USPTO Trademark News: TMEP Update November 2025 (TTAB & Exam Guide Highlights)

The USPTO has released the November 2025 edition of the Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP), and this update carries significant implications for trademark owners, practitioners, and anyone involved in the trademark registration process.

This revision incorporates precedential decisions issued between May 2025 and August 31, 2025, and formalizes several existing procedures that have been causing confusion in the trademark community.

The Big Story: Fraud Prevention Gets Teeth

The most consequential changes in the November 2025 TMEP relate to the USPTO's aggressive crackdown on trademark fraud. If you've been following USPTO news this year, you know the agency has been on a mission to clean up the trademark register.

The Stelcore Decision Is Now Official Policy

The landmark Stelcore case is now codified in the TMEP, and its implications are far-reaching:

Signatures cannot be "fixed" after the fact. If a trademark application was filed with an improper signature—whether forged, delegated, or entered with intent to circumvent USPTO rules—no amount of correction will save it. This applies even if:

• A legitimate attorney later takes over the case
• The applicant submits a corrected signature
• Everyone involved acts in good faith going forward

The USPTO's position is clear: the integrity of the initial filing matters, and retroactive fixes don't cure original defects made with improper intent.

Scale of Enforcement

To understand how seriously the USPTO is taking this, consider the numbers:

• 52,000+ applications terminated in connection with the Stelcore sanctions
• 10,000+ additional applications and registrations under investigation
• A new pilot program (expanded in June 2025) requiring filers without prior ties to the record to obtain approval through an electronic signature verification process

What This Means for You

If you're a trademark owner:

• Ensure you personally review and sign (or authorize via proper legal means) all trademark filings
• If you work with filing services or agents, verify they follow USPTO signature requirements
• Review your portfolio for any applications that may have been filed through questionable services

If you're a practitioner:

• Document signature authorization clearly
• Never sign on behalf of a client without explicit, documented permission
• Be cautious about inheriting cases from unknown sources

Fraud and "Reckless Disregard"

A precedential TTAB decision, Chutter, Inc. v. Great Management Group, LLC (2021), held that "reckless disregard" can satisfy the intent requirement for proving fraud on the USPTO. The Federal Circuit reversed that decision in 2023, in Great Concepts, LLC v. Chutter, Inc., on a different ground and without deciding whether reckless disregard is enough, and that ruling left the question open.

Before Chutter, proving trademark fraud required showing a specific intent to deceive. Under the Board's reasoning, signing a declaration without reviewing it, when it contains false statements, could be enough even without a conscious intent to deceive.

The Board's reasoning: the law cannot be read to let applicants and registrants recklessly disregard what their sworn declarations say, because the USPTO relies on those statements and the benefits of registration are substantial.

Practical Implications

Whatever the final answer, the safe course puts the burden on applicants and their counsel to:

1. Carefully review every statement in declarations before signing
2. Verify specimen authenticity before submitting
3. Confirm use claims are accurate and documented
4. Double-check goods/services descriptions match actual use

A careless signature on a boilerplate declaration could support a fraud claim if the declaration contains inaccuracies you should have caught.

Fee Structure Reminders (From January 2025)

While the November 2025 TMEP primarily addresses case law and procedure, it's worth remembering the fee changes from earlier this year that are now fully integrated:

• $350 per class for classes added to TEAS Plus applications
• New "insufficient information fee" replaces the old processing fee
• Virtual goods guidance formalized for intangible digital objects in virtual worlds

These changes from Examination Guide 1-25 are now seamlessly incorporated into the manual.

TTAB Precedential Decisions You Should Know

The November 2025 TMEP incorporates recent TTAB precedential decisions covering several important topics:

Likelihood of Confusion Refinements

Multiple 2024-2025 decisions refined the analysis for determining whether marks are confusingly similar:

• TRIPLEYE vs. 3RD EYE: Different enough for software goods—showing that conceptual similarity alone may not doom an application
• Priority by analogous use: The CAPTAIN CANNABIS decision confirmed that priority can be established through analogous use before formal trademark use begins
• "Something more" requirement rejected: The UPC decision clarified that applicants don't need to show "something more" beyond standard likelihood of confusion factors

Specimen Failures for Online Services

The GABBY'S TABLE decision highlights ongoing scrutiny of specimens for online retail and service marks. If your specimen doesn't clearly show the mark in use with the services claimed, expect an office action.

Expungement Based on Nonuse

The SMARTLOCK decisions show the USPTO is actively using expungement proceedings to remove marks from the register when use cannot be demonstrated. Registrants should:

• Maintain clear records of trademark use
• Keep dated specimens and sales records
• Be prepared to demonstrate ongoing use in commerce

What About Cannabis Trademarks?

Notably, Examination Guide 1-19 (covering cannabis and cannabis-related goods after the 2018 Farm Bill) remains listed as not yet incorporated into the TMEP. For how the 2018 Farm Bill and federal rescheduling shape filing strategy, see the cannabis trademark race. This suggests ongoing evolution in how the USPTO handles this complex area—stay tuned for future updates.

Action Items for Trademark Owners

Based on the November 2025 TMEP changes, here's your checklist:

Immediate Actions

• Audit your portfolio for any applications filed through third-party services
• Verify signature practices with your trademark counsel
• Review pending applications for accuracy of all statements
• Document your use with dated specimens for each mark

Ongoing Best Practices

• Never delegate signatures on trademark documents
• Read declarations carefully before signing—every time
• Maintain organized records of use in commerce
• Monitor your registrations for potential challenges

If You're Concerned

If you have any doubt about filings in your portfolio:

1. Consult with qualified trademark counsel
2. Review the filing history in TSDR
3. Consider proactive corrections where possible
4. Document legitimate use going forward

Stay Informed with GleanMark

The trademark landscape is evolving rapidly. Between fee changes, fraud enforcement, and shifting legal standards, staying current is more important than ever.

GleanMark's monitoring tools help you:

• Track your portfolio with real-time USPTO data updates
• Get alerts, usually by the next business day, when your marks' status changes
• Monitor competitor filings that might conflict with your brands
• Never miss a deadline with automated renewal reminders

Start monitoring your trademarks today—free to get started.

---

Further Reading

• USPTO TMEP Archives - Access all TMEP versions
• Trademark Examination Guides - Current examination guidance
• TTAB Reading Room - Search precedential decisions

---

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult with a qualified trademark attorney for guidance on your specific situation.

FAQ

What changed in the USPTO TMEP November 2025 update?

Exam Guide tweaks for specimens, TEAS Plus, and likelihood-of-confusion analyses. The article summarizes practical effects.

How do the November 2025 TTAB decisions affect refusals?

Recent precedential decisions tighten evidence on relatedness and confusion. Key takeaways are summarized for responses.

Do I need to amend my pending application after the update?

Most do not, but certain identifications and specimens benefit from proactive clarification. Guidance is included in the article.