Trademarks After the 2025 USPTO Fee Hike: How Hemp and CBD Brands Can Still Protect Their Names

Navigating USPTO 2025 Trademark Fees: CBD & Hemp Brands in Focus

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) significantly increased its trademark fees in January 2025, introducing new cost structures and a notable $200 per-class surcharge for any application using a “custom ID.” This change directly affects hemp and cannabidiol (CBD) businesses, which are often compelled to use custom wording in trademark applications—usually to reference compliance or clarify lawful use. As the legal landscape for cannabis continues to shift, particularly with potential federal rescheduling of marijuana, stakeholders across the hemp and CBD sectors must update their trademark and compliance strategies.

This post breaks down what the new USPTO fees mean for cannabis businesses, how to draft goods and services IDs to minimize costs and exposure, and why your overall compliance and branding strategy needs to evolve.

The 2025 USPTO Fee Hike: What’s Changed?

Key changes effective January 18, 2025 (Source: USPTO):

Base fees per class for all electronic applications increased
$200 per class surcharge for any “custom ID” (goods/services not listed in the USPTO’s ID Manual)
Higher maintenance and renewal fees for existing registrations
Increased fees for Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) filings, impacting enforcement and brand disputes

Why are hemp and CBD brands especially affected? The USPTO’s ID Manual currently lacks standard wording for many hemp- and CBD-related goods. Applicants referencing CBD, hemp, or delta-8 explicitly—especially for ingestibles or non-topical products—frequently trigger ‘lawful use’ refusals, requiring custom ID language to clarify federal compliance. The fee hike penalizes transparency and legal caution.

Drafting IDs for Hemp & CBD Goods: Keeping It Lawful and Cost-Efficient

Since most hemp and CBD ingestibles remain unlawful under the Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act (FDCA), applications referencing “CBD gummies,” “CBD tinctures,” or similar will nearly always:

Trigger a legal-use refusal
Require a custom ID (and now, a $200/class surcharge)

Strategies to minimize cost and risk:

Use the ID Manual for Topicals, Cosmetics, and Apparel

Stick to ID Manual language for goods like “non-medicated skin creams,” “cosmetics,” or “apparel.” Do not mention CBD or hemp as an ingredient if you can avoid it.
If applicable, use broad categories (e.g., "cosmetic preparations") that reflect your offering without explicitly referencing regulated cannabinoids.

Avoid Describing Ingestibles with CBD/Hemp Unless Absolutely Necessary

The FDCA still prohibits most CBD-infused foods/supplements (except certain Epidiolex-type pharmaceutical products).
Focus trademark filings on services (e.g., “retail store services featuring wellness products”) or non-ingestible products where lawful use can be cleanly established.

Leverage Service Mark Applications

Register for “retail store services,” “online marketing of dietary supplements,” or “education services” using ID Manual language—even if your actual store or service includes hemp/CBD goods. This extends protection to your brand and trade name without tripping up on unlawful goods.

Draft Flexible Specimens

Supply specimens (labels, ads, websites) that do not make explicit use or health claims about CBD unless such claims are substantiated and fully compliant (rare for ingestibles).

For the ID Manual: Check USPTO Trademark ID Manual for the latest accepted descriptions.

Marijuana Rescheduling (Schedule III): Does It Change Lawful Use for Cannabis Trademarks?

As of September 2025, no final federal rule has fully rescheduled marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III, though the Department of Justice is moving toward this change. Even if finalized, rescheduling will NOT automatically legalize food or supplement uses of cannabis or CBD under the FDCA (see Federal Cannabis Trademark Trends 2025).

Key takeaways:

Schedule III status means prescription-only use; over-the-counter products and many state-rec cannabis formats remain unlawful federally.
The USPTO will continue applying the FDCA’s bar to most CBD and marijuana ingestibles.
Hemp-derived topical cosmetics, beverages (where legal), and apparel remain the safest bets for protection.

Intent-To-Use Filings: Locking in Priority Post-Fee Hike

USPTO maintains its “Intent-To-Use” (ITU) filing option for brands intending future product launches (More: USPTO ITU Guide). For CBD and hemp companies, filing an ITU application lets you stake a claim to a brand name in advance—especially important given regulatory flux.

Practical steps post-2025:

Budget carefully for each class you file—the new custom ID fees add up fast if your portfolio crosses cosmetic, supplement, beverage, and apparel classes.
Use the ID Manual wherever possible to avoid the extra surcharge.
If custom ID language is needed, consider if the protection is truly essential or if another avenue (e.g., service marks) is available.

Enforcement and TTAB: Managing Portfolio and Dispute Costs

Higher TTAB fees mean disputes—both offensive and defensive—are now pricier. Enforcement strategies in 2025 should focus on:

House marks and distinctiveness: Invest in strong, distinctive core branding that can be applied across products and services
Trade dress protection: Seek registration for unique packaging (e.g., for hemp beverages or topicals), especially non-functional, distinctive designs
Coexistence agreements: Formal agreements with competitors or collaborators to clarify rights can reduce costly conflicts

Distinctiveness, Coexistence, and Trade Dress for Hemp Goods

Hemp beverage and topical brands increasingly look to packaging and overall look-and-feel (“trade dress”) for extra IP protection. USPTO scrutiny is increasing, so:

Document consistent use—apply your trade dress (colors, shapes, logos) identically across products
Gather evidence of consumer recognition—surveys, reviews, sales records
Avoid functional features—trade dress must serve branding, not product function
Consider coexistence agreements early in negotiations, especially as crowded markets make confusion more likely

Coordinating Trademarks and Regulatory Compliance

Brand protection shouldn’t outpace compliance. Work with compliance professionals to:

Ensure specimens (labels/websites) avoid unsubstantiated health claims
Maintain evidence of lawful distribution channels (e.g., topicals/cosmetics sold through mainstream, FDA-compliant channels)
Align your trademark portfolio with actual product and marketing practices

Takeaways and Action Steps for Hemp & CBD Brands

Budget for multi-class filings and custom ID fees—the 2025 fees are here to stay, so be deliberate in filing strategy.
Use the USPTO ID Manual wherever possible to sidestep custom ID surcharges—but don’t jeopardize compliance clarity.
Draft IDs and supply specimens that avoid unlawful-use flags—especially for ingestibles and FDCA-regulated goods.
Monitor marijuana rescheduling closely but recognize that FDCA and USPTO policy on ingestibles remains unchanged for now.
Coordinate IP with compliance—every specimen and claim should be substantiated and legal.
Plan for higher enforcement costs—leverage coexistence agreements, strong house marks, and trade dress where possible.

As the regulatory and trademark landscape for hemp and CBD products continues to evolve, informed, compliant, and strategic protection is more important than ever. For detailed tracking of federal and state law, compliance updates, and practical guidance, visit CannabisRegulations.ai and ensure your brand keeps pace—and stays protected.