Should You Register Your Trademark? (2026 Fee Edition)

Tags

, , , , ,

Clients still ask whether it is in their best interest to register a trademark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The traditional short answer is still: yes, if at all possible, you should register your trademarks.

In January 2025 the USPTO threw out TEAS Plus and TEAS Standard, installed a single “base application,” and started charging extra when the application is incomplete or the goods are typed in free-form. If you bookmarked the 2019 version of this post, the dollar figures on it are antiques.

Registration is still not required. Common-law rights still arise from actual use. The first party to use a mark in commerce, or to file a bona fide intent-to-use application that later matures, still has the better claim in most fights. A registration on the Principal Register still does the useful things it did in 2019: nationwide constructive notice, a presumption of validity and ownership, the right to use the ® symbol, access to the federal courts on a clearer path, and a Customs recordation if you later need one.

None of that is free.

What the USPTO now charges to file

As of the January 18, 2025 fee rule – still the schedule in force in 2026 – an electronic application is:

  • $350 per class for a base application that meets the completeness rules and uses identifications taken from the USPTO ID Manual.
  • +$100 per class if required information is missing at filing (the “insufficient information” surcharge).
  • +$200 per class if any identification is entered in the free-form text box instead of the ID Manual.
  • +$200 per class for each additional 1,000 characters of identification beyond the first 1,000.

A clean one-class filing that uses Manual language and is complete on day one is $350 to the Office. A sloppy one-class filing can be $650 before an examiner has even looked at it. A two-class filing doubles those numbers. Paper filing is $850 per class. Do not file on paper.

Madrid/Section 66(a) applications coming in through WIPO are $600 per class.

Intent-to-use applications add a later bill. A statement of use or amendment to allege use is $150 per class electronically. Extensions of time to file a statement of use remain $125 per class.

What you will spend before you file

Clearance search. The USPTO’s public search system is free and is not enough. A focused knock-out plus attorney review for a single word mark is often in the $300-$600 range. A full U.S. search that includes federal, state, and common-law sources still runs roughly $700-$1,200 once you add professional review. Skipping the search to “save” money is how people fund later cease-and-desist letters and, occasionally, lawsuits this blog writes about.

Attorney time to prepare and file. For a straightforward one-class application, budget $500-$1,200 on top of the USPTO fee, more if the identification is odd, the mark is a logo that needs a description, or there are prior registrations to explain. Office actions are extra. Most of the attorney time after filing is spent answering the first office action, not filling in the form.

A realistic all-in number for a clean one-class use-based filing in 2026, search included, is about $1,200-$2,500. That is higher than the “approximately $800-$1,000” figure in the 2019 post, and it should be. The Office got more expensive. So did everyone else.

What you will spend to keep it

Federal registrations do not die of old age, but they do die of missed maintenance.

  • Section 8 declaration of use (years 5-6): $325 per class
  • Section 9 renewal (years 9-10, and every ten years after): $325 per class
  • Section 15 declaration of incontestability (optional, after five years of continuous use): $250 per class

A combined Section 8 and 15 is $575 per class. A combined Section 8 and 9 at the ten-year mark is $650 per class. Miss the window and you are filing a new application and starting over.

A few things the fee schedule will not tell you

Using the ID Manual is how you stay at $350. That is the Office’s way of saying it would like fewer homemade descriptions of “business services.” If your goods are not in the Manual, pay the $200 and write the identification correctly anyway. A cheap, wrong identification is more expensive than a surcharge.

An Indiana state trademark filing is a different animal and a different price. It is not a substitute for a federal registration if you sell across state lines, online, or anywhere the other party can find a lawyer. It can still be useful locally. It is not nationwide constructive notice.

Intent-to-use is not a loophole for skipping the search. You still have to use the mark, and you still have to pay for the statement of use.

So – should you register?

If the mark is a real business asset and you can budget the filing, yes. The 2019 conclusion still holds: economies rise and fall, and trademark rights can continue indefinitely. The difference in 2026 is that the Office will charge you more for an incomplete form and much more to keep a registration alive at year six and year ten.

Do the search. Use the Manual when you can. File the maintenance on time. And if someone has already sent you a letter about the name, that is a different post.


Kenan L. Farrell, KLF Legal, Indianapolis

What a Cease-and-Desist Letter Actually Does (and Does Not Do) in Indiana

Tags

, , , ,

Most Indiana trademark and copyright fights that end up in the Northern or Southern District started with a letter, not a complaint. That letter is usually called a cease-and-desist. It is also one of the most misunderstood pieces of paper in this practice.

A cease-and-desist letter is a demand. It is not a lawsuit, not an injunction, and not a finding that anyone has infringed anything. The recipient does not have to agree with it. The sender does not have to file a case if the letter is ignored. Both of those facts surprise people.

What the letter actually is

In the trademark and copyright matters this blog follows, a C&D is typically a lawyer’s letter that:

  • identifies the mark or work the sender claims;
  • describes the use the sender objects to;
  • asks the recipient to stop that use by a date; and
  • often asks for written confirmation, an accounting, or destruction of inventory.

Sometimes it attaches a registration certificate. Sometimes it attaches screenshots. Sometimes it is two pages. Sometimes it is twenty. Length is not a substitute for a real claim.

Common-law rights can support a letter just as a federal registration can. An Indiana state trademark registration can support one too. None of those pieces of paper turns the letter into an order.

What it can do

Start a conversation that does not require a filing fee. A lot of disputes end here. The recipient rebrands, takes a listing down, or negotiates a short coexistence deal. No docket number is ever assigned. That is a feature, not a failure.

Put the other side on notice. In copyright cases, notice can matter for willfulness and for statutory damages once a registration is in hand. In trademark cases, notice can matter if the dispute later becomes a willfulness or damages fight. The letter is evidence that someone was told, on a date certain, that a senior user objected.

Create a paper trail. If the matter does go to the Northern or Southern District, the complaint will often recite that counsel sent a letter and “was unable to find a suitable resolution.” That sentence is familiar on this blog because it is familiar in the complaints.

Sometimes freeze a use without a TRO. A marketplace seller, a printer, or a small retailer will often pull a listing when they get a letter they take seriously. Amazon, Shopify, and a local sign shop are not going to litigate your brand for you.

Sometimes stop a USPTO application from sailing through. A well-timed letter can lead to an abandonment, an amendment, or a consent agreement before an opposition is even filed. It can also do the opposite and provoke a declaratory-judgment suit. That is a reason to think before you send.

What it does not do

It does not decide who is right. The USPTO may have already allowed a junior mark. A Secretary of State filing may already be sitting in Indianapolis. Neither office has held a trial. A letter from counsel is not a substitute for one.

It does not give you an injunction. Only a court can order someone to stop. Until then, the recipient can keep using the name, keep selling the print, and keep the website up. Many do.

It does not toll a statute or lock in venue. Sending a letter to a Fort Wayne address does not guarantee the case stays in the Northern District. Silence after a letter does not stop a limitations clock by itself.

It does not require the other side to answer. No rule of civil procedure forces a response to a private letter. Some recipients answer through counsel. Some ignore it. Some send their own letter back. All three happen in Indiana.

It does not replace a copyright registration if you want statutory damages and fees. If the plan is a copyright suit, the registration timing rules still apply. A blistering C&D sent the week after the photo went up does not fix a missing registration.

It is not confidential just because you marked it “CONFIDENTIAL” or “FOR SETTLEMENT ONLY.” Labeling helps in some later arguments. It is not a seal. Assume the letter can show up as an exhibit.

Indiana wrinkles worth knowing

Indiana businesses often hold three different kinds of rights at once: common-law use in a county or two, an Indiana state registration, and a federal application or registration. A letter that treats those as the same thing is sloppy. A state registration is not a nationwide right. A federal registration is not a finding that every local user must fold.

The two Indiana districts see a steady run of cases that recite a C&D and then a filing a few weeks or a few months later – food trucks, chiropractors, lawn-care parts, campus events. The letter was the last attempt at a private fix, not the first exhibit in a war plan. When the letter goes out over a holiday week to an institution that is closed, you can expect the reply to be late and the temperature to rise. That is not a legal doctrine. It is a calendar.

There are also files where the better move is not to send a letter: a pending intent-to-use application you do not want to poke, a counterfeiter you do not want to tip before a seizure motion, or a recipient you expect will race to another courthouse for a declaratory-judgment action. “We sent a C&D” is not a required element of a Lanham Act or Copyright Act complaint.

How to read one if it lands on your desk

Read the whole thing, including the exhibits. Check whether the claimed registration actually covers the goods or services in the letter. Check whether the dates work. Do not take the registration symbol in the letterhead as proof of anything by itself. Then decide, with counsel if the risk is real, whether the use is worth keeping.

A short, accurate reply is often better than a long manifesto. A long manifesto is often better than a social-media thread. Neither is required.

How to write one if you are the sender

Be specific about the mark or the work. Be specific about the use. Do not claim a registration you do not have. Do not use the ® symbol on an unregistered mark – this blog has already covered that mistake. Give a date that a human can meet. Say what you want: stop, rebrand, account, assign a domain, sign a consent. “Demand that you cease and desist all infringement” is not a punch list.

If you are not prepared to file in the Northern or Southern District when the date passes, think hard about sending the letter at all. Recipients can tell the difference between a letter that will be followed and a letter that will not.


Stay tuned for the usual Indiana IP litigation docket notes. This one was just about the letter that so often comes first.

Kenan L. Farrell, KLF Legal, Indianapolis

September 2026 Intellectual Property Litigation Update

Two years ago this blog posted its last monthly update – October 2024 Indiana Intellectual Property Litigation Update – and then went quiet. I’ve still been following along with Indiana copyright and trademark litigation updates, but not posting my thoughts here on the blog. That ends today (actually a week ago)! I miss posting and I’ve heard from others that they miss the posts. So let’s get back to the IP updates.

Note that this post is not going to cover new cases filed over the last 2 years. My goal with this post is to wrap up the cases that were cited in the October 2024 post, so nobody following along will have been left on a cliffhanger. Future monthly updates will resume coverage of all pending cases.

And now, let’s see what we’ve missed…

The back of my house, there’s a trail that won’t end
We went walkin’ so far that it grew back in
Now there’s no trail at all, only grass growin’ taller
I’ll get out my machete and battle with time once again
But I’m bound to lose ’cause I’ll be damned if time don’t win
– Jack Johnson, Home


Closed

Jumpstart Communications LLC v. Jumper, 1:24-cv-00447-HAB-SLC (N.D. Ind., filed Oct. 22, 2024). A joint stipulation of dismissal was filed on September 18, 2025, and the case was dismissed with prejudice on September 19, 2025.

Forest River, Inc. v. Sharpline Converting, Inc., 3:24-cv-00541-DRL-MGG (N.D. Ind., filed July 2, 2024). A joint stipulation of dismissal was filed on March 5, 2025, and the case was dismissed with prejudice on March 6, 2025.

AWGI, LLC / Atlas Van Lines, Inc. v. Atlas Mover Group LLC, 3:24-cv-00116-MPB-CSW (S.D. Ind., filed July 15, 2024). Plaintiffs moved for default judgment on October 15, 2024. The court entered a permanent injunction on February 4, 2025, and the case was terminated the same day.

Hot Girl Walk LLC v. Springer d/b/a Hot Walk Indy, 1:24-cv-01187-JPH-TAB (S.D. Ind., filed July 15, 2024). The Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal on August 2, 2024.

Delta Faucet Company v. Bundrick, 1:24-cv-01901-RLY-KMB (S.D. Ind., filed Oct. 28, 2024). The case was terminated on February 7, 2025.

BCW Diversified, Inc. v. Ultra Pro International, LLC, 1:24-cv-01699-MJD-RLY (S.D. Ind., filed Sept. 30, 2024). The parties reached a confidential settlement. BCW’s related TTAB cancellation (No. 92090374) was withdrawn with prejudice because, BCW told the Board, the federal case was being dismissed under a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulation.

Gabet et al. v. Amazon.com. Inc. et al., 1:22-cv-02246-JPH-MKK (N.D. Ind., filed January 20, 2022). The case was dismissed on March 20, 2025.

National College Resources Foundation v. The Strong Friends LLC et al. (N.D. Ind, filed May 4, 2023). The case was dismissed on January 30, 2025.

Banjo Corporation v. Green Leaf, Inc. (S.D. Ind. September 29, 2023). The case was dismissed with prejudice on February 19, 2026.

Perma-Green Supreme, Inc. v. Dr. Permagreen, LLC et al. (N.D.Ind., filed October 6, 2023). The case was dismissed with prejudice on June 6, 2025.

Tempur Sealy International, Inc. et al. v. Luxury Mattress & Furniture, LLC (N.D.Ind., filed November 9, 2023). A July 2024 Order directed the Sheriff to remove all infringing materials. We’ll count that as closed, so no more updates going forward.

Sadowski v. Circle City Broadcasting I, LLC d/b/a WISH-TV (S.D.Ind., filed February 21, 2024). The case was dismissed on January 10, 2025.

Rigsby v. All Seasons Roofing (N.D. Ind., filed March 14, 2024). The case was dismissed on July 9, 2026.

Guangzhou Shima Decoration Materials Co., Ltd v. Shenzhen Ruimingxiang Technology Co., Ltd. et al. (S.D. Ind., filed April 11, 2024). The case was dismissed on March 3, 2025.

Miller v. Empire News LLC (S.D. Ind., filed June 26, 2024). The plaintiff received a judgment of $10,305.00 on February 4, 2026.

LifeWise, Inc. v. Parrish (N.D. Ind., filed July 2, 2024). The case was dismissed on July 6, 2026.

My Market LLC v. Batth Markets Inc. et al. (S.D. Ind., filed August 6, 2024). The plaintiff was awarded an injunction, $10,100 in attorney’s fees and $555 in costs, and the case was dismissed on January 28, 2026.

Legacy Chiropractic, LLC v. Legacy Family Chiropractic LLC (N.D. Ind., filed August 9, 2024). The case was dismissed August 28, 2025.

Still Open (Unbelievably in Some Instances)

EE Holding Group LLC v. PDGROWTH LLC, 1:24-cv-01895-JPH-TAB (S.D. Ind., filed Oct. 25, 2024). Still pending as of a June 24, 2025, with an order granting leave to amend and add contributory-infringement allegations, including against a non-party defendant.

Valcrum, LLC v. Dexter Axle Company, LLC, 3:24-cv-00190-DRL (N.D. Ind., filed March 1, 2024). Still pending. Dexter answered April 22, 2024. As of an August 10, 2026 filing, the parties were in fact discovery, with court-extended deadlines running into early 2027 and mediation set thereafter.

The Evolutionary Level Above Human, Inc. v. Havel et al, 3:22-cv-00395-DRL (N.D.Ind., filed 5/18/2022) – A Status Report was filed by Defendant Bartel on September 4, 2026.

Honest Abe Roofing franchise, Inc. v. DCH & Associates, LLC et al., 2:22-cv-00387-JRS-MG (S.D. Ind., filed 9/7/2022). After 4 years, the defendant has appeared in the lawsuit, filing an Exemption Claim and Request for Hearing. This apparently follows Regions Bank freezing some of the defendant’s funds.

Nickel and Dimes Incorporated v. Noah’s Arcade LLC et al, 3:23-cv-00699-CCB-SJF (N.D.Ind., filed July 25, 2023). The case is still pending.

Baskin-Robbins Franchising LLC et al v. Blu Moo Ice Cream Inc. et al., 1:24-cv-00293-JRS-CSW (S.D.Ind., filed February 14, 2024). The case is still pending. 


Can you believe some of these cases are still ongoing? Next month’s wrap will take a closer look at the pending cases and probably include some interesting cases that we missed along the way, although definitely not the entire two-year backlog. Stay tuned.

Written by Kenan L. Farrell of KLF Legal (https://www.klflegal.com/). Indiana Intellectual Property Blog covers federal copyright and trademark dockets in Indiana. This post is commentary, not legal advice.

BIOCOTE vs. BIOCOAT…are you confused?

Tags

, , , , , , ,

BioCote Limited sues BioBond Adhesives for trademark infringement in N.D. Ind. (4:26-cv-00086)

BioCote Limited sued Lafayette adhesives maker BioBond Adhesives, Inc. on August 19, 2026, in the Northern District of Indiana, Lafayette Division, Case No. 4:26-cv-00086-GSL-AZ, alleging federal trademark infringement, unfair competition, false designation of origin, Indiana trademark and unfair competition claims, and breach of a brand license over BioBond’s BIOCOAT antimicrobial coatings.

The Complaint (below) is a licensee fight, not a stranger-on-the-internet fight. UK company BioCote owns U.S. Registration No. 5,306,757 for the BIOCOTE logo in Class 2 for antimicrobial powder-coating compositions (issued October 10, 2017; first U.S. sales under the mark pleaded as at least 2013). It licenses the chemistry and the mark to partners who put BIOCOTE on finished goods. BioBond, which makes plant-based adhesives and protective coatings in Lafayette, is pleaded as one of those partners. Under the Brand Agreement attached as Exhibit B to the Complaint, BioBond took a non-exclusive license to the BIOCOTE mark, agreed the IP stayed with BioCote, and promised it “must not use in its business any other trademark similar to the [BioCote] Mark,” must not apply to register “Biocote [or] any similar word,” and must not do anything that would diminish the registration.

BioBond then launched BioCoat SUP250 and BioCoat SWaE250 – water-based polyurethane and epoxy coatings marketed for food-processing surfaces and “defense against mold, fungi, and other microorganisms” – and, the Complaint says, filed a standard-character U.S. application for BIOCOAT covering anti-mold, anti-fungal, and anti-microbial protective coatings. BioCote says it learned of the filing from a watch notice, understood after discussions that BioBond would drop the mark and the application, then found the application still moving. It opposed at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (Opposition No. 91303474) and now wants the Northern District to stop the use.

The pleaded theory is short: BIOCOTE and BIOCOAT share five of seven letters and, BioCote says, sound the same; the goods are antimicrobial coatings sold into overlapping industrial channels; and the customer was already a licensed BIOCOTE partner, which the Complaint says makes source confusion worse, not better. BioCote seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction against BIOCOAT, destruction of marked packaging, refusal or cancellation of the application, damages (including a treble/enhanced-damages request on alleged willfulness), and fees. A jury is demanded.

Stay tuned for updates.

BioCote Limited vs. BioBond Adhesives, Inc.

Court Case Number: 4:26-cv-00086-GSL-AZ
File Date: August 19, 2026
Nature of Suit: 840 Trademark
Plaintiff: BioCote Limited
Plaintiff Counsel: Stephanie L. Teaford, H. Jonathan Redway, Nicole M. Meyer of Dickinson Wright PLLC
Defendant: BioBond Adhesives, Inc.
Cause: 15 U.S.C. § 1114 Trademark Infringement; 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) Unfair Competition / False Designation of Origin; Indiana Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition; Breach of Contract
Court: Northern District of Indiana
Judge: Gretchen S. Lund
Referred To: Abizer Zanzi

Complaint:

Written by Kenan L. Farrell of KLF Legal (https://www.klflegal.com/). The Indiana Intellectual Property Blog covers federal copyright and trademark dockets in Indiana. This post is commentary, not legal advice.

UINDY vs. IU INDY…are you confused?

Tags

, , , , ,

Indianapolis University of Indianapolis sued The Trustees of Indiana University on August 11, 2026, in the Southern District of Indiana, Case No. 1:26-cv-01669-JPH-MKK, alleging federal trademark infringement, unfair competition, and trademark dilution over IU’s use of “IU INDY” for the former IUPUI campus – a phrase the south-side school says is too close to its federally registered UINDY mark.

The Complaint (below) opens as “an action for infringement of U Indy’s well-known federally registered trademark ‘UINDY.’” UIndy has used UINDY in commerce since 2002 and owns a family of live Principal Register registrations, including U.S. Reg. Nos. 2,755,827 (Class 41 educational services; first use June 3, 2002; registered August 26, 2003), 3,327,194, 3,756,194 (clothing), 3,865,804, 4,039,095, and 6,969,975. After IU and Purdue unwound IUPUI in 2024, IU began branding the downtown Indianapolis campus as IU INDY – including, contemporaneous reporting notes, on athletic goods – and filed intent-to-register applications for IU INDY, IU INDY and design, and IU INDY JAGUARS (Serial Nos. 98/413,770, 98/413,774, 98/413,777, and 98/414,051), which published on October 22, 2024.

UIndy opposed those applications at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board on February 19, 2025 (Opposition No. 91297078). The federal complaint now takes the fight out of the Trademark Office and into the Southern District. As pleaded in the public accounts of the Complaint, the two schools compete for the same students in the same city; UIndy alleges “confusion and deception in the marketplace and diversion of potential students and customers of U Indy to IU,” and says it has already seen mix-ups among students, job applicants, delivery drivers, and FAFSA filers. IU’s media office has declined to comment on the litigation. An answer has not been filed.

UIndy seeks to stop display, distribution, marketing, and promotion under IU INDY, plus damages. Two Indianapolis universities, one transposed pair of letters, one federal trademark docket. Stay tuned for updates.

University of Indianapolis vs. The Trustees of Indianapolis University

Court Case Number: 1:26-cv-01669-JPH-MKK
File Date: August 11, 2026
Nature of Suit: 840 Trademark
Plaintiff: University of Indianapolis
Plaintiff Counsel: William J. Barkimer, Daniel Tychonievich of Krieg DeVault LLP
Defendant: The Trustees of Indiana University
Cause: Federal Trademark Infringement; Federal Unfair Competition; False Designation of Origin
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: James Patrick Hanlon
Referred To: M. Kendra Klump

Complaint:

Written by Kenan L. Farrell of KLF Legal (https://www.klflegal.com/). The Indiana Intellectual Property Blog covers federal copyright and trademark dockets in Indiana. This post is commentary, not legal advice.