The Trademark Center

With the 2026 additions, the Trademark Center changes everything from how you search to how much you pay.

For over two decades, TEAS (Trademark Electronic Application System) was the legacy software portal at the USPTO for all electronic trademark filings. The USPTO transitioned from TEAS to a new system called The Trademark Center for new application filings on January 1, 2025. The Trademark Center has since been phased in to include registration maintenance/renewal filings.

In the old days, a trademark applicant initially needed to decide which electronic form to use – “TEAS Standard” or “TEAS Plus.” Filers who conformed their applications to TEAS Plus requirements were rewarded with discounted filing fees. Those forms have been retired now. Instead, filers log in to the Trademark Center and file a unified application.

In a previous post, I predicted that new trademark fees would be coming. They are here.

With the 2026 additions, the Trademark Center changes everything from how you search to how much you pay.

USPTO building showing the Trademark Center

What is the Trademark Center?

The Trademark Center is the USPTO’s new, unified cloud-based platform for drafting, filing, and managing trademark applications. It replaces the legacy TEAS and TESS portals. You access it by visiting USPTO.gov, clicking on the Trademarks tab, selecting “Apply online,” and then pressing the “Trademark Center” button.

What new features does it have?

The new Trademark Center is intended to make it easier for users to read, navigate, and edit their applications. In addition, it has autosave, automatically saving your work every 60 seconds. The old system did not have that. And it has continuous fee calculation. The old system required a user to wait until the application was completed before being presented with the “tab.”

The new system centralizes management of applications, from filing a new application to managing your existing trademark docket. In addition to filing a new application, you can use the Trademark Center to submit registration renewals under Section 8, Section 15, Combined Sections 8 and 9, and Combined Sections 8 and 15. It also facilitates team collaboration.

There are also new AI-assisted features. I will get to those in a minute.

What does Trademark Center filing cost?

The USPTO now uses a unified baseline fee model instead of the old multi-tiered TEAS pricing. This table summarizes the changes:

ServicesOld TEAS SystemNew Trademark Center
Base Application Fee$250 (Plus) / $350 (Standard)$350 per class
Custom ID SurchargeIncluded in Standard fee+$200 surcharge per class
Lengthy Description FeeNone+$200 fee per 1,000 characters over 1,000
Incomplete Application SurchargeHandled via Office Action+$100 “insufficiency fee”

As you can see, the discounted fee reward for complying with TEAS Plus requirements is gone. Now everyone has to pay the $350 fee per class of goods/services.

Under the TEAS system, you qualified for the discounted TEAS Plus fee if you used one of the pre-approved descriptions for a class of goods or services. (The pre-approved descriptions are listed in the Trademark Identification Manual.) The USPTO has transitioned from offering you a reward for using a pre-approved description to requiring you to pay a penalty if you do not. Under the new system, it will cost you an additional $200 per class if you want to create your own custom description.

New fees

The new system also limits custom descriptions to 1,000 characters. If you go over that, you will be assessed an additional fee of $200 for every increment of up to 1,000 characters over the limit.

If you omit some item or necessary information from your application, you will not only draw an Office Action, which will lengthen the examination process; you will also incur a $100 “insufficiency fee.”

Other fees

As before, there are additional fees beyond the initial application filing fee. For example, you will need to pay another fee when you request an extension of time to file a statement of use, and when you renew a registration. These are not the only additional fees you might need to pay. For more information, visit the USPTO fee page.

Does the Trademark Center offer AI assistance with descriptions?

Yes. The USPTO has integrated machine learning to facilitate application descriptions. This is particularly useful for claims in logos and/or colors.

Descriptions for trademarks must meet certain specific requirements, including a claim of all colors used in color marks. The new AI assistance for trademark descriptions and color claims offers suggestions of what to include in your description of the mark in your trademark application.

Does the Trademark Center offer image search?

Yes. As announced in an April 2, 2026 USPTO Alert, the USPTO now offers image search functionality. Previously, it was necessary to manually scour a compilation of design codes to find ones possibly matching the features of your logo or design mark. Now you can upload your logo and the system will use AI to generate the required mark descriptions and color claims for you. You can then choose to view and use the AI-generated suggestions if you’d like.

Suggestions are editable, so you can fine-tune them if needed.

As always, remember that generative-AI is not perfect. It can and does make mistakes. You should always review an AI suggestion carefully before accepting it.

The USPTO’s new image search functionality, obviating users’ need to navigate a design code manual and guess at appropriate design codes is the real crown jewel of the 2026 improvements to Trademark Center. Because this feature is a game-changer for independent artists, designers, and small businesses, I will be doing a deeper dive into it in my next blog post.

What is the Class ACT assistant?

The new Trademark Classification Agentic Codification Tool, or “Class ACT,” is a kind of agentic AI that immediately assigns international classes to unclassified applications. It also can assign the design search codes and pseudo marks that make these records searchable. According to a Trademark Center update, this reduces a process that used to take 5 months to something that can be completed in a matter of seconds.

If an intent-to-use application was filed in TEAS, can the Statement of Use be filed in Trademark Center?

Yes. The USPTO moved all pre-registration intent-to-use forms (including the Statement of Use and Requests for Extension of Time) into the unified Trademark Center portal. You should be able to access your previously filed intent-to-use application when you log in to Trademark Center.

Can the Trademark Center be used to renew registrations?

Yes. You can use Trademark Center to maintain and renew registrations even if a registration was issued under the old TEAS system. You do not need to re-register the trademark in Trademark Center.

Summary

What is the Trademark Center?

The Trademark Center is the USPTO’s new, unified cloud-based platform for drafting, filing, and managing trademark applications

What new features does the Trademark Center have?

Easier use and navigation; autosave; continuous fee calculation; centralized management of applications and registrations; facilitation of collaboration; AI image search; and AI assistance with descriptions and color claims

What does Trademark Center filing cost?

Trademark Center implements a unified baseline fee model of $350 per class, plus additional fees for custom ID, lengthy description, and incomplete applications.

Does the Trademark Center offer AI assistance with descriptions?

Yes, Trademark Center offers AI assistance with creating descriptions for logos and design marks, and color claims

Does the Trademark Center offer image searching?

Yes. Users applying to register a trademark in Trademark Center no longer have to enter design codes; they can upload an image of the logo or design.

What is the Class ACT assistant?

The Class ACT assistant is the Trademark Classification Agentic Codification Tool. It can assign international classes, design search codes, and pseudo marks to records to make them searchable.

If an intent-to-use application was filed in TEAS, can the Statement of Use be filed using the Trademark Center?

Yes. Applications previously filed in TEAS have been migrated to Trademark Center and may be accessed there.

Can the Trademark Center be used to renew registrations?

Yes. Trademark Center can be used to maintain and renew trademark registrations.

Planning a new brand name or logo?

If you are preparing a brand name or logo for your business, check out my extensive Trademark FAQs page to understand what it takes to qualify for protection, and read about my trademark services.

Last Exit From Paradise

Copyright law “has never stretched so far, however, as to protect works generated by new forms of technology operating absent any guiding human hand, as plaintiff urges here. Human authorship is a bedrock requirement of copyright.”

Stephen Thaler's AI-generated artwork, "A Recent Entrance to Paradise"

The United States Supreme Court has put an end to Stephen Thaler’s crusade for machine rights. Okay, that’s the sensational news article way of putting it.  He wasn’t really crusading for machine rights. He was trying to establish a precedent for claiming copyright in AI-generated works.

I first wrote about this back in May, 2022 (“AI Can Create, But Is It Art?”). At that time, the U.S. Copyright Office had denied registration of “A Recent Entrance to Paradise.” This was an image that was generated by  Thaler’s AI tool, the Creativity Machine. Thaler had sought to register it as a work for hire made by the machine. The Copyright Office denied registration because it lacked human authorship.

The decision was consistent with appellate court decisions suggesting that stories allegedly written by “non-human spiritual beings” are not protected by copyright, although a human selection or arrangement of them might be. Urantia Foundation v. Kristen Maaherra, 114 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 1997).  Neither are works created by non-human animals, such as a monkey selfie.

Thaler sought review by the federal district court. Judge Howell affirmed the Copyright Office’s decision, writing that copyright law “has never stretched so far, however, as to protect works generated by new forms of technology operating absent any guiding human hand, as plaintiff urges here. Human authorship is a bedrock requirement of copyright.”

The Court of Appeals affirmed the refusal of registration. Thaler petitioned for review by the United States Supreme Court. On March 2, 2026, the Supreme Court denied review, without comment.

An argument that Thaler advanced in the petition for certiorari was bascially that because images output by a camera are protected by copyright (See Burrow-Giles Lithographic v. Sarony), images generated by a computer should be, too.

The Copyright Office has since published guidance explaining that using AI as a tool in the creative process does not categorically rule out copyright protection. Rather, assessments must be made on a case-by-case basis about the nature and extent of human creativity that was contributed. I discuss the Copyright Office’s three Copyright and Artificial Intelligence reports in Generative AI: The Top 12 Lawsuits.

The narrowest interpretation of the Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari is that it did not see a need to disturb the ruling that a machine cannot be an “author,” for purposes of copyright law. The facts of the case did not present an opportunity to opine on whether, and under what circumstances, a human can claim to be an author of an AI-assisted creation.

Trademark News

Buc-ee’s is a popular chain of gas-and-convenience stores in the South. It has filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against Mickey’s gas stations.

(Read more about Buc-ee’s lawsuit against Mickey’s.)

According to the complaint:

Consumers are likely to perceive a connection or association as to the source, sponsorship, or affiliation of the parties’ products and services, when in fact none exists, given the similarity of the parties’ logos, trade channels, and consumer bases.

Here are the two logos, side by side for comparison:

Buc-ees and Mickey's logos (cartoon beaver and moose)

Trademark infringement occurs when one company’s logo or other mark is used in commerce in a way that is likely to confuse consumers about the source of a product or service. What do you think, folks? Might a weary traveler mistake a moose for a beaver?

Polite responses only, please.

Visit my extensive Copyright FAQs page.

Trump’s Executive Order on AI

News media headlines are trumpeting that the Executive Order preempts state AI laws. This is not true. It directs this administration to try to strike down some state AI laws. It contemplates working with Congress to formulate and enact preemptive legislation. It is doubtful that a President could constitutionally preempt state laws by executive order.

On December 11, 2025, President Trump issued another executive order. This one is intended to promote “national dominance” in “a race with adversaries for supremacy.” To “win,” the Order says, AI companies should not be encumbered by state regulation. “The policy of the United States,” the Order says, is “to sustain and enhance the United States’ global AI dominance through a minimally burdensome national policy framework for AI.” It sets up an AI Litigation Task Force to challenge state AI laws that allegedly do not do that.

Excepted from the Order are state laws on child safety protections, data center infrastructure, and state government use of AI.

Which State AI Laws?

The Order speaks generally about “state AI laws,” but does not define the term. In fact, AI legal issues are wide-ranging. Here are some examples of state AI laws:

Stalking and Harassment

A North Dakota statute criminalizes using a robot to frighten or harass another person. It defines a robot to include a drone or other system that uses AI technology. (N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-17-07.(1), (2)(f)). This appears to be a “state AI law.” North Dakota statutes also prohibit stalking accomplished by using either a robot or a non-AI form of technology. (N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-17-07.1(1)(d)). Preempting this statute would produce an anomalous result. It would be a crime to stalk somebody unless you use an AI-powered device to do it.

Political Deepfakes

Several states have enacted laws prohibiting the distribution of political deepfakes to influence an election. Regulations range from a prohibition against the distribution of a deepfake to influence an election within a specified time period before the election to requiring disclosure that it is AI-generated. Minn. Stat. § 609.771 is an example of such a regulation. The need for this kind of statute was highlighted in 2024 when someone used AI to clone Joe Biden’s voice and generate an audio file that sounded like Mr. Biden himself was urging people not to vote for him.

Sexual Deepfakes

Both state and federal governments have enacted laws aimed at curbing the proliferation of “revenge porn.” The TAKE IT DOWN Act is an example. Minn. Stat. § 604.32 is another example (deepfakes depicting intimate body parts or sexual acts).

State and federal laws in this area cover much of the same ground. The principal difference is that the federal crime must involve interstate commerce; state crimes do not. The only practical effect of preemption of this kind of state AI law, therefore, would be to eliminate state prohibitions of wholly intrastate sexual deepfakes. If the Executive Order succeeds in its objectives, then state laws that prohibit the creation or distribution of sexual deepfakes wholly within the same state, as some do, would be preempted, with the result that making and distributing sexual deepfakes would be lawful so long as you only transmit it to other people in your state and not to someone in a different state.

Digital Replicas

Many states have enacted laws prohibiting or regulating the unauthorized creation and exploitation of digital replicas. The California Digital Replicas Act and Tennessee’s ELVIS Act are examples. AI is used in the creation of digital replicas. It is unclear whether these kinds of enactments are “state AI laws.” Arguably, a person could use technologies more primitive than generative-AI to create a digital image of a person. If these statutes are preempted only to the extent they apply to AI-generated digital replicas, then it would seem that unauthorized exploiters of other people’s faces and voices for commercial gain would be incentivized to use AI to engage in unauthorized commerceial exploitation of other people.

Child Pornography

Several states have either enacted laws or amended existing laws to bring AI-generated images of what look like real children within the prohibition against child pornography. See, e.g., N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1.-27.2—01.  The Executive Order exempts “child safety protections,” but real children do not necessarily have to be used in AI-generated images. This kind of state statute arguably would not come within the meaning of a “child safety protection.”

Health Care Oversight

California’s Physicians Make Decisions Act requires a human person to oversee health care decisions about medical necessity. This is to ensure that medical care is not left entirely up to an AI bot. The law was enacted with the support of the California Medical Association to ensure that patients receive adequate health care. If the law is nullified, then it would seem that hospitals would be free to replace doctors with AI chatbots.

Chatbots

Some states prohibit the deceptive use of a chatbot, such as by falsely representing to people who interact with one that they are interacting with a real person. In addition, some states have enacted laws requiring disclosure to consumers when they are interacting with a non-human AI. See, e.g., the Colorado Artificial Intelligence Act.

Privacy

Some states have enacted either stand-alone laws or amended existing privacy laws to ensure they protect the privacy of personally identifiable information stored by AI systems. See, e.g., Utah Code 13-721-201, -203 (regulating the sharing of a person’s mental health information by a chatbot); and amendments to the California Consumer Privacy Act making it applicable to information stored in an AI system.

Disclosure

California’s Generative AI Training Data Transparency Act requires disclosure of training data used in developing generative-AI technology.

The Texas Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act

Among other things, the Texas Responsible AI Governance Act prohibits the use of AI to restrict constitutional rights, to discriminate on the basis of race, or to encourage criminal activity. These seem like reasonable proscriptions.

Trump’s “AI czar,” venture capitalist David Sacks, has said the administration is not gong to “push back” on all state laws, only “the most onerous” ones. It is unclear which of these will be deemed “onerous.”

State AI Laws are Not Preempted

News media headlines are trumpeting that the Executive Order preempts state AI laws. This is not true. It directs this administration to try to strike down some state AI laws. It contemplates working with Congress to formulate and enact preemptive legislation. It is doubtful that a President could constitutionally preempt state laws by executive order.

Postscript

Striving for uniformity in the regulation of artificial intelligence is not a bad idea. There should be room, though, for both federal and state legislation. Rather than abolishing state laws, a uniform code or model act for states might be a better idea. Moreover, if we are going to start caring about an onerous complex of differing state laws, and feeling a need to establish a national framework, perhaps the President and Congress might wish to address the sprawling morass of privacy and data security regulations in the United States.