with the The fees are based on an average hourly fees with a set fee. The deposit account proposed hourly fee for using X-Search. cost of $40 per hour and the additional set-up fee is discontinued because the The Office revaluated the proposed fee time estimated to fulfill the type of process will be handled electronically, change and determined to continue to request. thus reducing the cost to process. The charge no fee for this service. Finally, self-service copy fee is discontinued the unspecified labor fees are replaced

TRADEMARK SERVICE FEES

Final rule 37 CFR Fee code Description Current fee fee Change

8524 Unspecified Other Services, Excluding Labor ..... At cost ...... n/a ...... n/a. 9201 Establish Deposit Account ...... $10 ...... n/a ...... n/a. 8902 Self-Service Copy Charge, per Page Copishare $0.25 ...... n/a ...... n/a. Card. 8523 Labor Charges for Services, per Hour or Frac- $40 ...... n/a ...... n/a. tion Thereof. 2.6(b)(9) ...... New Additional Fee for Expedited Service ...... $160 ...... n/a. 2.6(b)(8) ...... New Additional Fee for Overnight Delivery ...... $40 ...... n/a.

Existing Fees at the TTAB: This final are filed electronically, so the $100 per- registration. In reviewing appeals that rule also increases ex parte (i.e., appeal) class increase would affect more do not result in the filing of appeal fees, which have not been adjusted in stakeholders than the $200 increase to briefs, because requests for more than 25 years, and inter partes the paper filing fee. Both comments reconsideration are granted or lead to (i.e., trial) fees, which have not been explained that notices of appeal often further discussion obviating the need to adjusted in 15 years. With this rule, the are filed to ‘‘buy time’’ or ‘‘preserve the file an appeal brief, the Office has TTAB differentiates paper and right to appeal’’ while a request for learned that many issues could have electronic filing fees. The rule includes reconsideration of an examining been resolved earlier in the examination a $100 per-class increase in fees for attorney’s final refusal is pending, and process or through prompt filing of a electronic filings for petitions for as an alternative to any increase in the request for reconsideration after receipt cancellation, notices of opposition, and fee for a notice of appeal, suggested of a final refusal, rather than much later ex parte appeals. A $200 increase, per adding a separate fee for only those as a complement to the notice of appeal. class, is enacted for paper filings for the applicants who file an appeal brief. For many applicants who receive a final same requests. Currently, the cost of The Office recognizes that a refusal, but promptly file a request for TTAB operations is heavily subsidized significant percentage of notices of reconsideration, filing a notice of appeal by revenue from other trademark appeal are filed, in essence, to obtain an and the fee therefor can be avoided processing fees. The fee increases will extension of time to continue not recover the full costs of TTAB discussions with an examining attorney entirely. In addition, were the Office to operations, but will bring the fees closer regarding issues presented by a final implement the recommendation to add to the full costs in order to better align refusal. The final rule retains the a fee for filing an appeal brief, the brief costs and fees. Furthermore, the larger proposed increase in the appeal fee (and fee would have to be significantly increased fees for paper filings will the differentiation between paper filings higher than the proposed increase in the incentivize lower-cost electronic filing and electronic filings). The higher paper notice of appeal fee in order to raise in order to improve the efficiency of filing fee encourages electronic filing, revenue equivalent to that generated by processing and reduce total costs. and the increase in the appeal fee the fee increase for the notice of appeal, The Office interpreted one comment encourages efficiency by promoting which, as noted, is avoidable when used to raise concerns about the $200 earlier and more comprehensive primarily as an extension of the increase per class to file a notice of communication between applicants and examination process. appeal on paper. Another commenter examining attorneys regarding issues pointed out that most notices of appeal raised in Office actions refusing

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:30 Oct 20, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21OCR1.SGM 21OCR1 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 204 / Friday, October 21, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 72701

EXISTING FEES AT THE TTAB

Final rule 37 CFR Fee code Description Current fee fee Change

2.6(a)(16)(i) ...... 6401 Filing a Petition to Cancel on Paper, per Class .. $300 $500 $200 2.6(a)(16)(ii) ...... 7401 Filing a Petition to Cancel through ESTTA, per 300 400 100 Class. 2.6(a)(17)(i) ...... 6402 Filing a Notice of Opposition on Paper, per 300 500 200 Class. 2.6(a)(17)(ii) ...... 7402 Filing a Notice of Opposition through ESTTA, 300 400 100 per Class. 2.6(a)(18)(i) ...... 6403 Ex Parte Appeal to the Trademark Trial and Ap- 100 300 200 peal Board Filed on Paper, per Class. 2.6(a)(18)(ii) ...... 7403 Ex Parte Appeal to the Trademark Trial and Ap- 100 200 100 peal Board Filed through ESTTA, per Class.

Establish Fees for Extensions of Time require a showing of good cause, 37 CFR extension of time to oppose. The final at the TTAB: The final rule establishes 2.102(c)(1) to (2), in addition to the rule retains the proposed extension fees, new fees for requests for extensions of appropriate fee. The ‘‘final 60-day which are noted to be ‘‘per application’’ time to file a notice of opposition in extension’’ requires written consent of fees and not ‘‘per class’’ fees, and order to better align the fees with the the applicant or its representative, or a therefore lower than total fees for filing processing costs as well as to protect the showing of extraordinary circumstances an opposition to a multi-class integrity of the trademark register. The warranting this final extension, see 37 application. public has 30 days from the date of CFR 2.102(c)(3), in addition to the These fees will yield efficiencies by publication of an application to file a appropriate fee. encouraging potential opposers to make notice of opposition with the TTAB. Three commenters addressed the However, prior to this rule, a potential proposed new fees for extensions of decisions regarding filing an opposition opposer had available to it several types time to oppose. None took issue with sooner, thus reducing delays to of extensions, at no fee, that allowed the higher costs for paper filings. One applicants. Thousands of applications opposer to delay an application or delay comment addressed the perceived are delayed each year without any making a decision regarding whether to ‘‘abrogation’’ of the option to file for a subsequent filing of a notice of file an opposition. This rulemaking 90-day initial extension of time to opposition, and the Office has received establishes a tiered fee structure for oppose and noted this would increase complaints from applicants whose these filings. Under the new structure, filing costs as parties would file for the applications have been delayed, from potential opposers may request: (1) An no-cost 30-day extension and then the applicants’ perspective, unjustly. initial 30-day extension for no fee; (2) a separately for the subsequent 60-day Additionally, for those that file the subsequent 60-day extension for a fee of good-cause extension. The Office does notice of opposition, the fee will result $100 for electronic filings and $200 for not intend to remove the option for in faster commencement and, therefore, paper filings, OR a single 90-day filing an initial 90-day extension, as conclusion of TTAB cases by extension effectively combining the 30- explained above. All three commenters encouraging earlier decisions to initiate day no-fee extension and the subsequent suggested that the fees for extensions of proceedings. This should also help to 60-day extension, at these fees; and (3) time to oppose might actually encourage protect the integrity of the trademark a final 60-day extension for a fee of $200 potential opposers to file more notices register by encouraging timely decisions for electronic filings and $300 for paper of opposition to avoid the extension and filings to ensure that the rights of filings. The ‘‘subsequent 60-day’’ fees. Two of the commenters suggested other applicants and the public are not extension or 90-day extension both a fee only for the ‘‘final’’ 60-day adversely affected.

NEW FEES FOR EXTENSIONS OF TIME AT THE TTAB

Final rule 37 CFR Fee code Description Current fee fee Change

2.6(a)(22)(i) ...... New ...... Filing a Request for an Extension of Time to ...... $200 n/a. File a Notice of Opposition under § 2.102(c)(3) on Paper. 2.6(a)(22)(ii) ...... New ...... Filing a Request for an Extension of Time to n/a ...... 100 n/a. File a Notice of Opposition under § 2.102(c)(3) through ESTTA. 2.6(a)(23)(i) ...... New ...... Filing a Request for an Extension of Time to n/a ...... 300 n/a. File a Notice of Opposition under § 2.102(c)(1)(ii) or (c)(2) on Paper. 2.6(a)(23)(ii) ...... New ...... Filing a Request for an Extension of Time to n/a ...... 200 n/a. File a Notice of Opposition under § 2.102(c)(1)(ii) or (c)(2) through ESTTA.

Given that the fee for the notice of should encourage earlier calculated implementing a tiered-fee structure will opposition has been increased, the decisions based on all of the available reduce the number of potential opposers Office believes that the extension fees information and fees. Furthermore,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:30 Oct 20, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21OCR1.SGM 21OCR1 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES 72702 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 204 / Friday, October 21, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

that use the extensions merely to delay The USPTO revises § 2.6(a)(5)(i) to The USPTO revises § 2.6(a)(14) to applications. increase the fee for filing an application read ‘‘Filing section 8 affidavit during Finally, these fees will help offset the for renewal of a registration on paper grace period’’ and adds §§ 2.6(a)(14)(i) processing costs. In FY 2015, the Office from $400 to $500 per class. and (ii) to set out the fees for filing an received 17,000 requests for extensions The USPTO revises § 2.6(a)(6) to read affidavit under section 8 of the Act of time to file a notice of opposition, but ‘‘Renewal during grace period’’ and during the grace period on paper and there has been no fee to cover the costs adds §§ 2.6(a)(6)(i) and (ii) to set out the through TEAS, respectively. The paper to process these filings. It is customary fees for filing a renewal application filing fee is increased from $100 to $200 for requests that delay processing of during the grace period on paper and per class. records, such as extensions, to require a through TEAS, respectively. The paper The USPTO revises § 2.6(a)(15) to fee to contribute to the cost of filing fee is increased from $100 to $200 read ‘‘Petitions to the Director’’ and processing the filing as well as the per class. adds §§ 2.6(a)(15)(i) and (ii) to set out overall cost of processing of appeals and The USPTO revises § 2.6(a)(7) to read the fees for filing a petition to the trials. These fees are necessary to help ‘‘Publishing mark under section 12(c)’’ Director on paper and through TEAS. attain primary Office goals of furthering and adds §§ 2.6(a)(7)(i) and (ii) to set out The paper filing fee is increased from key policy considerations, such as the fees for filing a request to publish a $100 to $200. encouraging efficient processing, along mark under section 12(c) on paper and The USPTO revises § 2.6(a)(16) to with recovering the aggregate cost of through TEAS, respectively. The paper read ‘‘Petition to cancel’’ and adds operations. filing fee is increased from $100 to $200 §§ 2.6(a)(16)(i) and (ii) to set out the fees Costs and Benefits: This rulemaking is per class. for filing a petition to cancel on paper not considered to be economically The USPTO revises § 2.6(a)(8) to read and through ESTTA. The paper filing significant under Executive Order 12866 ‘‘New certificate of registration’’ and fee is increased from $300 to $500 per (Sept. 30, 1993). adds §§ 2.6(a)(8)(i) and (ii) to set out the class and the electronic filing fee is fees for a filing a request to issue a new increased from $300 to $400 per class. Discussion of Regulatory Changes The USPTO revises § 2.6(a)(17) to certificate of registration on paper and read ‘‘Notice of opposition’’ and adds The USPTO amends §§ 2.6 and 7.6 to through TEAS, respectively. The paper §§ 2.6(a)(17)(i) and (ii) to set out the fees establish new or increase certain filing fee is increased from $100 to $200. for filing a notice of opposition on paper existing trademark fees, and to make The USPTO revises § 2.6(a)(9) to read and through ESTTA, respectively. The other conforming changes, as described ‘‘Certificate of correction of registrant’s paper filing fee is increased from $300 in the section-by-section analysis below. error’’ and adds §§ 2.6(a)(9)(i) and (ii) to to $500 per class and the electronic The USPTO revises § 2.6(a)(1)(i) to set out the fees for filing a request to filing fee is increased from $300 to $400 increase the fee for an initial application issue a certification of correction of a per class. filed on paper from $375 to $600 per registrant’s error on paper and through The USPTO revises § 2.6(a)(18) to class, and § 2.6(a)(1)(ii) to increase the TEAS, respectively. The paper filing fee read ‘‘Ex parte appeal’’ and adds fee for an initial application filed using is increased from $100 to $200. §§ 2.6(a)(18)(i) and (ii) to set out the fees the regular TEAS option from $325 to The USPTO revises § 2.6(a)(10) to for filing an ex parte appeal on paper $400 per class. This increase also read ‘‘Disclaimer to a registration’’ and and through ESTTA, respectively. The applies to requests for extension of adds §§ 2.6(a)(10)(i) and (ii) to set out paper filing fee is increased from $100 protection filed under the Madrid the fees for submitting a disclaimer to a to $300 per class and the electronic Protocol. registration on paper and through TEAS filing fee is increased from $100 to $200 The USPTO revises § 2.6(a)(1)(v) to or the Electronic System for Trademark per class. increase the fee for failure to meet TEAS Trials and Appeals (ESTTA), The USPTO revises § 2.6(a)(19) to Plus or TEAS RF requirements from $50 respectively. The paper filing fee is read ‘‘Dividing an application’’ and to $125 per class. increased from $100 to $200. adds §§ 2.6(a)(19)(i) and (ii) to set out The USPTO revises § 2.6(a)(2) to read The USPTO revises § 2.6(a)(11) to the fees for filing a request to divide an ‘‘Amendment to allege use’’ and adds read ‘‘Amendment of registration’’ and application on paper and through TEAS, §§ 2.6(a)(2)(i) and (ii) to set out the fees adds §§ 2.6(a)(11)(i) and (ii) to set out respectively. The proposed paper filing for filing an amendment to allege use on the fees for filing an amendment to a fee is increased from $100 to $200 per paper and through TEAS, respectively. registration on paper and through TEAS new application created. The paper filing fee is increased from or ESTTA, respectively. The paper filing The USPTO revises § 2.6(a)(20) to $100 to $200 per class. fee is increased from $100 to $200. read ‘‘Correcting deficiency in section 8 The USPTO revises § 2.6(a)(3) to read The USPTO revises § 2.6(a)(12) to affidavit’’ and adds §§ 2.6(a)(20)(i) and ‘‘Statement of use’’ and adds read ‘‘Affidavit under section 8’’ and (ii) to set out the fees for filing a §§ 2.6(a)(3)(i) and (ii) to set out the fees adds §§ 2.6(a)(12)(i) and (ii) to set out correction in a section 8 affidavit on for filing a statement of use on paper the fees for filing an affidavit under paper and through TEAS, respectively. and through TEAS, respectively. The section 8 of the Act on paper and The paper filing fee is increased from paper filing fee is increased from $100 through TEAS, respectively. The paper $100 to $200. to $200 per class. filing fee is increased from $100 to $225 The USPTO revises § 2.6(a)(21) to The USPTO revises § 2.6(a)(4) to read per class and the electronic filing fee is read ‘‘Correcting deficiency in renewal ‘‘Extension of time for filing statement increased from $100 to $125 per class. application’’ and adds §§ 2.6(a)(21)(i) of use’’ and adds §§ 2.6(a)(4)(i) and (ii) The USPTO revises § 2.6(a)(13) to and (ii) to set out the fees for filing a to set out the fees for filing an extension read ‘‘Affidavit under section 15’’ and correction in a renewal application on of time to file a statement of use on adds §§ 2.6(a)(13)(i) and (ii) to set out paper and through TEAS, respectively. paper and through TEAS, respectively. the fees for filing an affidavit under The paper filing fee is increased from The paper filing fee is increased from section 15 of the Act on paper and $100 to $200. $150 to $225 per class. The fee for filing through TEAS, respectively. The paper The USPTO adds § 2.6(a)(22) to read through TEAS is reduced from $150 to filing fee is increased from $200 to $300 ‘‘Extension of time for filing notice of $125 per class. per class. opposition under § 2.102(c)(1)(ii) or

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:30 Oct 20, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21OCR1.SGM 21OCR1 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 204 / Friday, October 21, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 72703

(c)(2)’’ and §§ 2.6(a)(22)(i) and (ii) to set The USPTO revises § 7.6(a)(3) to read 10(e)(1) requires the Director to publish out the fees for filing a request for an ‘‘Transmission of subsequent in the Federal Register any proposed fee extension of time to file a notice of designation’’ and adds §§ 7.6(a)(3)(i) and change under Section 10, and include in opposition pursuant to § 2.102(c)(1)(ii) (ii) to set out the fees for transmitting a such publication the specific rationale or (c)(2) on paper and through ESTTA, subsequent designation under § 7.21 on and purpose for the proposal, including respectively. The paper filing fee is set paper and through TEAS, respectively. the possible expectations or benefits at $200 and the electronic filing fee is The paper filing fee is increased from resulting from the proposed change. For set at $100. $100 to $200. such rulemakings, the AIA requires that The USPTO adds § 2.6(a)(23) to read The USPTO revises § 7.6(a)(4) to read the Office provide a public comment ‘‘Extension of time for filing notice of ‘‘Transmission of request to record an period of not less than 45 days. opposition under § 2.102(c)(3)’’ and assignment or restriction’’ and adds The TPAC advises the Under §§ 2.6(a)(23)(i) and (ii) to set out the fees §§ 7.6(a)(4)(i) and (ii) to set out the fees Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual for filing a request for an extension of for transmitting a request to record an Property and Director of the USPTO on time to file a notice of opposition assignment or restriction under § 7.23 or the management, policies, goals, pursuant to § 2.102(c)(3) on paper and § 7.24 on paper and through TEAS, performance, budget, and user fees of through ESTTA, respectively. The paper respectively. The paper filing fee is Trademark operations. When adopting filing fee is set at $300 and the increased from $100 to $200. fees under Section 10, the AIA requires electronic filing fee is set at $200. The USPTO revises § 7.6(a)(5) to read the Director to provide the TPAC with The USPTO deletes the current ‘‘Notice of replacement’’ and adds the proposed fees at least 45 days prior § 2.6(b)(8). §§ 7.6(a)(5)(i) and (ii) to set out the fees to publishing the proposed fees in the The USPTO redesignates § 2.6(b)(9) as for filing a notice of replacement under Federal Register. The TPAC then has at § 2.6(b)(8) and deletes the current fee for § 7.28 on paper and through TEAS, least 30 days within which to deliberate, self-service copies and replaces it with respectively. The fee for filing a notice consider, and comment on the proposal, a fee of $40 for overnight delivery. of replacement on paper is increased as well as hold public hearing(s) on the The USPTO redesignates § 2.6(b)(10) from $100 to $200 per class. proposed fees. The TPAC must make a as § 2.6(b)(9) and deletes the current fee The USPTO revises § 7.6(a)(6) to read written report available to the public of for labor charges and replaces it with a ‘‘Affidavit under section 71’’ and to add the comments, advice, and fee of $160 for expedited service. §§ 7.6(a)(6)(i) and (ii) to set out the fees recommendations of the committee The USPTO deletes the current for filing an affidavit under section 71 regarding the proposed fees before the § 2.6(b)(11) and redesignates the current of the Act on paper and through TEAS, Office issues any final fees. The Office § 2.6(b)(12) as § 2.6(b)(10). respectively. The paper filing fee is will consider and analyze any The USPTO deletes the current increased from $100 to $225 per class, comments, advice, or recommendations §§ 2.6(b)(13) and § 2.6(b)(13)(i), and the electronic filing fee is increased received from the TPAC before finally redesignates the current § 2.6(b)(13)(ii) from $100 to $125 per class. setting or adjusting fees. Fees set or as § 2.6(b)(11), and adds the wording The USPTO revises § 7.6(a)(7) to read adjusted under Section 10 may not ‘‘Deposit account’’ at the beginning of ‘‘Filing affidavit under section 71 during become effective before the end of the the paragraph. grace period’’ and adds §§ 7.6(a)(7)(i) 45-day period beginning on the day after The USPTO revises § 2.200(b) to and (ii) to set out the surcharge for filing the date on which the final rule setting delete the reference to the extra charge an affidavit under section 71 of the Act or adjusting the fees is published in the in § 2.6(b)(10), pursuant to the proposed during the grace period on paper and Federal Register. change to § 2.6(b)(10) set forth above. through TEAS, respectively. The Consistent with the requirements of The USPTO revises § 2.208(a) to surcharge for filing an affidavit during the AIA, on October 14, 2015, the delete the reference to the fee for the grace period on paper is increased Director notified the TPAC of the establishing a deposit account and from $100 to $200 per class. Office’s intent to set or adjust trademark amend the reference regarding the The USPTO revises § 7.6(a)(8) to read fees and submitted a preliminary service charge to § 2.6(b)(11), pursuant ‘‘Correcting deficiency in section 71 trademark fee proposal with supporting to the proposed changes to affidavit’’ and adds §§ 7.6(a)(8)(i) and materials. The preliminary trademark §§ 2.6(b)(13)–(13)(ii) set forth above. (ii) to set out the fees for correcting a fee proposal and associated materials The USPTO revises § 7.6(a)(1) to read are available at: http://www.uspto.gov/ deficiency in a section 71 affidavit on ‘‘Certification of international about-us/performance-and-planning/ paper and through TEAS, respectively. application based on single application fee-setting-and-adjusting. The revenue The fee for filing the correction on paper or registration’’ and adds §§ 7.6(a)(1)(i) estimate for the fee proposal considered is increased from $100 to $200. and (ii) to set out the fees for certifying by the TPAC was included in the an international application based on a Rulemaking Requirements USPTO FY 2017 President’s Budget single basic application or registration request. The fee schedule associated America Invents Act on paper and through TEAS, with the original proposal is presented respectively. The paper filing fee is This rulemaking sets and adjusts fees as Alternative 4—Original Proposal to increased from $100 to $200, per class. under Section 10(a) of the AIA. Section TPAC. The USPTO revises § 7.6(a)(2) to read 10(a) of the AIA authorizes the Director The TPAC held a public hearing in ‘‘Certification of international to set or adjust by rule any trademark Alexandria, Virginia on November 3, application based on more than one fee established, authorized, or charged 2015. Transcripts of this hearing and application or registration’’ and adds under the Trademark Act for any comments submitted to the TPAC in §§ 7.6(a)(2)(i) and (ii) to set out the fees services performed by, or materials writing are available for review at http:// for certifying an international furnished by the Office. See Section 10 www.uspto.gov/about-us/performance- application based on a more than one of the AIA, Public Law 112–29, 125 Stat. and-planning/fee-setting-and-adjusting. application or registration on paper and 284, 316–17. Section 10(e) of the AIA The TPAC released its report regarding through TEAS, respectively. The paper sets forth the general requirements for the preliminary proposed fees on filing fee is increased from $150 to $250 rulemakings that set or adjust fees under November 30, 2015. The report can be per class. this authority. In particular, Section found online at http://www.uspto.gov/

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:30 Oct 20, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21OCR1.SGM 21OCR1 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES 72704 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 204 / Friday, October 21, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

about-us/performance-and-planning/ trademark costs of the Office to achieve Administration in response to the fee-setting-and-adjusting. The proposed strategic and operational goals, such as proposed rule. rule was published in the Federal maintaining an operating reserve, Register on May 27, 2016 and the public implementing measures to maintain 4. Description of and an estimate of the was provided with a 45-day comment trademark pendency and high number of small entities to which period. After consideration of public trademark quality, modernizing the the rule will apply or an comments, the USPTO publishes this trademark IT systems, continuing explanation of why no such final rule, which is effective on January programs for stakeholder and public estimate is available: 14, 2017. outreach, and enhancing operations of The USPTO does not collect or the TTAB. Aggregate costs are estimated Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis maintain statistics in trademark cases on through the USPTO budget-formulation small-versus large-entity applicants, and The USPTO publishes this Final process with the annual preparation of this information would be required in Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) a five-year performance-based budget order to determine the number of small as required by the Regulatory Flexibility request. Revenues are estimated based entities that would be affected by the Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) to on the projected demand for trademark final rule. The USPTO believes that the examine the impact of the Office’s products and services and fee rates. overall impact of the fee structure proposed changes to trademark fees on As to the legal basis for the final rule, implemented herein on applicants and small entities. Under the RFA, Section 10 of the AIA provides the registrants will be positive, because it whenever an agency is required by 5 authority for the Director to set or adjust promotes the more cost-effective U.S.C. 553 (or any other law) to publish by rule any fee established, authorized, electronic filing system. There will be a notice of proposed rulemaking or charged under the Trademark Act of little or no impact for the majority of (NPRM), the agency must prepare and 1946, 15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq., as applicants and registrants that file make available for public comment a amended. See also Section 31 of the FRFA, unless the agency certifies under electronically and communicate on a Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. 1113. timely basis. 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that the proposed rule, 2. A statement of the significant issues if implemented, will not have a raised by the public comments in The final rule applies to any entity significant economic impact on a response to the initial regulatory filing with USPTO. The USPTO substantial number of small entities. 5 flexibility analysis, a statement of estimates that during the first fiscal year U.S.C. 603, 605. The USPTO published the assessment of the agency of under the rules, assuming an expected an Initial Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), such issues, and a statement of any implementation date of January 2017, along with the NPRM, on May 27, 2016 changes made in the proposed rule the USPTO would expect to collect (81 FR 33619). The USPTO received no as a result of such comments: approximately $9.5 million more in comments from the public directly trademark processing, service, and The USPTO did not receive any applicable to the IFRA, as stated below TTAB fees. The USPTO would receive public comments in response to the in Item 2. an additional $0.7 million in fees from Items 1–6 below discuss the six items IRFA. However, the Office received paper-filed applications and $8.8 specified in 5 U.S.C. 604(a)(1)–(6) to be comments about fees in general, as well million more from electronically filed addressed in a FRFA. Item 6 below as particular fees, and their impact on applications, including $3 million from discusses alternatives considered by the small entities, which are further TEAS applications for the registration of Office. discussed in the preamble. a mark, $3.2 million from requests for 1. Succinct statement of the need for, 3. The response of the agency to any extension of protection and subsequent and objectives of, the rule: comments filed by the Chief designations, $0.3 million for additional The USPTO is setting and adjusting Counsel for Advocacy of the Small fees for applications failing to meet the certain trademark fees as authorized by Business Administration in TEAS Plus or TEAS RF requirements, $4 Section 10 of the AIA. The fee schedule response to the proposed rule, and million for affidavits of use under implemented under Section 10 in this a detailed statement of any change sections 8 and 71, and $5 million less rulemaking will further key policy made to the proposed rule in the for extensions of time for filing a considerations to: (1) Better align fees final rule as a result of the statement of use. Total TTAB filing fees with full costs; (2) protect the integrity comments: would increase by $3.6 million; $2.1 of the register; and (3) promote the The USPTO did not receive any million is expected from the newly efficiency of the trademark process; and comments filed by the Chief Counsel for established fees for filing extensions of recover the aggregate estimated Advocacy of the Small Business time to file an opposition.

Estimated Estimated Trademark fee category collections with collections with Change current fees final rule fees

Total Trademark Fees ...... $307,468,600 $316,957,100 $9,488,500 Paper-Filed Applications ...... 1,752,750 2,418,550 665,800 Electronically Filed Applications ...... 294,063,575 302,875,475 8,811,900 TEAS Applications for the Registration of a Mark ...... 17,787,900 20,763,600 2,975,700 Request for Extension of Protection and Subsequent Designations ...... 19,384,950 22,567,950 3,183,000 Failing to Meet the TEAS Plus or TEAS RF Requirements ...... 320,800 663,200 342,400 Affidavit under § 8 and § 71 of the Act ...... 21,654,300 25,604,400 3,950,100 Extension of Time to File a Statement of Use ...... 37,705,400 32,741,300 (4,964,100) Total TTAB Fees ...... 4,742,000 8,310,700 3,568,700 New TTAB Fees ...... 0 2,142,300 2,142,300 Trademark Service Fees ...... 11,652,240 11,663,440 11,200

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:30 Oct 20, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21OCR1.SGM 21OCR1 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 204 / Friday, October 21, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 72705

5. Description of the reporting, register, thus allowing mark owners to to allow the USPTO to recover full cost recordkeeping, and other more quickly and assuredly register per fee based on the most recent fee unit compliance requirements of the their marks. The fee schedule for this cost trends. The USPTO uses Activity final rule, including an estimate of alternative (labeled Final Rule) is Based Information to determine the the classes of small entities which available at: http://www.uspto.gov/ historical costs of activities related to will be subject to the requirement about-us/performance-and-planning/ each fee. Additional information about and the type of professional skills fee-setting-and-adjusting. the methodology is available at: http:// necessary for preparation of the One alternative to setting and www.uspto.gov/about-us/performance- report or record: increasing the proposed fees would be and-planning/fee-setting-and-adjusting. The final rule imposes no new to take no action at this time regarding It is common practice in the Federal reporting or recordkeeping trademark fees and to leave all Government to set a particular fee at a requirements. trademark fees as currently set. This level to recover the cost of a given good The final rule sets and adjusts alternative was rejected because it will or service. In OMB Circular A–25: User trademark fees. The USPTO does not not assist in protecting the integrity of Charges, the OMB states that user anticipate that the final rule would have the register by incentivizing more timely charges (fees) should be sufficient to a disproportionate impact upon any filing of applications and other filings recover the full cost to the Federal particular class of small or large entities. and more efficient resolution of appeals Government of providing the particular 6. Description of the steps the agency and trials, will not promote the service, resource, or good, when the has taken to minimize the efficiency of the process by, in part, government is acting in its capacity as significant economic impact on increasing the affordability of electronic sovereign. This alternative was rejected small entities consistent with the filing options relative to paper filings, because it was determined that the costs stated objectives of applicable and will not better align fees with the for any given product or service can statutes, including a statement of full cost of products and services. In vary from year to year, such that a the factual, policy, and legal addition, it does not sufficiently recover yearly review of all, and adjustment to reasons for selecting the alternative aggregate costs. The fee schedule for this many, trademark fees would be adopted in the final rule and why alternative (labeled Alternative 1—No required, and could also lead to each one of the other significant Change) is available at: http:// stakeholder confusion regarding what alternatives to the rule considered www.uspto.gov/about-us/performance- any given trademark fee was currently by the agency which affect the and-planning/fee-setting-and-adjusting. set at and what the relevant fee would impact on small entities was Another alternative to setting and be in the future. This alternative would rejected: increasing the fees that was considered have increased revenue by more than was to tie all trademark fees to the the final rule in part because workloads The USPTO considered a total of five Consumer Price Index (CPI), applying a are expected to increase. In addition, it alternatives for setting fee rates before 9.956%, multi-year, across-the-board was determined that setting the enacting this rule. A full list of current inflationary increase to all trademark trademark fees to recover 100% of all and proposed fees for each of the fees. The 9.956% represents the costs associated with each product or alternatives is available in the FRFA estimated cumulative inflationary service would not properly promote the Tables and the Trademark Fee Aggregate adjustment from FY 2017 through FY efficiency of the process. The fee Revenue Tables at http:// 2021. As estimated by the Congressional schedule for this alternative (labeled www.uspto.gov/about-us/performance- Budget Office, projected inflationary Alternative 3—Individual Cost and-planning/fee-setting-and-adjusting. rates by fiscal year are: 2.17% in FY Recovery) is available at: http:// The alternatives are explained here with 2017, 2.39% in FY 2018, 2.38% in FY www.uspto.gov/about-us/performance- additional information regarding how 2019, 2.42% in FY 2020, and 2.42% in and-planning/fee-setting-and-adjusting. each proposal was developed and the FY 2021. This alternative was rejected For purposes of this discussion, the aggregate revenue was estimated. A because, unlike the fee structure preliminary trademark fee proposal description of the Aggregate Revenue implemented herein, fee increases presented to the TPAC is identified as Estimating Methodologies is available would be in excess of aggregate costs Alternative 4 in the Trademark Fee at: http://www.uspto.gov/about-us/ and there would be no improvements in Aggregate Revenue Tables available at: performance-and-planning/fee-setting- fee design to accomplish the stated http://www.uspto.gov/about-us/ and-adjusting. objectives of protecting the integrity of performance-and-planning/fee-setting- The USPTO chose the alternative the register by incentivizing more timely and-adjusting. The revenue estimate for implemented herein because it will filing of applications and other filings the preliminary proposal considered by enable the Office to achieve its goals and more efficient resolution of appeals the TPAC was included in the USPTO effectively and efficiently without and trials. In addition, it was FY 2017 President’s Budget request. unduly burdening small entities, determined that adjusting trademark That proposal, as addressed in the erecting barriers to entry, or stifling fees in accordance with increases or preamble, was modified based on the incentives to innovate. This alternative decreases in the CPI would likely lead feedback from the TPAC report received furthers key policy considerations of to user confusion as fees would be November 30, 2015 and feedback better aligning fees with full costs, adjusted by what could be viewed as received from public comments. The protecting the integrity of the register, non-traditional or unpredictable preliminary proposal included an and promoting the efficiency of the increments. The fee schedule for this increase in the fee to file a request for trademark process while continuing to alternative (labeled Alternative 2—CPI an extension of time to file a statement secure the Office’s required revenue to Increase) is available at: http:// of use that would apply only to U.S.- meet its aggregate costs. The increased www.uspto.gov/about-us/performance- based applicants that filed an efficiencies realized through the final and-planning/fee-setting-and-adjusting. application based on a future intention rule will benefit all applicants and Another alternative that was to use the mark. The final rule no longer registrants by allowing registrations to considered was full cost recovery per includes an increase to that fee unless be granted sooner and more efficiently fee. This would require USPTO to set it is filed on paper, consistent with the removing unused marks from the each trademark fee at 100% of unit cost increase in all paper-filed requests.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:30 Oct 20, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21OCR1.SGM 21OCR1 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES 72706 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 204 / Friday, October 21, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

Instead, the final rule includes a Accountability Office. The changes in PART 2—RULES OF PRACTICE IN reduction in the fee for electronically this notice are not expected to result in TRADEMARK CASES filing a request for an extension of time an annual effect on the economy of 100 to file a statement of use and an increase million dollars or more, a major increase ■ 1. The authority citation for 37 CFR in the fee for filing an affidavit under in costs or prices, or significant adverse part 2 continues to read as follows: section 8 and 71, which apply to the effects on competition, employment, Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1113, 15 U.S.C. 1123, continued maintenance of a registration. investment, productivity, innovation, or 35 U.S.C. 2, Section 10 of Pub. L. 112–29, The final rule also increases the fee for the ability of United States-based unless otherwise noted. filing a TEAS application. The fee enterprises to compete with foreign- ■ 2. Revise § 2.6 to read as follows: schedule for this alternative (labeled based enterprises in domestic and Alternative 4—Original Proposal to export markets. Therefore, this notice is § 2.6 Trademark fees. TPAC (FY 17 PB)) is available at: http:// not expected to result in a ‘‘major rule’’ (a) Trademark process fees. www.uspto.gov/about-us/performance- as defined in 5 U.S.C. 804(2). (1) Application filing fees. and-planning/fee-setting-and-adjusting. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of (i) For filing an application on paper, Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory 1995: The changes set forth in this per class—$600.00 Planning and Review): This rule has rulemaking do not involve a Federal (ii) For filing an application through been determined to be significant, but intergovernmental mandate that will TEAS, per class—$400.00 not economically significant, for result in the expenditure by State, local, (iii) For filing a TEAS Reduced Fee (RF) purposes of Executive Order 12866 and tribal governments, in the aggregate, application through TEAS under (Sept. 30, 1993). of 100 million dollars (as adjusted) or § 2.23, per class—$275.00 Executive Order 13563 (Improving more in any one year, or a Federal (iv) For filing a TEAS Plus application Regulation and Regulatory Review): The private sector mandate that will result USPTO has complied with Executive through TEAS under § 2.22, per in the expenditure by the private sector Order 13563 (Jan. 18, 2011). class—$225.00 of 100 million dollars (as adjusted) or Specifically, the USPTO has, to the (v) Additional processing fee under more in any one year, and will not extent feasible and applicable: (1) Made §§ 2.22(c) or 2.23(c), per class— significantly or uniquely affect small a reasoned determination that the $125.00 governments. Therefore, no actions are benefits justify the costs of the rule; (2) (2) Amendment to allege use. necessary under the provisions of the tailored the rule to impose the least (i) For filing an amendment to allege use Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of burden on society consistent with under section 1(c) of the Act on 1995. See 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. obtaining the regulatory objectives; (3) paper, per class—$200.00 selected a regulatory approach that Paperwork Reduction Act: This rule (ii) For filing an amendment to allege maximizes net benefits; (4) specified involves information collection use under section 1(c) of the Act performance objectives; (5) identified requirements that are subject to review through TEAS, per class—$100.00 by the Office of Management and and assessed available alternatives; (6) (3) Statement of use. provided the public with a meaningful Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork (i) For filing a statement of use under opportunity to participate in the Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 section 1(d)(1) of the Act on paper, regulatory process, including soliciting et seq.). The collection of information per class—$200.00 the views of those likely affected prior involved in this rule has been reviewed (ii) For filing a statement of use under to issuing a notice of proposed and previously approved by OMB under section 1(d)(1) of the Act through rulemaking, and provided online access control numbers 0651–0009, 0651–0040, TEAS, per class—$100.00 to the rulemaking docket; (7) attempted 0651–0050, 0651–0051, 0651–0054, and to promote coordination, simplification, 0651–0055. (4) Extension of time for filing and harmonization across government Notwithstanding any other provision statement of use. agencies and identified goals designed of law, no person is required to respond (i) For filing a request under section to promote innovation; (8) considered to nor shall a person be subject to a 1(d)(2) of the Act for a six-month approaches that reduce burdens and penalty for failure to comply with a extension of time for filing a maintain flexibility and freedom of collection of information subject to the statement of use under section choice for the public; and (9) ensured requirements of the Paperwork 1(d)(1) of the Act on paper, per the objectivity of scientific and Reduction Act unless that collection of class—$225.00 technological information and information displays a currently valid (ii) For filing a request under section processes, to the extent applicable. OMB control number. 1(d)(2) of the Act for a six-month Executive Order 13132 (Federalism): extension of time for filing a List of Subjects This rule does not contain policies with statement of use under section federalism implications sufficient to 37 CFR Part 2 1(d)(1) of the Act through TEAS, warrant preparation of a Federalism per class—$125.00 Assessment under Executive Order Administrative practice and procedure, Trademarks. (5) Application for renewal of a 13132 (Aug. 4, 1999). registration fees. Congressional Review Act: Under the 37 CFR Part 7 Congressional Review Act provisions of (i) For filing an application for renewal the Small Business Regulatory Administrative practice and of a registration on paper, per Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (5 procedure, Trademarks, International class—$500.00 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), prior to issuing any registration. (ii) For filing an application for renewal final rule, the USPTO will submit a For the reasons stated in the preamble of a registration through TEAS, per report containing the final rule and and under the authority contained in class—$300.00 other required information to the United Section 10(a) of the AIA, 15 U.S.C. 1113, (6) Renewal during grace period. States Senate, the United States House 15 U.S.C. 1123, and 35 U.S.C. 2, as (i) Additional fee for filing a renewal of Representatives, and the Comptroller amended, the USPTO amends parts 2 application during the grace period General of the Government and 7 of title 37 as follows: on paper, per class—$200.00

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:30 Oct 20, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21OCR1.SGM 21OCR1 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 204 / Friday, October 21, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 72707

(ii) Additional fee for filing a renewal (ii) For petitions to the Director filed preparation of copies by the Office application during the grace period through TEAS—$100.00 within two to three business days through TEAS, per class—$100.00 (16) Petition to cancel. and delivery by United States Postal (7) Publishing mark under section (i) For filing a petition to cancel on Service; and preparation of copies 12(c). paper, per class—$500.00 by the Office within one business (i) For filing to publish a mark under (ii) For filing a petition to cancel day of receipt and delivery to an section 12(c) on paper, per class— through ESTTA, per class—$400.00 Office Box or by electronic means $200.00 (17) Notice of opposition. (e.g., facsimile, electronic mail)— $3.00 (ii) For filing to publish a mark under (i) For filing a notice of opposition on (2) Certified or uncertified copy of section 12(c) through TEAS, per paper, per class—$500.00 trademark application as filed class—$100.00 (ii) For filing a notice of opposition processed within seven calendar through ESTTA, per class—$400.00 (8) New certificate of registration. days—$15.00 (i) For issuing a new certificate of (18) Ex parte appeal. (3) Certified or uncertified copy of a registration upon request of (i) For ex parte appeal to the Trademark trademark-related official record— registrant, request filed on paper— Trial and Appeal Board filed on $50.00 $200.00 paper, per class—$300.00 (4) Certified copy of a registered mark, (ii) For issuing a new certificate of (ii) For ex parte appeal to the Trademark showing title and/or status: registration upon request of Trial and Appeal Board filed (i) Regular service—$15.00 registrant, request filed through through ESTTA, per class—$200.00 (ii) Expedited local service—$30.00 TEAS—$100.00 (19) Dividing an application. (5) Certified or uncertified copy of (9) Certificate of correction of (i) Request to divide an application filed trademark records, per document registrant’s error. on paper, per new application except as otherwise provided in this (i) For a certificate of correction of created—$200.00 section—$25.00 registrant’s error, request filed on (ii) Request to divide an application (6) For recording each trademark paper—$200.00 filed through TEAS, per new assignment, agreement or other (ii) For a certificate of correction of application created—$100.00 document relating to the property registrant’s error, request filed (20) Correcting deficiency in section 8 in a registration or application through TEAS—$100.00 affidavit. (i) First property in a document—$40.00 (ii) For each additional property in the (10) Disclaimer to a registration. (i) For correcting a deficiency in a same document—$25.00 (i) For filing a disclaimer to a section 8 affidavit via paper filing— (7) For assignment records, abstract of registration, on paper—$200.00 $200.00 title and certification, per (ii) For correcting a deficiency in a (ii) For filing a disclaimer to a registration—$25.00 registration, through TEAS or section 8 affidavit via TEAS filing— (8) Additional Fee for Overnight ESTTA—$100.00 $100.00 Delivery—$40.00 (11) Amendment of registration. (21) Correcting deficiency in renewal (9) Additional Fee for Expedited (i) For filing an amendment to a application. Service—$160.00 registration, on paper—$200.00 (i) For correcting a deficiency in a (10) For processing each payment (ii) For filing an amendment to a renewal application via paper refused (including a check returned registration, through TEAS or filing—$200.00 ‘‘unpaid’’) or charged back by a ESTTA—$100.00 (ii) For correcting a deficiency in a financial institution—$50.00 renewal application via TEAS (11) Deposit account service charge for (12) Affidavit under section 8. filing—$100.00 each month when the balance at the (i) For filing an affidavit under section (22) Extension of time for filing notice end of the month is below $1,000— 8 of the Act on paper, per class— of opposition under § 2.102(c)(1)(ii) or $25.00 $225.00 (c)(2). ■ 3. Amend § 2.200 to revise paragraph (ii) For filing an affidavit under section (b) to read as follows: 8 of the Act through TEAS, per (i) For filing a request for an extension of time to file a notice of opposition class—$125.00 § 2.200 Assignment records open to public under § 2.102(c)(1)(ii) or (c)(2) on inspection. (13) Affidavit under section 15. paper—$200.00 (i) For filing an affidavit under section (ii) For filing a request for an extension * * * * * 15 of the Act on paper, per class— of time to file a notice of opposition (b) An order for a copy of an $300.00 under § 2.102(c)(1)(ii) or (c)(2) assignment or other document should (ii) For filing an affidavit under section through ESTTA—$100.00 identify the reel and frame number where the assignment or document is 15 of the Act through TEAS, per (23) Extension of time for filing notice recorded. class—$200.00 of opposition under § 2.102(c)(3). ■ 4. Amend § 2.208 to revise paragraph (14) Filing section 8 affidavit during (i) For filing a request for an extension (a) to read as follows: grace period. of time to file a notice of opposition (i) Additional fee for filing a section 8 under § 2.102(c)(3) on paper— § 2.208 Deposit accounts. affidavit during the grace period on $300.00 (a) For the convenience of attorneys, paper, per class—$200.00 (ii) For filing a request for an extension and the general public in paying any (ii) Additional fee for filing a section 8 of time to file a notice of opposition fees due, in ordering copies of records, affidavit during the grace period under § 2.102(c)(3) through or services offered by the Office, deposit through TEAS, per class—$100.00 ESTTA—$200.00 accounts may be established in the (15) Petitions to the Director. (b) Trademark service fees. Office. A minimum deposit of $1,000 is (i) For petitions to the Director filed on (1) For printed copy of registered mark, required for paying any fees due or in paper—$200.00 copy only. Service includes ordering any services offered by the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:30 Oct 20, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21OCR1.SGM 21OCR1 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES 72708 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 204 / Friday, October 21, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

Office. The Office will issue a deposit release of a restriction, under § 7.23 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION account statement at the end of each or § 7.24 filed on paper—$200.00 AGENCY month. A remittance must be made (ii) For transmitting a request to record 40 CFR Part 52 promptly upon receipt of the statement an assignment or restriction, or to cover the value of items or services release of a restriction, under § 7.23 [EPA–R03–OAR–2016–0335; FRL–9954–29– charged to the account and thus restore or § 7.24 filed through TEAS— Region 3] the account to its established normal $100.00 deposit. An amount sufficient to cover Approval and Promulgation of Air all fees, copies, or services requested (5) Notice of replacement. Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; must always be on deposit. Charges to Adoption of Control Techniques accounts with insufficient funds will (i) For filing a notice of replacement Guidelines for Control of Volatile not be accepted. A service charge under § 7.28 on paper, per class— Organic Compound Emissions (§ 2.6(b)(11)) will be assessed for each $200.00 month that the balance at the end of the (ii) For filing a notice of replacement AGENCY: Environmental Protection month is below $1,000. under § 7.28 through TEAS, per Agency (EPA). * * * * * class—$100.00 ACTION: Final rule. PART 7—RULES OF PRACTICE IN (6) Affidavit under section 71. SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving three state FILINGS PURSUANT TO THE (i) For filing an affidavit under section PROTOCOL RELATING TO THE implementation plan (SIP) revisions 71 of the Act on paper, per class— submitted by the Commonwealth of MADRID AGREEMENT CONCERNING $225.00 THE INTERNATIONAL REGISTRATION Virginia (Virginia). These revisions OF MARKS (ii) For filing an affidavit under section include amendments to the Virginia 71 of the Act through TEAS, per Department of Environmental Quality’s ■ 5. The authority citation for 37 CFR class—$125.00 (VADEQ) regulations and address the Part 7 continues to read as follows: requirement to adopt reasonably (7) Filing affidavit under section 71 available control technology (RACT) for Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1123, 35 U.S.C. 2, during grace period. unless otherwise noted. sources covered by EPA’s Control ■ 6. Revise § 7.6 to read as follows: (i) Surcharge for filing an affidavit under Techniques Guidelines (CTG) standards section 71 of the Act during the for the following categories: Offset § 7.6 Schedule of U.S. process fees. grace period on paper, per class— lithographic printing and letterpress (a) The Office requires the following $200.00 printing, industrial solvent cleaning operations, miscellaneous industrial process fees: (ii) Surcharge for filing an affidavit (1) Certification of international adhesives, and miscellaneous metal and under section 71 of the Act during application based on single application plastic parts coatings. EPA is approving or registration. the grace period through TEAS, per these revisions to the Virginia SIP in class—$100.00 (i) For certifying an international accordance with the requirements of the application based on a single basic (8) Correcting deficiency in section 71 Clean Air Act (CAA). application or registration, filed on affidavit. DATES: This final rule is effective on paper, per class—$200.00 November 21, 2016. (i) For correcting a deficiency in a (ii) For certifying an international ADDRESSES: EPA has established a application based on a single basic section 71 affidavit filed on paper— $200.00 docket for this action under Docket ID application or registration, filed Number EPA–R03–OAR–2016–0335. All through TEAS, per class—$100.00 (ii) For correcting a deficiency in a documents in the docket are listed on (2) Certification of international section 71 affidavit filed through the http://www.regulations.gov Web application based on more than one TEAS—$100.00 site. Although listed in the index, some application or registration. (b) The fees required in paragraph (a) information is not publicly available, (i) For certifying an international of this section must be paid in U.S. e.g., confidential business information application based on more than one dollars at the time of submission of the (CBI) or other information whose basic application or registration disclosure is restricted by statute. requested action. See § 2.207 of this filed on paper, per class—$250.00 Certain other material, such as chapter for acceptable forms of payment (ii) For certifying an international copyrighted material, is not placed on application based on more than one and § 2.208 of this chapter for payments the Internet and will be publicly basic application or registration using a deposit account established in available only in hard copy form. filed through TEAS, per class— the Office. Publicly available docket materials are $150.00 Dated: October 17, 2016. available through http:// (3) Transmission of subsequent Michelle K. Lee, www.regulations.gov, or please contact designation. Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual the person identified in the ‘‘For Further (i) For transmitting a subsequent Property and Director of the United States Information Contact’’ section for designation under § 7.21, filed on Patent and Trademark Office. additional availability information. paper—$200.00 [FR Doc. 2016–25506 Filed 10–20–16; 8:45 am] FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: (ii) For transmitting a subsequent BILLING CODE 3510–16–P Leslie Jones Doherty, (215) 814–3409, or designation under § 7.21, filed by email at [email protected]. through TEAS—$100.00 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: (4) Transmission of request to record an assignment or restriction. I. Background (i) For transmitting a request to record On August 23, 2016 (87 FR 57531), an assignment or restriction, or EPA published a notice of proposed

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:30 Oct 20, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21OCR1.SGM 21OCR1 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES