USPTO Changes in 2026: A Practical Guide to Filing Smarter

The USPTO is reducing the time businesses wait for trademark examination. For anyone planning a product launch, entering the U.S. market or expanding an existing brand, that is welcome progress.

The practical benefit depends partly on what happens when an examiner opens the application. Missing information, unsuitable descriptions or weak evidence can lead to additional correspondence that uses up the time gained from a shorter queue.

Recent fee changes also give those filing decisions a more immediate financial consequence. A well-prepared application can help control both costs and avoidable delays, while protecting the goods and services that matter to the business.

Faster examination changes planning, not registration requirements

In its May 2026 progress update, the USPTO reported that average first-action pendency fell from 5.6 months in fiscal year 2025 to 4.45 months in the first half of fiscal year 2026. It also identified a longer-term goal of four months by fiscal year 2028.

First-action pendency measures the wait for initial examination. It does not measure the time to a registration certificate, and an average cannot promise a specific outcome for an individual application.

For business planning, the useful takeaway is that examination issues may surface sooner. Budget for addressing them, and leave room for any proof-of-use requirements associated with your filing basis.

Businesses preparing a U.S. trademark application should therefore connect the filing plan with launch dates, product availability and the evidence they can realistically provide.

The fee structure makes filing decisions more consequential

On January 18, 2025, the USPTO replaced the TEAS Plus and TEAS Standard fee options with a single base application fee for applications under Sections 1 and 44.

Under the revised fee structure, the principal filing charges are:

These are USPTO fees, separate from professional fees. U.S. designations through the Madrid System follow a different fee arrangement.

For example, an otherwise complete, single-class application using a free-form description of 900 characters attracts $550 in these filing fees. At 1,100 characters, that becomes $750.

How you enter the description matters

The USPTO’s additional-fee guidance identifies two easily missed details:

• Select suitable ID Manual entries within Trademark Center. Copying identical wording into the free-form box still triggers the free-form fee.
• Check the entire affected class when mixing entry types. Once you use free-form wording in a class, the character count includes descriptions selected from the ID Manual in that class, along with spaces and punctuation.

Complete any required fill-in-the-blank portions of selected entries accurately. Leaving them empty or inserting unrelated information can also trigger an additional fee.

Choose descriptions for accuracy first. A standard entry that fails to cover the actual offering is poor value, even if it avoids a surcharge. When tailored wording is necessary, budget for it and make the description precise.

Why old goods-and-services templates need a fresh review

The Nice Classification, thirteenth edition, version 2026, took effect on January 1, 2026.

That makes this a sensible time to review reusable filing templates. Previous wording and class selections should be checked against the current classification and USPTO ID Manual before a new application is submitted.

For digital businesses, the offering itself determines the classification:

• Downloadable software generally belongs in Class 9.
• Software as a service generally belongs in Class 42.
• Services delivered online or in virtual environments require classification according to their nature and, where relevant, their purpose or result.

Labels such as “digital,” “virtual” or “AI-powered” do not establish the correct class by themselves.

Consider a business offering both a downloadable application and a hosted software platform. Reusing a description that covers only one delivery model may leave part of the offering outside the application.

The practical task is to map each product or service to accurate wording, then confirm its classification.

Owner details, domicile and evidence must tell a consistent story

A filing review should go beyond the trademark and its classes. The applicant’s identity, address, filing basis and supporting evidence need to describe the same business reality.

Confirm the owner and actual domicile

Start with the correct legal owner, its full name and entity type. Check these details against the business records rather than copying an old form.

Under USPTO domicile guidance, a company’s domicile is generally its headquarters, where senior executives or officers ordinarily direct and control its activities.

A mailbox, registered-agent address or virtual office generally does not establish that location. A shared workspace requires attention to how it is actually used.

Foreign-domiciled applicants must be represented before the USPTO by a qualified U.S.-licensed attorney. Using a U.S. mailing address does not change the applicant’s actual domicile.

Match evidence to the filing basis

“Prepare everything before filing” should mean preparing everything required for the chosen basis. The USPTO’s specimen requirements distinguish between different routes:

• Use in commerce, Section 1(a): The application requires evidence supporting qualifying use as of the filing date.
• Intent to use, Section 1(b): No specimen is required with the initial application. Genuine intent is required, and acceptable evidence of use must follow before registration.
• Foreign-registration and Madrid bases, Sections 44(e) and 66(a): A specimen is generally unnecessary for registration, although evidence of use is required at later maintenance stages.

When a specimen is required, it must show actual trademark use. Depending on the offering, suitable evidence might include real product packaging, labels or a qualifying webpage. Webpage specimens must include the URL and access or print date.

A product mockup or AI-generated image cannot substitute for evidence of actual use.

Treat authenticity as part of preparation

The USPTO’s May 2026 anti-fraud update described AI-based detection pilots and systems intended to help identify improper filings.

The practical response is straightforward: preserve genuine evidence, verify who signs the application, and ensure every factual statement can be supported. These habits support reliable filings regardless of the technology used to review them.

A practical checklist for avoiding preventable delays

Before submitting a new application, work through these checks:

• Review potential conflicts. A trademark search can help identify earlier rights and inform filing decisions before substantial launch spending.
• Confirm ownership and domicile. Resolve inconsistencies between corporate records, addresses and the proposed applicant details.
• Map the actual offering. Check goods, services, delivery models and classes against current guidance.
• Choose the appropriate filing basis. Separate what is already in qualifying use from what the business genuinely intends to offer.
• Review descriptions and fees together. Use suitable ID Manual entries, complete required fields and assess any justified custom wording.
• Check evidence and signatures. Confirm that specimens support the claims being made and that the appropriate person signs.
• Assign responsibility after filing. Decide who will monitor correspondence, collect information and manage response deadlines.

The checklist works best as a coordinated review. For example, narrowing a description to reduce a fee should prompt a coverage check, while changing the filing basis should prompt an evidence check.

Make preparation part of your U.S. launch plan

A shorter examination queue creates an opportunity to move applications forward sooner. Businesses can make better use of that opportunity by resolving ownership, classification and evidence questions before submission.

The objective is an application that accurately covers the business and is ready for examination. That preparation remains valuable as USPTO timelines, fees and review practices evolve.

If the United States is part of your expansion plan, explore iGERENT’s International Trademark Registration Service to plan protection in the markets where your brand will operate.

Still have questions? Contact iGERENT for a free, no-obligation quote.