Impact of the 2025 USPTO Fee Changes on Hemp Businesses

As of January 18, 2025, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) introduced a new trademark fee structure that has substantial implications for the hemp and cannabidiol (CBD) industries. This changes not only affect trademark applicants but potentially place a heavier financial burden on companies operating legally in this evolving market.

Understanding the New Fee Structure

The updated fee framework is designed to replace previous application options with a streamlined approach. Here are the essential components of the new fee structure:

• Base Application Fee: $350.00 per class
• Custom Identifications of Goods and Services: +$200.00 per class for not using the Trademark ID Manual
• Long Identifications: +$200.00 for each additional 1,000 characters
• Insufficient Information: +$100.00 per class for failing to provide new content requirements

While businesses utilizing the Trademark ID Manual can bypass the $200.00 custom language fee, many in the hemp and CBD sectors find themselves at a disadvantage due to the manual’s exclusion of critical product categories.

Challenges with the Trademark ID Manual

The USPTO’s scrutiny of applications is heightened in industries like hemp and CBD, necessitating that applicants specify THC levels in products. According to the Exam Guide 1-19, those who wish to file must note that their hemp products contain a THC concentration of “not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.”

Despite the legally established threshold under the 2018 Farm Bill, the Trademark ID Manual lacks appropriate entries for many hemp-derived products. Items like “hemp oil,” “CBD,” and “cannabidiol” are notably absent. Consequently, applicants are forced to draft custom language, incurring additional fees and potential scrutiny during the examination process.

The Legal Catch-22 for Hemp Businesses

This regulatory framework presents a paradox for hemp businesses: while they must comply with federal law, doing so often leads to increased costs and elongated examination periods. The USPTO insists on clarity and compliance, yet fails to provide an effective means for these businesses to navigate the application process affordably.

Deciding Between Registration and Compliance

In light of these challenges, a growing number of hemp and cannabis businesses are opting to avoid federal trademark registration altogether, fearing public refusals may harm their credibility and relationships. Instead, they are seeking trademarks on ancillary products or turning to common law rights and state-level registrations. This approach mitigates some risks but offers limited protection.

However, not all businesses are content to accept this status quo. Many entrepreneurs are pushing back against the USPTO’s stringent measures, advocating for fair treatment and consistent regulatory practices across all industries. These business owners argue for acknowledgment of the legality of their products while navigating the often-complex trademark landscape.

Proposals for Change

To rectify these disparities in the trademark application process, several measures could be taken:

1. Update the Trademark ID Manual: Include goods and services that are unequivocally accepted, such as descriptions indicating 0.3% THC content or less.
2. Waive the Custom Identification Fee: Remove the $200.00 fee for businesses that are required to provide custom identifications due to the insufficient inclusion of their products in the TM ID Manual.
3. Create a Transparent Pathway: Develop a clearer, more manageable process for trademark registration that is tailored to the unique challenges of the hemp industry.

The Importance of Fair Access

The hemp and cannabis sector has shown remarkable growth and potential within the U.S. economy. Nevertheless, the heightened scrutiny and fees imposed by the USPTO create an environment that effectively disadvantages compliant businesses. The current system, which masquerades as a regulation safeguarding against ambiguities, places undue strain on an industry already subject to intense regulatory scrutiny.

Hemp entrepreneurs deserve a fair and functional trademark experience—one that acknowledges their lawful status within the market instead of one that undermines it.