USPTO Adds Statement of Use Extensions to Trademark Center
The United States Patent and Trademark Office has moved another important intent-to-use filing into Trademark Center. As of September 2026, applicants can use the newer platform to request an extension of time to file a Statement of Use.
The interface change is modest. The deadline behind it is not. For a Section 1(b) trademark application, missing a Statement of Use deadline can abandon an application after the applicant has already invested in clearance, filing, examination, and publication. The new filing option is therefore a good reason for brand owners to revisit what a Notice of Allowance means, how the six-month extension cycle works, and what must happen before the three-year limit expires.
What changed in September 2026?
In a September 8, 2026 Trademark Alert, the USPTO announced that customers can now request a Statement of Use extension in Trademark Center. The agency said transitioning forms will generally remain available in both Trademark Center and the legacy Trademark Electronic Application System, or TEAS, for two to three months before the TEAS version is retired. The broader migration to Trademark Center is expected to be completed in spring 2027.
This announcement concerns the filing system. It does not enlarge the statutory filing period, reduce the evidentiary requirements for eventual registration, or automatically extend an application. An applicant still must submit a timely extension request—or a valid Statement of Use—within the applicable period.
The distinction matters because a saved draft is not a filed request. Applicants should preserve the submission receipt, confirm the filing in the USPTO record, and continue docketing from the Notice of Allowance date.
Why intent-to-use applications need a later use filing
A Section 1(b) application allows an applicant with a bona fide intention to use a mark in commerce to seek a federal filing date before actual use begins. Tucker Law’s earlier guide explains the basic requirements for filing an intent-to-use trademark application.
Intent alone, however, does not produce a registration on the Principal Register. Under 15 U.S.C. § 1051, the applicant ultimately must file a verified Statement of Use showing qualifying use in commerce for the goods or services on which registration is sought. The filing includes the dates of use and an acceptable specimen, along with the required fee.
That later filing is what connects the application’s stated plan to use the mark with marketplace activity that the USPTO can examine.
The Notice of Allowance starts the clock
After an intent-to-use application clears examination, publishes for opposition, and completes the opposition period without a successful challenge, the USPTO may issue a Notice of Allowance. A Notice of Allowance is not a registration. It means the application can proceed toward registration once the applicant submits an acceptable use filing.
The first deadline is six months from the Notice of Allowance issue date. By that deadline, the applicant must file either:
- a Statement of Use if the mark is in qualifying use for the goods or services at issue; or
- a request for a six-month extension if more time is needed.
The USPTO’s current Section 1(b) timeline states that an applicant may file as many as five six-month extension requests. The Statement of Use must ultimately be filed within three years of the Notice of Allowance date.
Each period is measured from the Notice of Allowance and the resulting statutory cycle—not from the day the applicant happens to file an extension request. Filing an extension early does not move the next deadline six months from that submission date.
What a Statement of Use extension requires
An extension request is more than a request for administrative convenience. It includes a verified statement that the applicant continues to have a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce for the identified goods or services. After the first extension, the governing rules also require a showing of good cause, typically through the applicant’s ongoing efforts to make use of the mark.
Examples may include product or service research and development, manufacturing activity, market research, promotional preparations, efforts to obtain distributors, or work toward required regulatory approval. The appropriate statement depends on what the applicant is actually doing. A business should not select a convenient answer that its records cannot support.
The USPTO’s current trademark fee information lists the electronic extension-request fee as $125 per class. The fee applies to each class covered by the request. The electronic Statement of Use fee is separately listed as $150 per class.
No specimen is required merely to obtain an extension. But the extension does not excuse the applicant from eventually proving use in commerce, and it does not convert preparatory activity into use. Tucker Law’s discussion of the trademark use-in-commerce requirement provides additional background on that distinction.
When should an applicant extend instead of filing a Statement of Use?
The answer should turn on the facts, not on a desire to finish the application quickly. A Statement of Use is generally appropriate only when the mark is already used in commerce in a manner that satisfies the statute for the claimed goods or services and the applicant has a defensible specimen.
An extension may be the better choice when a launch has slipped, packaging is not final, a service has not yet been rendered across the relevant commerce, or the available specimen does not properly connect the mark with the identified goods or services. The extra filing fee is often less consequential than submitting an unsupported use claim or allowing the application to abandon.
Before filing, the applicant should compare the Notice of Allowance with current operations on a class-by-class and item-by-item basis. Some listed goods may be ready while others remain in development. The application may need a more tailored strategy, such as deleting goods that will not be offered or considering whether division is appropriate. Those choices can affect both protection and cost and should be evaluated before the deadline.
Do not treat a product launch as the only deadline
Startups often plan around a commercial launch date while overlooking the federal application’s independent calendar. Manufacturing delays, beta testing, investor timing, regulatory review, and retailer onboarding can all move a launch. None of them automatically moves the USPTO deadline.
A sound docket should track at least four items:
- the Notice of Allowance issue date;
- each six-month Statement of Use or extension deadline;
- the number of extensions already used; and
- the final three-year limit for submitting the Statement of Use.
The business team should also preserve contemporaneous records of bona fide launch efforts. Those records can help confirm the accuracy of an extension request and support the original intent-to-use basis if that intent is later challenged.
The “insurance” extension can protect time to fix a use filing
The USPTO recognizes a limited strategy sometimes called an insurance extension. If time remains in the current six-month period, an applicant may file one extension request with or after a Statement of Use. According to the agency’s current intent-to-use forms guidance, the additional time may help address a deficiency in the Statement of Use, commonly a specimen problem.
This is not an unlimited cure and it is not available after the statutory time has already run. It also does not make a false or premature claim of use acceptable. The filing sequence and remaining time should be reviewed before relying on it.
Practical steps during the Trademark Center transition
The coexistence of Trademark Center and TEAS may reduce disruption while forms migrate, but it can also create uncertainty over which interface contains a particular filing. Applicants should start from the USPTO’s current forms page, verify the application status in TSDR, and confirm that they are using the correct form for the current stage.
The timing labels also matter. Before publication approval, a qualifying use filing is generally called an Amendment to Allege Use. After a Notice of Allowance, it is a Statement of Use. During the period after approval for publication but before the Notice of Allowance issues, the application may be in a “blackout period” when an allegation of use cannot be processed. Checking TSDR before filing helps prevent a stage-specific mistake.
The move to Trademark Center does not change the value of a thorough clearance and filing strategy at the beginning of the process. A business considering a new mark should address ownership, goods and services, filing basis, and conflicts through a professional trademark search before deadlines begin accumulating.
The takeaway for brand owners
The new Trademark Center feature makes an important filing available in the USPTO’s modern platform. It does not make the underlying deadline forgiving. Once a Notice of Allowance issues, an applicant has a six-month decision cycle, a maximum of five extensions, and an outside three-year limit to establish use through an acceptable Statement of Use.
Tucker Law helps businesses plan, file, and monitor federal applications through its trademark registration practice. If your application has received a Notice of Allowance, or your launch and trademark docket are no longer aligned, contact Tucker Law before the next statutory deadline.
