Guide
Statement of use and intent-to-use: the deadlines, the fees, and what counts as a specimen
Written September 1, 2026 by Josh Pigford
A statement of use is the filing that proves you are selling under your mark, and it is due within six months of the issue date of your notice of allowance, at $150 per class. You filed under intent to use because you had a name before you had a product. The notice of allowance is not a registration. It is a clock and a bill. Three things have to reach the USPTO before that clock runs out: the fee, one specimen per class showing the mark as you actually use it, and a signed verified statement. If you are not selling yet, you buy another six months for $125 per class, up to five times.
Knockoff's analysis of 7,293 post-allowance filings that appeared in the USPTO daily files for August 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 31, 2026 found that 61.7% were requests for more time rather than statements of use: allowed applicants asked for an extension 1.6 times for every time they filed proof of use.
The short version
- Six months from the issue date of the notice of allowance. Not from the day you opened the letter.
- $150 per class for the statement of use. $125 per class for each extension request.
- Five extensions maximum, and an absolute ceiling of 36 months from the issue date.
- The first extension needs no reason. Extensions two through five each need a showing of good cause.
- One specimen per class, and a webpage specimen must carry its URL and the date you accessed or printed it.
- You cannot withdraw a statement of use once it is filed, and the fee is not refunded.
- Miss the window and the application is abandoned. Past 36 months it cannot be revived.
What a statement of use is, and which intent-to-use applications owe one
Only intent-to-use applications owe one. 15 U.S.C. 1051(b) lets a person who has "a bona fide intention, under circumstances showing the good faith of such person, to use a trademark in commerce" apply before a single unit has sold, with no specimen at filing. The trade is spelled out two subsections later: "no mark shall be registered until the applicant has met the requirements of subsections (c) and (d) of this section." You get in line early. You do not get a registration until you prove use.
This is not an unusual way to file. Knockoff's analysis of 16,720 new trademark applications that appeared in the USPTO daily files for August 21 through 31, 2026 found that intent-to-use and use-based filings split almost exactly in half: 49.2% claimed intent to use only, 48.0% claimed use in commerce only. Roughly one new application in two is sitting where you are sitting.
The document itself is small and the vocabulary around it is confusing, so hold two words apart. A drawing is what the mark is. A specimen is how you use it. The USPTO puts it in one line: "A drawing shows what the trademark is. A specimen shows how you're actually using your trademark with your goods or services." Your drawing went in with the application. The specimen is what you owe now.
Timing is strict at both ends. 37 CFR 2.88(a)(1) says the statement "must be filed within six months after issuance of a notice of allowance under section 13(b)(2) of the Act, or within an extension of time granted under § 2.89", and the same rule closes the early door too: "A statement of use filed prior to issuance of a notice of allowance is premature and will not be reviewed." Filing early does not bank anything. The USPTO's own minimum-requirements page repeats the test in plain words: a statement of use is timely if it is filed "within six months of the issuance date of the Notice of Allowance (NOA), or within a previously granted extension of time to file a Statement of Use."
If you are still working out which right you are actually enforcing, which right covers a stolen photo and which covers a copied name maps copyright, trademark and patent across a product catalog, and when the copied thing is the look of the product covers the case where nobody took your name at all.
The deadline runs from the notice of allowance
The statute sets the first window. 15 U.S.C. 1051(d)(1) gives you "six months after the date on which the notice of allowance with respect to a mark is issued" to file a verified statement that the mark is in use, specifying the date of first use in commerce. Write down the issue date and count from it. Not the day it arrived in your inbox, not a mailing date printed anywhere else. The statute, 37 CFR 2.88(a)(1), TMEP 1109 and the USPTO's own minimum-requirements page all measure from issuance.
If you are not selling yet, you buy time. The first extension is granted as of right: 1051(d)(2) says the Director "shall extend, for one additional 6-month period" on a request, and only after that may the Director extend further "upon a showing of good cause" for "periods aggregating not more than 24 months". That 24 months is the cap on the extensions after the first, which is why the total ceiling is 36 months and not 24. 37 CFR 2.89(c) says the same thing from the other side: extension requests after the first "will be granted only in six-month increments and may not aggregate more than 24 months total."
There is no grace period. Nothing extends automatically. Each of the five extensions is a separate request, separately paid, filed inside the period that is currently running. Every one of them carries a sworn statement that you still have a continued bona fide intention to use the mark, and 2.89(a) lists the three parts of a first request: a written request, the fee per class, and that verified statement of continued intent. From the second request onward, 2.89(b) adds a fourth part, a showing of good cause, which 2.89(d)(1) defines as "a statement of the applicant's ongoing efforts to make use of the mark in commerce", and it names what counts: "product or service research or development, market research, manufacturing activities, promotional activities, steps to acquire distributors, steps to obtain governmental approval".
One clock detail saves people money. The windows run off the notice of allowance and nothing else, so filing an extension early does not shorten the period you are in. The USPTO says it directly: "The six-month periods are based solely on the issuance date of the NOA, and NOT from the filing date of any extension." And do not read a silence from the office as an answer. 37 CFR 2.89(g) is blunt about that: failure to notify you of the grant or denial before your period expires "does not relieve the applicant of the responsibility of timely filing a statement of use under § 2.88."
| Filing | File it by | Moves the deadline to | Fee per class | Good cause |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Statement of use | 6 months after the issue date | Registration, once the statement is accepted | $150 | Not applicable |
| First extension | 6 months after the issue date | 12 months | $125 | Not required |
| Second extension | 12 months | 18 months | $125 | Required |
| Third extension | 18 months | 24 months | $125 | Required |
| Fourth extension | 24 months | 30 months | $125 | Required |
| Fifth extension | 30 months | 36 months | $125 | Required |
| Anything after that | There is nothing after that | 36 months is the ceiling | None available | No further extensions |
The ladder exists, and most people never climb it. Knockoff's analysis of 2,792 statements of use that appeared in the USPTO daily files for August 21 through 31, 2026 found that 70.6% arrived in the first six months after the notice of allowance, inside the free window. In the same set, 13.7% arrived in the second window, 5.5% in the third, 2.6% in the fourth and 4.0% in the sixth (the fifth window is below our 50-filing floor), with 2.1% landing past 36 months on applications running from a revived or superseded notice.
The extension stream looks nothing like that. Knockoff's analysis of 4,501 extension requests that appeared in the same files found that only 31.6% were the applicant's first six-month request; 68.4% came from applicants who had already been granted at least one extension. Beneath that first request, 28.6% were second requests, 18.8% third, 12.5% fourth and 8.3% fifth.
Read the two together and the shape is clear. People who are actually shipping file in the first window and are done. The ladder is mostly repeat customers, working their way toward a wall. That is not a failure state, and the extension route is entirely legitimate. Knockoff's analysis of 2,792 statements of use that appeared in the USPTO daily files for August 21 through 31, 2026 found that 73.6% came from applicants who had never asked for an extension, while 6.1% came from applicants on their sixth and last window, three years after allowance. Some of those late filings are perfectly ordinary manufacturing timelines. The point is only that you should know which stream you are joining before you plan around a stall.
What a statement of use costs
Fees changed in 2025 and a lot of pages did not. If a page tells you the statement of use costs $100, it is quoting the old schedule. If it tells you $350, it is quoting the base application fee. The current numbers are below, and both the regulation and the published schedule were read on September 1, 2026.
| Filing | Electronic fee | Unit | Rule |
|---|---|---|---|
| Base application, Section 1(a) or 1(b) | $350 | Per class | 37 CFR 2.6(a)(1)(iii) |
| Statement of use | $150 | Per class | 37 CFR 2.6(a)(3)(ii) |
| Six-month extension request | $125 | Per class | 37 CFR 2.6(a)(4)(ii) |
| Amendment to allege use | $150 | Per class | 37 CFR 2.6(a)(2)(ii) |
| Request to divide an application | $100 | Per new application created | 37 CFR 2.6(a)(19)(ii) |
| Petition to revive an abandoned application | $250 | Per petition | 37 CFR 2.6(a)(15)(iv) |
The unit is the class, every time. Our arithmetic on the per-class figures above: a statement of use costs $150 for one class, $300 for two and $450 for three. Each extension request costs $125, $250 or $375 for the same three cases. Nothing on this ladder is priced per application, so an extra class you did not need is paid for again at every step.
The full stall, priced out, is also our arithmetic and not a USPTO figure: $350 for the application, plus five extensions at $125 each, which is $625, plus $150 for the statement of use, comes to $1,125 per class in USPTO fees across the three years. Add attorney time on top if you use one, and note that none of this counts the maintenance filings that start five years after the mark actually registers.
Two things to settle before you pay anything. Which classes your goods sit in decides how many times you multiply every number on this page, and what a filing costs across ten years runs the application, the statement of use, the extensions and the maintenance filings as one figure. Once the mark registers, the deadlines that come after registration turns your registration date into the Section 8 and renewal windows, which are the next dates you can miss.
1.6 to 1
extensions per statement of use
7,293 post-allowance filings that appeared in the USPTO daily files for August 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 31, 2026: 4,501 extension requests and 2,792 statements of use. As of August 31, 2026. Knockoff · September 2026.
An example statement of use, filled in
People ask for an example of a filled-in statement of use and get a definition instead. Here are the fields, with values, for a brand that does not exist. HOLLOWAY FIELD is invented, the serial number is invented, and the dates are invented. This is an illustration of the fields 37 CFR 2.88(b) requires, so you can see what you are being asked for before you open the form in TEAS, the USPTO's electronic filing system. It is not a form, not a template to copy, and not legal advice.
| Field | Sample value |
|---|---|
| Mark | HOLLOWAY FIELD |
| Serial number | 98/765,432 |
| Filing basis | Section 1(b), intent to use |
| Notice of allowance issue date | March 3, 2026 |
| Statement of use due | September 3, 2026 |
| Class | 025 |
| Goods, exactly as they appear in the notice of allowance | Hooded sweatshirts; T-shirts; caps being headwear |
| Goods being deleted, not yet in use | None |
| Date of first use anywhere | June 12, 2026 |
| Date of first use in commerce | June 14, 2026 |
| Specimen description | Screenshot of the applicant's online store product page for the hooded sweatshirt, showing the mark on the neck label of the product, the price, and an "Add to cart" button. URL: https://hollowayfield.com/products/field-hoodie. Date accessed: August 28, 2026. |
| Number of specimens | One per class |
| Fee paid | $150, one class |
| Verified statement | The applicant is using the mark in commerce on or in connection with the goods identified above. |
| Declaration | The signatory declares that all statements made of their own knowledge are true and all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true, and that willful false statements may jeopardize the validity of the application or any registration resulting from it. This is a paraphrase of the declaration the form carries, not a quotation of it. |
| Signature | /Dana Holloway/ |
| Signatory name and title | Dana Holloway, Owner |
| Date signed | August 28, 2026 |
Walk the rows that decide whether it is accepted. The serial number is the eight-digit number on your application and on the notice of allowance, and it is how the filing finds its file. The issue date sets the deadline, so it is the one date on the page you copy rather than recall. The goods have to match the notice of allowance word for word, because 37 CFR 2.88(b)(1)(iv) treats anything in the notice that you leave out of the statement as "presumed to be deleted" and says the deleted goods "may not be reinserted in the application". Deleting there is permanent.
Two dates, not one. The date of first use anywhere is when you first used the mark on the goods at all. The date of first use in commerce is when that use crossed into commerce Congress can regulate, which for an online store selling across state lines is usually the first sale that crosses a state line, though the rule is bona fide use in commerce, not a single shipment. They are frequently the same day and they do not have to be.
Three things gate the filing at the counter before anyone reads it. 37 CFR 2.88(c) lists them: "(1) The fee required by § 2.6 for at least one class; (2) One specimen of the mark as used in commerce; and (3) The verified statement in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section". Miss one of the three and you have not filed a statement of use, whatever the receipt says.
Two more rules sit behind the signature line. The specimen has to show use that existed "before the expiration of the time permitted for filing the statement of use", so a page you built the week after the deadline is not a fix. And the party filing has to be the owner of the mark at that moment, because a substitute statement of use in the name of the true owner cannot be filed after the deadline has passed. If your mark moved to a new entity, assign it first. On signing, the USPTO's own instruction is unforgiving about timing: if the verification is unsigned or signed by the wrong party, "the applicant must submit a substitute verification on or before the statutory deadline for filing the Statement of Use." A wrong signature that is not cured before the deadline is a missed deadline.
What counts as a specimen
One per class, showing the mark "as actually used in commerce on or in connection with the goods or services identified". That is 37 CFR 2.56(a), and the word doing the work is "actually". A specimen is evidence, not a design.
For goods, 2.56(b)(1) names the four places the mark can appear: on the goods, on containers or packaging for the goods, on labels or tags affixed to the goods, or on a display associated with the goods. That last one is where an online store lives, and it comes with a condition in the same sentence: the display has to show the mark "directly associated with the goods and such use must be of a point-of-sale nature."
A web page can be that display, and there is a three-part test for when it is. TMEP 904.03(i), following In re Sones, says a web page displaying a product qualifies if it "(1) contains a picture, photograph, or textual description of the identified goods; (2) shows the mark in association with the goods; and (3) provides a means for ordering the identified goods." Picture, mark, and a way to buy. All three, on the same page, in the same capture.
Then the rule almost nobody cites. 37 CFR 2.56(c) is one sentence long and it is the reason most webpage specimens are refused: "A web page must include the URL and the access or print date." The same subsection kills the other common failure in the same breath: "An artist's rendering, a printer's proof, a computer illustration, digital image, or similar mockup of how the mark may be displayed, or a photocopy of the drawing required by § 2.51, are not proper specimens." TMEP 904.03(i) gives the reason: "Due to the transitory nature of Internet postings, the URL for the web page of the specimen and the date the page was accessed or printed must both be provided to enable verification." The USPTO's refusal page states the consequence without hedging: webpage specimens must include the URL and the date accessed or printed, "Otherwise, your specimen will be rejected."
There is one exception worth knowing, because it saves work. If the web page includes a photograph of the mark appearing on the goods or on packaging for the goods that would be acceptable on its own as a specimen for goods, TMEP 904.03(i) says it "need not include the URL and access or print date". A clean photograph of your hang tag is a specimen whether or not it is on a web page. Capture the URL and the date anyway. It costs nothing and it removes an argument.
The USPTO publishes its own worked example, and it is worth reading as a checklist rather than an anecdote: you could submit a screenshot or printout of a webpage "showing a necklace for sale, the trademark on or in close proximity to the necklace, the price, and a shopping-cart button", including the URL and the date you accessed or printed it. Picture, mark, price, cart, address, date. Six things in one image.
What fails is a page you cannot buy from. TMEP 904.03(i) says a web page "that merely provides information about the goods, but does not have a point-of-sale nature such that it does not provide a means of ordering the goods, is viewed only as promotional material, which is not acceptable to show trademark use on goods." Sending the buyer somewhere else does not rescue it either: "Merely providing a link to the websites of online distributors is not sufficient. There must be a means of ordering the goods directly from the applicant's web page". The Federal Circuit's own sentence is the general rule. In re Siny Corp., 920 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2019): "Mere advertising is not enough to qualify as such a display."
Siny is the case people reach for and it is worth being precise about what it holds. The Board's language, which the court recited and affirmed, is that an invitation to call the applicant for information, even to get quotes for placing orders, does not provide a means of ordering the product, and that if virtually all important aspects of the transaction "must be determined from information extraneous to the web page, then the web page is not a point of sale." The court described what the Board had looked for and not found: a price or range of prices, the minimum quantities one may order, accepted methods of payment, and how the goods would be shipped. Siny itself was a Section 1(a) application filed on use already happening, not an intent-to-use case. The standard is the same either way, which is why it matters here.
One useful piece of latitude: a third-party retailer's page can serve as your specimen. TMEP 904.03(i) says a web page from a third-party website "may also be acceptable as a display if it meets the requirements discussed above". If your own store is not live yet but a stockist is selling the goods under your mark, that page can carry the weight, as long as it passes the same three-part test and you capture its address and date.
Your Shopify product page, checked against the rule
Run your own product page down this list before you capture it. Each line is one of the rules above, applied to the store you already have.
- The mark appears with the goods, not only in the nav bar. A brand name in the header is the name of the store. Put the mark where the buyer sees it on the product: the neck label, the hang tag, the box, the printed care label, or the product title itself. 37 CFR 2.56(b)(1) wants the mark "directly associated with the goods".
- A picture or a written description of the actual goods is on the page. Part one of the three-part test. A page of brand storytelling with no product on it is not a display.
- A price is visible in the same capture. The Board's list of what a point of sale carries starts with a price or a range of prices, and the USPTO's own necklace example names the price.
- An Add to cart or Buy it now button is in the same capture. Part three of the test is a means of ordering. A "Contact us", "Where to buy" or "Find a stockist" button is the failure the Board and the Federal Circuit both described.
- The full URL and the date you accessed the page are in the submission. 37 CFR 2.56(c), stated as a flat requirement. Capture the address bar in the screenshot and put the URL and the date in the specimen description as well.
- The store is live, not a preview. A .myshopify.com preview address or a password-protected store shows a page nobody could buy from. The goods have to be sold or transported in commerce for the mark to be in use at all.
- Nothing is stitched, cropped or composited. If the price, the button and the mark are only together because you assembled them, you have made a mockup. Scroll the page so they appear together, or fix the page.
- One specimen per class. If your notice of allowance covers apparel in class 025 and candles in class 004, you need a specimen for each, and you pay $150 for each.
- The goods were actually sold or shipped. A page that takes pre-orders for goods not yet available is on the USPTO's own list of refusal grounds.
One more thing about apparel, because it catches Shopify brands. The neck label, the hang tag and the sewn-in tag are the placements to photograph.
While you are capturing your own product pages, it is worth knowing who else is running them. The three Shopify report routes, step by step covers what to do about a store selling your goods under your name, and a scan of your catalog shows what is already listed elsewhere.
The mockup problem, and why examiners are looking
You built the brand in a design tool. You have a print-on-demand render of the hoodie, a template mockup of the mug, and a logo file dropped onto a blank tee. Those images are what your store runs on and they are exactly what the USPTO refuses.
TMEP 904.04(a) says the specimen may not be "a 'picture' of the mark, such as an artist's rendering, a printer's proof, a computer illustration, or an image of the goods or its packaging" that "has been digitally created/altered or mocked up to include the mark." The examining manual defines the category plainly: a mockup specimen is "a digital or non-digital rendering of what a mark would look like on a product, display, or website; these may be created solely for submission with the application." The USPTO's refusal page says the same thing to sellers: a specimen has to be "a real example of how you use your trademark in commerce", and not "a mock up, printer's proof, digitally altered image, rendering of intended packaging, or draft of a website that shows how your mark might appear."
Examiners are given specific tells, and they are published. TMEP 904.04(a)(ii) lists them: "The mark appears to float over the product or container. Features of the item disappear near or around the mark. The image includes pixelization around the mark. The mark is not applied to the product in a manner consistent with the material composition of the product." Read that last one against a hoodie: a flat logo that ignores the fold of the fabric is the giveaway. Photograph the physical product under real light instead.
The consequence is bigger than one refusal. Exam Guide 3-19 tells examiners that a suspected mockup draws a request for information, including "proof of sales in commerce with or within the United States for the goods in the specimen and dollar amounts of sales". And one bad specimen contaminates the rest: because a digitally altered specimen "raise[s] a question as to whether the other specimens were in use in commerce", the examining attorney must refuse for failure to show use across the board, along with the request for information. Submitting a render to buy time costs more time than the extension you were avoiding.
The scrutiny exists because the problem was measured. In Fake Trademark Specimens: An Empirical Analysis, Columbia Law Review vol. 120, no. 7 (2020), Barton Beebe and Jeanne C. Fromer studied use-based applications that originated in China, were filed in 2017 and covered class 025 apparel only. They estimated that "66.9% of such applications included fraudulent specimens", that "approximately 14.0% of all such use-based applications filed with the PTO in 2017 were fraudulent", that "59.8% of these fraudulent applications proceeded to publication" and that "38.9% then proceeded to registration." That is why an examiner reads your screenshot the way they do, and it is not personal.
If you miss it
The application is abandoned. 15 U.S.C. 1051(d)(4) says that failing to timely file either a verified statement of use or an extension request "shall result in abandonment of the application, unless it can be shown to the satisfaction of the Director that the delay in responding was unintentional". 37 CFR 2.88(k) says it again for the statement itself: failing to timely file one that meets the minimum requirements "shall result in the abandonment of the application." A notice of abandonment follows, so the first you hear of it may be a letter rather than a missing deadline you spotted yourself.
Filing something defective is not a save either. You cannot pull it back. 37 CFR 2.88(f) is titled "Statement of use may not be withdrawn" and says you may not withdraw a timely filed statement of use to return to awaiting one, "regardless of whether it is in compliance with paragraph (c) of this section". The USPTO says the money side out loud: "You must try to fix any issues with your Statement of Use. You may not withdraw a Statement of Use and we will not refund the Statement of Use filing fee." Note that some pages, including one of the USPTO's own, still cite the non-withdrawal rule as 2.88(g). The current eCFR puts it at 2.88(f); 2.88(g) is about a verification not filed within a reasonable time.
There is one in-window cure, and it is cheap insurance. If you are filing a statement of use in your final period and you are not certain it is perfect, 37 CFR 2.89(e)(1) lets you file an extension request alongside it, "provided that the time requested would not extend beyond 36 months from the date of issuance of the notice of allowance." That extra window buys room to fix a defective statement. Three conditions come with it. It is the last extension you get. The fee is never refunded, even if you turn out not to need it. And if you underpay the pair, the USPTO applies the money to the extension request first, precisely to keep the application alive.
After abandonment, the relief is a petition to revive, at $250 to file electronically, on a showing that the delay was unintentional. Do not treat it as a safety net. Past the 36-month ceiling the application is abandoned and cannot be revived, and the USPTO's own answer to the failed statement of use is blunt: "If you cannot fix your Statement of Use, your application will be abandoned and your only option will be to file a new application with new fees." A new application means a new priority date, behind anybody who filed in the meantime.
For scale: Knockoff's analysis of the USPTO daily files for August 21 through 31, 2026 recorded 3,630 abandonments for no use statement filed and 4,565 notices of allowance issued across those seven business days. Those are different cohorts, separated by up to three years, so neither divides into the other. What they do show is that abandonment at this stage is a routine event, not an obscure one, and both figures batch on particular weekdays, so only the seven-day totals mean anything.
If you are using the mark on only some of it
This is the common shape. Your notice of allowance covers hoodies, t-shirts and caps. The hoodies are selling and the caps are still at the factory. 37 CFR 2.88(a)(2)(i) is strict about the default: a statement of use "may be filed only when the mark has been in use in commerce on or in connection with all the goods or services specified in the notice of allowance for which the applicant will seek registration in that application."
You have two moves. The first is to delete the goods you are not selling, which happens by leaving them out. It is permanent: 2.88(b)(1)(iv) presumes anything omitted deleted and forbids reinserting it. The second is to divide. 2.88(a)(2)(ii) lets a statement of use be accompanied by a request under 2.87 "to divide out from the application the goods, services, or classes not yet in use in commerce", which registers the part you are selling now and keeps the rest alive in a child application.
Dividing does not buy you time, and this is where the fees stack. TMEP 1110.07 says filing a request to divide "does not extend the deadline for filing a statement of use", and that a statement of use, or an extension request, "is due in each separate new application created by the division". Each child owes its own filing and its own per-class fee, on top of the $100 per new application the division itself costs. There is one sequencing trick that saves money: if you file an extension request covering all the goods at the same time as or before the request to divide, the extension is processed first, which spares you paying an extension fee separately in each child.
The same deletion rule applies to extension requests. 37 CFR 2.89(f) presumes goods left out of an extension request deleted, and says they "may not thereafter be reinserted in the application". Read your goods list every time you file anything in this sequence.
The amendment to allege use, and the window where you can file neither
If you start selling while the application is still being examined, you do not wait for the notice of allowance. 15 U.S.C. 1051(c) lets a 1(b) applicant who has made use of the mark claim the benefits of that use during examination, and 37 CFR 2.76(a)(1) sets the window: an application may be amended to allege use "at any time between the filing of the application and the date the examiner approves the mark for publication. Thereafter, an allegation of use may be submitted only as a statement of use under § 2.88 after the issuance of a notice of allowance".
The contents are the same as a statement of use: one specimen per class showing the mark as used in commerce, the fee per class, and the verified statement. The fee is the same $150 per class. What differs is that you can change your mind. 37 CFR 2.76(f) says an amendment to allege use "may be withdrawn for any reason prior to approval of a mark for publication", where a statement of use can never be withdrawn at all. That asymmetry is the only real argument for filing early when you have the choice.
Between those two doors there is a gap, and it surprises people who try to file on the day they make their first sale. The USPTO names it: if your application status is already "Approved for Publication", you have to wait until the status changes to "Notice of Allowance issued", because in between you are in "the 'blackout period,' during which submissions cannot be processed." Nothing you file in that stretch counts. Note also that an amendment to allege use is treated as a non-responsive filing, so it does not answer an outstanding office action; you still owe that response separately.
Almost nobody uses this route. Knockoff's analysis of the USPTO daily files for August 21 through 31, 2026 found 121 amendments to allege use against 2,792 statements of use, roughly one pre-allowance use filing for every 23 post-allowance ones. That is worth knowing if you searched for guidance on this route and found nothing. The path is real and it is quiet.
One more reason to get the registration finished rather than parked. Marketplace brand programs run on registered marks. The Amazon Brand Registry enrollment requirements start with a registered or pending trademark on the goods you sell, and a pending intent-to-use application that never files its statement of use never becomes a registration.
Where Knockoff fits
The reason to finish this filing is that a registered mark is the credential the rest of the system asks for. Marketplace brand programs want a registration number. A trademark report on most platform forms wants a registration number. Until the statement of use is accepted, you are holding a place in line and nothing you can hand to a platform.
Knockoff is what runs after that. Connect a Shopify store by domain alone and your product photos become the reference set. We watch for them across marketplaces and the open web, and a match counts only when your photograph appears in the seller's own listing gallery. Each confirmed match arrives as a case with the archived page, a timestamped screenshot, your original beside theirs and the notice already written. You approve it, a person here reads the notice, and you submit it through the platform's own form. See what a case holds before you approve it, or run a scan on your store first.
On the trademark side, watching a US mark for conflicting filings and lookalike sellers is a separate lane from the application itself, and what the whole job covers once the registration lands sets this filing in the wider picture. Nobody here is a lawyer, we do not file trademark applications, and nothing on this page is legal advice. The plans are priced in the open, from $99 a month, monthly, with no contract.
Questions
What is a statement of use for a trademark?
+
A statement of use is the filing that proves you are actually selling under your mark, and it is owed only by applications filed on an intent to use under Section 1(b). It carries three things the USPTO treats as minimum filing requirements: the fee for at least one class, one specimen of the mark as used in commerce, and a verified statement signed by someone entitled to sign it. It is due within six months of the issue date of your notice of allowance, or inside an extension you paid for and were granted. An application filed under Section 1(a), on use already happening, never files one, because its specimen went in with the application.
How much is a trademark statement of use?
+
$150 per class, filed electronically. Each six-month extension request is $125 per class. Both figures come from 37 CFR 2.6 and from the USPTO fee schedule effective January 19, 2025, last revised August 14, 2026, read on September 1, 2026. Pages still printing $100 are quoting the pre-2025 schedule, and a page printing $350 is quoting the base application fee, not the statement of use. Two classes cost $300 for the statement of use and $250 for each extension. Three classes cost $450 and $375.
Can you provide an example of a statement of use for a trademark?
+
Yes. Knockoff's example below prints one, field by field, for a fictional apparel brand: mark, serial number, notice of allowance issue date, deadline, class, the goods copied exactly from the notice of allowance, the date of first use anywhere, the date of first use in commerce, the specimen description with its URL and access date, the fee, the verified statement, the declaration and the signature. It is an illustration of the fields required by 37 CFR 2.88(b), not a form and not legal advice. Fill your own values into the USPTO's own form rather than copying the sample values.
What is an example of a trademark specimen?
+
For goods, a photograph of the mark on a hang tag or a neck label of the product, a photograph of the mark on the packaging, or a screenshot of your own product page that shows the goods, shows the mark with the goods, gives a way to order them, and carries the page address and the date you accessed or printed it. The USPTO's own worked example is a webpage showing a necklace for sale with the trademark on or near the necklace, the price, and a shopping-cart button. For services, it is material showing the mark used in selling or advertising the service, with the service identifiable from the material.
What are the requirements for a USPTO specimen?
+
One specimen per class, showing the mark as actually used in commerce on the goods or services identified. For goods, 37 CFR 2.56(b)(1) accepts the mark on the goods, on containers or packaging, on labels or tags affixed to the goods, or on a display associated with the goods, and that display has to be of a point-of-sale nature. A webpage specimen must include the URL and the access or print date, and mockups, artist's renderings, printer's proofs, computer illustrations and digitally altered images are not proper specimens. That is 37 CFR 2.56(c), which is the rule almost nobody cites.
Should I use TM or SM?
+
TM for goods, SM for services. Both are informal symbols you may use at any time to tell the market you claim rights, with or without an application on file. The ® symbol is different: it may be used only after the mark is registered. While your intent-to-use application is pending, you have no registration, so TM or SM is the symbol available to you.
What happens if I miss the statement of use deadline?
+
The application is abandoned. 15 U.S.C. 1051(d)(4) says failing to timely file either a statement of use or an extension request results in abandonment unless you can show the delay was unintentional. The cure for an unintentional delay is a petition to revive, at $250 to file electronically. There is a hard limit on it: nothing can extend past 36 months from the issue date of the notice of allowance, and past that ceiling the application cannot be revived. If you cannot fix it, the USPTO's own answer is that your only option is to file a new application with new fees, and the priority date you were holding is gone.
Cite this page
Pigford, Josh. "Statement of use and intent-to-use: the deadlines, the fees, and what counts as a specimen." Knockoff, published September 1, 2026. https://knockoff.co/guides/trademark-statement-of-use
Sources and dates
Statute, read September 1, 2026: 15 U.S.C. 1051 for the bona fide intention at (b), the amendment to allege use at (c), the six-month deadline at (d)(1), the extension structure and the 24-month aggregate at (d)(2), and abandonment at (d)(4); 15 U.S.C. 1127 for the definition of use in commerce as bona fide use in the ordinary course of trade rather than use made merely to reserve a right, and for what use on goods requires.
Regulations, read live from the eCFR on September 1, 2026: 37 CFR 2.88 for the filing window, the all-goods rule, the deletion presumption, the three minimum filing requirements at (c), non-withdrawal at (f) and abandonment at (k); 37 CFR 2.89 for the first extension, the good-cause showing, the four subsequent requests capped at 24 months, the insurance extension at (e)(1), the deletion rule at (f) and the no-notice rule at (g); 37 CFR 2.76 for the amendment to allege use and its withdrawal right; 37 CFR 2.56 for one specimen per class at (a), the four placements at (b)(1), and the URL, access-date and mockup rule at (c); and 37 CFR 2.6 for every fee in the table.
Fees: the USPTO fee schedule, read live September 1, 2026, carrying the header "Effective January 19, 2025 (Last revised August 14, 2026)", and stating that paper trademark filings have not been accepted since mandatory electronic filing took effect on February 15, 2020. Every amount on this page was read in both the fee schedule and 37 CFR 2.6 and matched. The $1,125 maximum-stall figure and the two and three class totals are our own arithmetic on those per-class amounts, not USPTO figures.
USPTO guidance pages, read September 1, 2026: the intent-to-use applications page for the 36-month maximum, the non-refundable fee and the new-application consequence; the intent-to-use forms page for the $125 extension fee, the five extensions, the rule that periods run only from the notice of allowance issue date, and the blackout period; the statement of use minimum filing requirements page for timeliness and the substitute-verification deadline; the specimen refusal page, last updated May 22, 2023, for the URL and date requirement, the real-example rule, the necklace example and the enumerated refusal grounds; and the drawings and specimens page for the one-line difference between a drawing and a specimen. The forms page cites the non-withdrawal rule as 2.88(g); the current eCFR puts it at 2.88(f), which is what this page prints.
Examining guidance: the Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure, May 2026 edition, read September 1, 2026, sections 904.03(i) for the three-part web page test and the URL rationale, 904.04(a) and 904.04(a)(ii) for the mockup rule and the tells, 1108 and 1108.01 for the extension structure and the worked timeline this page's ladder follows, 1108.03 for the insurance extension, 1109 and 1109.16 for timeliness, specimen timing and ownership at filing, 1109.17 for non-withdrawal, and 1110.07 for dividing. Also Examination Guide 3-19, July 2019, for the mockup definition, the request for sales records and the rule that one altered specimen puts the others in question.
Case law and research: In re Siny Corp., 920 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2019), precedential opinion issued April 10, 2019, read in the opinion PDF. "Mere advertising is not enough to qualify as such a display" is the court's own sentence; the invitation-to-call and extraneous-information language is the Board's, itself quoting In re U.S. Tsubaki, Inc., 109 U.S.P.Q.2d 2002 (T.T.A.B. 2014), recited and affirmed on appeal. Siny was a Section 1(a) application. The three-part display test originates in In re Sones, 590 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2009), cited in TMEP 904.03(i). Specimen fraud figures are from Barton Beebe and Jeanne C. Fromer, Fake Trademark Specimens: An Empirical Analysis, Columbia Law Review vol. 120, no. 7 (2020), read September 1, 2026.
Our own figures: the USPTO Open Data Portal, product TRTDXFAP, the Trademark Daily XML application files for seven consecutive business days, August 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 31, 2026, as of August 31, 2026. 326,497 case-files were scanned and 7,293 post-allowance filings identified: 2,792 statements of use, 4,501 extension requests and 121 amendments to allege use, across 7,046 distinct case-files. Each filing was placed in a six-month window measured from that case's own notice of allowance date, counting a filing made on the anniversary as inside the window that is closing, which is the rule TMEP 1108.01's own worked timeline uses. Two independent re-derivations reproduced every published figure. Limits: a daily file is a delta of transactions rather than a cohort, so a filing "appeared in the USPTO daily file" for a date rather than being filed on it; weekend filings are invisible because they never carry a business-day file date; abandonment and notice-of-allowance counts batch on particular weekdays, so only the seven-day totals are given; cells below 50 filings are not published; and one week of August is not a seasonal measurement. Nothing here answers what share of intent-to-use applications ever register, which needs a longitudinal cohort we do not hold.
Knockoff sells brand protection software and is not a neutral party. Knockoff is not a law firm and this page is general information rather than legal advice. Fees, forms, rules and USPTO guidance change, so read the source before you rely on a figure here.
