TEAS Plus vs. TEAS Standard

By Ava Na Li | Attorney | Ava Li Law PLLC

This article is part of Ava Li Law’s federal trademark registration series. Attorney Ava Na Li attended the USPTO’s 2024 Trademark Basics Boot Camp, an eight-module program designed to help applicants understand the federal registration process.

Drawing on that training and our professional experience, this series explains the key stages of registration and the standards USPTO examining attorneys apply. The aim is to help applicants understand the rules and prepare stronger filings.

This installment examines the differences between TEAS Plus and TEAS Standard and the considerations that informed the choice between them.

Introduction

Under the filing framework discussed in the original article, the USPTO’s Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) offered two options: TEAS Plus and TEAS Standard. The discussion below describes that historical framework, including its fees and identification requirements.

1. What Was TEAS Plus?

TEAS Plus was the lower-cost option. It required applicants to provide the necessary information at filing and select standardized descriptions of goods or services from the USPTO’s Trademark ID Manual.

Fee: $250 per international class. The total filing fee depended on the number of classes included in the application.

Requirements: Use approved ID Manual entries, provide the required application information at filing, and avoid custom descriptions of goods or services.

Potential advantages: A lower filing fee and a more standardized application. The original article also described faster examination, by approximately 20%, and a higher likelihood of clearing the initial review; those statements reflect the source article’s account, not a processing guarantee.

Typical fit: Common goods or services that could be accurately described using existing ID Manual entries, such as clothing, household products, and software services.

2. What Was TEAS Standard?

TEAS Standard offered more flexibility by allowing applicants to write their own descriptions of goods or services. This was particularly relevant to emerging industries or offerings without a suitable entry in the ID Manual.

Fee: $350 per international class.

Requirements: Applicants could draft descriptions in their own words rather than selecting only standardized ID Manual entries.

Typical fit: New technologies, specialized services, or unusual offerings, such as AI solutions, medical technology, and customized software services.

3. Comparing the Two Options

The historical comparison focused on fees, drafting flexibility, and the suitability of standardized descriptions.

Fees: TEAS Plus cost $250 per class; TEAS Standard cost $350 per class.

Descriptions: TEAS Plus required approved ID Manual wording; TEAS Standard allowed custom descriptions.

Processing time: The original article characterized TEAS Plus as faster and TEAS Standard as slower.

Initial review: The original article described TEAS Plus as more likely to clear the first review than TEAS Standard.

Business fit: TEAS Plus suited established product and service categories; TEAS Standard accommodated offerings that needed more tailored descriptions.

4. How Did Applicants Choose?

The practical distinction was whether the ID Manual accurately described the offering. TEAS Plus suited established products and standard services, while TEAS Standard offered flexibility for businesses whose goods or services required language outside the manual.

When the choice was unclear, the applicant needed to consider the brand, the relevant goods and services, and plans for expansion. Ava Li Law helps businesses connect those filing decisions to a broader protection strategy.

Whichever filing route applies, clear descriptions, appropriate evidence, and a sound strategy help an application move forward. A careful review at the outset can reduce avoidable problems later in the process.

© 2025 Ava Li Law PLLC. All rights reserved. No reproduction, republication, or commercial use without prior written permission.