USPTO’s New Fee Structure Hurts Hemp And CBD

If you’re a hemp or CBD brand trying to protect your name federally, the USPTO just made it harder—and more expensive.

Below, our friends from Trademark Lawyer Law Firm discuss the USPTO’s new fee structure and how it hurts hemp and CBD businesses.

Effective January 18, 2025, the USPTO replaced its two-tier TEAS Plus and TEAS Standard application model with a new base fee system. On paper, it sounds fair: one base application fee that adjusts based on complexity. In reality, it’s a policy shift that disproportionately impacts legal hemp and CBD businesses.

Here’s what changed:

Base Filing Fee: $350 per class
Custom Language Fee: +$200 per class for any ID not found in the Trademark ID Manual
Long Descriptions: +$200 per additional 1,000 characters
Missing Content: +$100 per class if you leave out required new content

For many businesses, these add-ons are avoidable. Use the USPTO’s pre-approved language, and you can likely stick to the $350 base. But if you’re in the hemp or CBD industry? You’re almost guaranteed to incur extra charges.

Why?

Because the Trademark ID Manual doesn’t contain the federally compliant language that the USPTO itself requires.

The 2018 Farm Bill made it legal to sell hemp-derived goods containing no more than 0.3% delta-9 THC by dry weight. The USPTO’s own Exam Guide 1-19 instructs applicants to specify that their products meet this threshold. But the Trademark ID Manual still doesn’t include that language.

So what happens? If you mention hemp, CBD, or that your product complies with the 0.3% THC limit, you’ll need to draft a custom ID—and trigger the $200 custom fee per class. That means a 3-class application could jump from $1,050 to $1,650 or more just because you’re being transparent about legality.

Some applicants have tried omitting reference to hemp or CBD altogether to stay under the $350 fee. But that tactic often backfires during examination. The assigned Examining Attorney may require specificity, and you could end up paying the custom fee anyway—plus dealing with an Office Action.

To be clear: this is not about unlawful products. These are lawful goods made from federally compliant hemp. The problem is that the USPTO hasn’t created a streamlined pathway for them to be registered.

This legal catch-22 means many brands are either:

Opting out of trademark applications entirely for their core hemp/CBD goods
Filing only for ancillary products like clothing or educational services
Avoiding the USPTO to sidestep the risk of public refusals that can scare off investors or partners
Fighting back—paying the higher fees and preparing for prolonged examination or appeal

This shouldn’t be this hard—or this expensive—for legal businesses to protect their brands.

The USPTO Has Options.

They could:

Update the ID Manual to include compliant entries like “hemp-derived CBD products with no more than 0.3% delta-9 THC”
Waive the $200 custom fee when required language isn’t available in the Manual
Create a formal examination track for legal hemp-based goods that aligns with their own guidance

Until then, hemp entrepreneurs will continue paying more for protection—and receiving less.

If your brand operates in this space, don’t go it alone. A trademark litigation lawyer helps clients navigate these exact challenges and prepare applications that stand up under scrutiny.