TEAS Nuts and Bolts 04: Additional Statements

This video explains how to fill out the Additional Statements section of the USPTO’s federal trademark registration application. The information applies to TEAS Plus and TEAS Standard applications.
Enhanced accessibility version: rev-vbrick.uspto.gov/#/videos...
To stay current with the USPTO, subscribe to regular e-mail updates at www.uspto.gov/subscribe.

[@marcfruchtman9473]

Thank you.

[@LayneSadler]

why are required fields not required?

[@USPTOvideo]

The word "required" does double duty in the form. In most cases, a red asterisk means that the information is required in order to move on to the next page. For example, on the Applicant Information page, you are required to include the owner of the trademark's name, entity type, mailing address, domicile address, and email address. You can't complete the form without that information. In the Additional Statements section, however, "required" refers to those five issues that are required to maintain TEAS Plus status. They may or may not apply to you as an applicant. It depends on the facts in your case. For example, most applicants don't have a concurrent use determination from a court or the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. As such, the form will allow you to move ahead without completing that field because there's nothing relevant for you to fill in. Or as the warning in the Additional Statement section states: WARNING: Additional statements are not commonly used and are for special circumstances that only exist in certain applications. Selecting items that do not apply may delay the processing of your application. HOWEVER, for any field below designated with an asterisk (*), you must make an entry to maintain TEAS Plus status, if applicable within the facts of the application. Failure to do so will result in the examining attorney requiring the payment of an additional $100 fee per class, because the application will lose its TEAS Plus status. Please note that our current electronic application system is over 20 years old and we're in the process of developing a new version. Ideally it will clear up any confusion about the double duty use of the word "required."

[@LayneSadler]

@@USPTOvideo it's confusing. please fix it

[@USPTOvideo]

The good news is that, as stated above, we're currently working on fixing it by redesigning the form. But your feedback and concern is certainly appreciated and well noted.