Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

You’re Being Audited … by the Trademark Office?

By Tucker Chambers on January 25, 2018
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

It’s about that time of year, when you may be thinking about tax season. Tax day is still a few months away, but you may already have received your W-2, or 1099, (or other various assortments of mysterious numbers and letters), which will determine how much you’ll owe Uncle Sam (or perhaps a nice refund is on the way?). You might also be thinking about the possibility of an audit. Depending on your particular business or personal income situation, the chances of an audit may be quite small, but it’s hard not to think about.

What you’re probably not thinking about, however, is an audit by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), regarding any trademark registrations that you own. It can happen. Luckily, a trademark registration audit is not nearly as onerous or time-consuming as a tax audit. For any trademark owners or practitioners out there, who may receive an audit this year, here’s a quick overview and some tips.

In March of last year, following a two-year pilot program, the USPTO implemented new rules, establishing a random audit program for trademark registrations. The audit program is targeted at the required maintenance filings (“Declarations of Use”) for any registrations with more than one good or service per class. The goal of the audit program is to randomly request additional verification, that the registered mark is actually being used in commerce with the identified goods or services (which is required to maintain a valid trademark registration). Specifically, each year about 10% of all trademark registrations with recent maintenance filings will be randomly selected for an audit.

The rationale for the program is that under current rules, registration maintenance filings (every 5 years for the first 10 years, then every 10 years after that), only require the registrant to submit proof of use (a “specimen”) for one of the identified goods or services in each class, rather than all identified goods or services. Therefore, this can lead to invalid (or partially invalid) registrations sitting on the register for years (referred to as “deadwood” registrations), that identify goods or services for which the mark is no longer being used in commerce. The goal of the audit program, therefore, is to “to assess and promote the accuracy and integrity of the register” (Trademark Rule 2.161(h), as amended) by cleaning up the deadwood.

When a registration is randomly selected for an audit, the USPTO will issue a “Post-Registration Office Action,” stating, “Registration Selected for Audit.”  This Office Action will require the registrant to submit additional specimens for two goods or services, which are randomly selected among all the goods and services identified in the registration. Linked here is a sample of such an audit Office Action–this should look the same for everyone, other than the registration data.

The electronic response form is straightforward, which requires the registrant to submit acceptable specimens of use according to the applicable specimen rules (see TMEP §§ 904, 1301.04), and a verified statement of use. However, if it turns out that the registrant was not using the mark in commerce for the selected goods/services, the next step is to request deletion of those goods or services from the registration.  If deletion is requested, the USPTO, unfortunately, will then expand the audit to require specimens for all remaining goods or services identified in the registration.

Here are a few tips for dealing with the new audit system, for both trademark owners and practitioners:

  • Carefully Confirm Use for All Goods and Services; Amend Registration as Needed: When it comes time for filing the Declaration of Use, confirm use in commerce of the registered mark for all identified goods and services (even though only one specimen is required), and if use has ceased for any goods and services, they should be deleted from the registration. That way, there won’t be any hiccups when it comes time for an audit.
  • Get Ready for Expansion of the Audit if Deletion Is Requested: If you must delete any of the goods or services selected in the audit for non-use, the audit will expand to all goods or services identified.  Therefore, if any deletion is required, you should comb through all identified goods/services and make any necessary deletions at the same time–don’t just delete those currently selected in the audit. Otherwise, after the audit expands, it will further delay the process if you need to request more deletions.
  • File a Timely Response to the Post-Registration Audit, or Entire Registration will be Cancelled: There is a six-month deadline for responding to the audit issued in the Post-Registration Office Action. One might think that without a timely response, only the audited goods/services would be deleted by the USPTO. But unfortunately, the consequence is harsher than that–if a response is not submitted by the six-month deadline, the entire registration will be cancelled.

What do you think about the new audit process? Is it worth it having the deadwood registrations cleaned up, which can be beneficial from both a prosecution and enforcement perspective? Or are the benefits outweighed by the additional administrative time and cost associated with gathering more specimens and responding to these Office Actions? Perhaps that answer might depend on whether you fall within the audited 10% this year–so, good luck to all!

Photo of Tucker Chambers Tucker Chambers

View my professional biography

I’ve always been fascinated by brands, logos, slogans, and other creative works. I remember in my first year of middle school, asking my parents for the Adidas “three stripe” shoes to match my friends at school. And I vividly…

View my professional biography

I’ve always been fascinated by brands, logos, slogans, and other creative works. I remember in my first year of middle school, asking my parents for the Adidas “three stripe” shoes to match my friends at school. And I vividly recall various McDonald’s commercials and billboards, with the golden arches and the ubiquitous slogans, such as “We Love to See You Smile” (which, in my teenage years, changed to the allegedly hipper slogan “i’m lovin’ it”). And other endless logos and characters would intrigue me at the grocery store. I remember wondering why the little ® and © symbols were there, and what they meant—and eventually, this all led to an interest in trademarks and copyright law.

I was also drawn to intellectual property law based on my interests in technology, computers, and robotics. In my high school years, a small group of friends started a robotics team and asked me to join. We built a makeshift robot (primarily from plywood and pool noodles) and somehow ended up winning a regional competition. The following year (with a significantly more sophisticated robot), we advanced to the national championship.

My interest in practicing intellectual property law also grew through my law school courses and research work with my intellectual property professor, Ruth Okediji. In particular, one of my courses allowed me to embark on a week of extracurricular traveling to conduct pro bono work for a non-profit organization, including a visit to Tetiaroa in French Polynesia (a two-square-mile atoll, about three hours by boat from Tahiti). I worked diligently on some trademark matters, while sitting by the beach, sipping on fresh coconut water. Needless to say, that beach-side adventure set a high bar for the real-world practice of intellectual property law—but thus far I have not been disappointed.

Outside of work, I enjoy spending time with my wife and family, trying out new restaurants in the Twin Cities area (especially Italian and Latin American), playing tennis, and catching up on my favorite TV shows (current favorite: Stranger Things) or watching movies—especially spy thrillers, mind-benders, or futuristic sci-fi (all-time favorite: Inception).

Email
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Intellectual Property
  • Blog:
    DuetsBlog
  • Organization:
    Winthrop & Weinstine, P.A.
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo