The Hidden Bottleneck: Understanding USPTO Statement of Use Processing Delays in 2026

Once the trademark application clears examination and the 30-day opposition period, the USPTO issues a Notice of Allowance (NOA). At this point, the mark is approved but not yet registered. The applicant then has six months to either begin using the mark in commerce and file a Statement of Use, or request an extension of time (up to five extensions, each for six months, for a maximum of three years total).

The Statement of Use must include specimen evidence showing the mark in actual use with the goods or services claimed in the application, along with the date of first use in commerce and the filing fee (currently $100 per class of goods or services). Once the USPTO accepts the Statement of Use, the mark proceeds to final registration and the applicant receives their registration certificate.

Current Processing Times: The Numbers Tell the Story

As of early 2026, the USPTO's own dashboard indicates that Statement of Use processing is taking significantly longer than the agency's historical performance. While the USPTO publishes average wait times for various stages of the trademark process, the Statement of Use phase has quietly become a major bottleneck that receives far less attention than the more visible delays in initial examination.

According to the most recent data available, here are the approximate timelines applicants can expect:

Statement of Use Filing to Examination: 2-4 months
Examination Decision (if no issues): 1-2 months
Total SOU Processing Time: 3-6 months on average

However, these are best-case scenarios for clean filings with no deficiencies. In practice, many applicants report significantly longer delays:

• Routine SOUs with minor issues: 4-8 months

• SOUs requiring substantive responses: 6-12 months

• SOUs with multiple rounds of Office Actions: 12-18 months or more

To put this in context, the USPTO's target for moving an application from filing to registration or abandonment is currently 10.3 months on average, with a target of 11 months. Yet for many ITU applications, the Statement of Use phase alone can consume half or more of that entire timeline, creating a significant back-end delay that frustrates applicants who thought they were nearly done with the process.

The Broader Context: USPTO Processing Delays

The Statement of Use delays cannot be understood in isolation. They are part of a larger pattern of USPTO trademark processing slowdowns that have become increasingly severe over the past five years. A comprehensive analysis by Gerben IP documented how dramatically the trademark system has slowed down since 2020.

The Historical Baseline

From 2008 through 2020, the USPTO maintained a remarkably consistent "First Action Pendency" target of 2.5 to 3.5 months—meaning that trademark applications filed in January would typically receive an examining attorney's first substantive review by late March or early April. During this period, the USPTO consistently met or beat these targets, processing applications efficiently and predictably.

The entire trademark process, from application filing to final registration, took approximately 10.5 to 12 months for straightforward applications. This timeline allowed businesses to plan product launches, secure financing, and make strategic branding decisions with reasonable certainty about when their trademark protection would be in place.

The 2021 Breaking Point

In 2021, everything changed. The combination of pandemic-related disruptions, a surge in trademark filings (driven in part by increased e-commerce activity and entrepreneurship), and staffing challenges created a perfect storm that overwhelmed the USPTO's trademark examining corps. First Action Pendency began climbing rapidly:

• 2020: 3.0 months (target: 2.5-3.5 months)

• 2021: 4.2 months (target increased to 4.5 months)

• 2022: 8.3 months (target increased to 7.5 months)

• 2023: 9.4 months actual (target increased to 8.5 months)

• 2024-2025: Approximately 8-10 months

As of December 2025, the USPTO reported that it was examining new trademark applications filed in March-April 2025—a lag of approximately 8-9 months. This represents nearly a tripling of processing time compared to the 2008-2020 baseline.

Moving the Goalposts

Perhaps most troubling, the USPTO has repeatedly adjusted its performance targets to match the deteriorating reality, rather than working to restore previous service levels. As Gerben IP's analysis documented, the agency moved its First Action Pendency target from 2.5-3.5 months (2008-2020) to 4.5 months (2021), then to 7.5 months (2022), and finally to 8.5 months (2023).

By continuously raising the target to match actual performance, the USPTO can technically claim it is "meeting goals" while providing dramatically worse service than it did just five years ago. This statistical sleight-of-hand obscures the real impact on applicants: what once took 10-12 months now takes 14-18 months or longer for many applications.

Why Statement of Use Processing is Particularly Vulnerable to Delays

Given this broader context of USPTO slowdowns, Statement of Use processing faces several unique challenges that make it especially prone to delays:

1. Lower Priority in the Examination Queue

Statement of Use filings compete for examining attorney attention with new trademark applications, Office Action responses, and other post-registration matters. Because the mark has already been approved and issued a Notice of Allowance, SOUs are sometimes treated as lower priority compared to initial examination of pending applications that are still awaiting their first substantive review.

From a resource allocation standpoint, the USPTO may prioritize reducing the backlog of new applications (which generates negative press and applicant complaints) over processing SOUs for marks that have already been approved. This creates a perverse incentive where applicants who have successfully cleared examination and opposition find themselves waiting months for what should be a ministerial review of their use evidence.

2. Increased Scrutiny of Specimens

In recent years, the USPTO has significantly tightened its standards for acceptable specimens, particularly for services and for marks used in e-commerce. Examining attorneys are now more likely to issue Office Actions questioning whether specimens show the mark in actual use in commerce, whether specimens are digitally altered mockups rather than real-world use, and whether the goods or services shown match the identification in the application.

This increased scrutiny, while arguably necessary to combat fraudulent or weak trademark registrations, has dramatically increased the percentage of Statement of Use filings that receive substantive Office Actions rather than being accepted on first review. Each Office Action adds months to the process, as the applicant must respond within six months, and then wait for the examining attorney to review the response—a process that itself can take 2-4 months or more given current USPTO workloads.

3. The Extension Trap

The ITU system allows applicants up to three years (six months plus five six-month extensions) to file a Statement of Use after receiving a Notice of Allowance. While this flexibility is valuable for businesses that need time to launch products or secure distribution, it creates a pipeline management challenge for the USPTO.

Applications granted Notices of Allowance in 2023 may not file Statements of Use until 2026. The USPTO must maintain these applications in an active state, track extension requests, and eventually process SOUs that arrive months or years after the NOA was issued. This creates an invisible backlog of pending ITU applications that don't show up in the "new application" statistics but still require examining attorney time and resources.

Moreover, applicants who file multiple extension requests and then submit an SOU near the end of their extension period may discover that processing delays mean their application could abandon before the examining attorney even reviews their Statement of Use. If a substantive issue requires a response, the applicant may have no time remaining to correct it, leading to abandonment after years of waiting and thousands of dollars in extension fees.

4. Staffing and Training Challenges

The USPTO trademark examining corps has struggled to keep pace with application volume. While the agency has hired additional examining attorneys, training new examiners takes time, and experienced examiners have left for private practice or other opportunities. This creates a cycle where less-experienced examiners may be more likely to issue unnecessary Office Actions or struggle with complex specimen issues, further slowing the process.

Statement of Use examination requires the same legal training and judgment as initial examination of trademark applications. An examining attorney must evaluate whether the specimen shows the mark in use with the specific goods or services claimed, whether the mark as used matches the mark as registered, and whether the dates of use are credible. This is not a rubber-stamp process, and understaffing or inexperienced examiners can create bottlenecks.

5. Technology and System Limitations

The USPTO's Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) system and Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) have improved in recent years, but they still have limitations that can slow SOU processing. For example, the system requires manual review of specimens, and examining attorneys must individually assess whether each specimen meets the legal standards for showing trademark use.

Unlike some jurisdictions that have moved toward more automated processing of routine filings, the USPTO still relies heavily on human review for SOUs. While this ensures quality control, it also means that processing capacity is directly limited by available examining attorney hours, with no easy technological solution to clear backlogs.

Real-World Impact on Trademark Owners

The delays in Statement of Use processing have significant practical consequences for businesses and brand owners:

Financial Costs

Filing extension requests costs $125 per class of goods or services for each six-month extension. An applicant who files the maximum five extensions before submitting an SOU pays $625 per class just to maintain the application in an active state. For a multi-class application, these fees quickly mount into thousands of dollars.

Additionally, many applicants hire trademark attorneys to prepare and file their SOUs, adding legal fees on top of USPTO charges. If the SOU receives an Office Action and requires a response, attorney fees can easily reach $1,000-2,500 or more per response.

When SOU processing delays mean applicants must wait 6-12 months just to learn whether their filing was accepted, they face uncertainty about whether additional attorney fees and USPTO responses will be required—and whether they have sufficient time remaining in their extension period to cure any deficiencies.

Business Planning Disruption

Trademark registration affects numerous business decisions: securing financing, launching products, entering new markets, negotiating licensing deals, and enforcing rights against infringers. When the final step of registration is delayed by months or even a year, businesses face difficult choices.

Should they move forward with product launches and marketing campaigns using the mark, knowing it isn't yet registered? Should they delay strategic initiatives until registration is final? Should they begin enforcement actions based on common law rights rather than waiting for federal registration?

Each option carries risks. Moving forward without registration means potentially investing in a brand that could later face challenges. Delaying business activities to wait for registration can mean lost market opportunities and competitive disadvantages. And enforcement without registration is more expensive and less certain.

The Abandonment Risk

Perhaps most seriously, SOU processing delays create a real risk of inadvertent abandonment for applicants who are running out of time on their extension periods. Consider this scenario:

An applicant receives a Notice of Allowance in January 2023. They file five extension requests over three years and submit their Statement of Use in December 2025, near the end of their final extension period. The SOU sits in the USPTO queue for 4-5 months due to processing delays and receives examination in April 2026. The examining attorney issues an Office Action citing a specimen issue that requires a response.

The applicant now has six months to respond to the Office Action—but their three-year period from the Notice of Allowance expired in January 2026. The application has already abandoned, and the applicant's only option is to file a petition to revive (if eligible) or start over with a new application and new fees.

This situation is not hypothetical. Trademark practitioners regularly encounter cases where processing delays consume the available extension time, leaving applicants with no meaningful opportunity to cure deficiencies identified in late-stage Office Actions.

What Applicants Can Do

While USPTO delays are largely beyond individual applicants' control, there are strategies to minimize risk and navigate the Statement of Use process more effectively:

File Early and Clean

Don't wait until the last month of your extension period to file an SOU. File as soon as you have legitimate use in commerce, and ensure your specimens clearly show the mark in use with the specific goods or services claimed. The USPTO provides detailed guidance on acceptable specimens—follow it carefully.

Consider "Insurance" Extensions

The USPTO allows applicants to file a preemptive extension request when submitting an SOU, creating additional time to cure any deficiencies that might be identified. This "insurance extension" strategy can provide crucial buffer time if processing delays or Office Actions threaten abandonment.

Monitor TSDR Closely

Check your application status regularly in the Trademark Status and Document Retrieval system. Don't rely solely on email notifications, as technical issues can cause notices to be missed. If your SOU has been pending for longer than expected, consider contacting the examining attorney or the Trademark Assistance Center to inquire about status.

Work with Experienced Counsel

Trademark attorneys who regularly practice before the USPTO understand current processing timelines, specimen requirements, and strategies for addressing Office Actions efficiently. While legal fees are an additional cost, experienced counsel can often prevent costly mistakes and navigate the process more quickly than pro se applicants.

Plan for Delays

Build SOU processing time into your business planning. Assume that registration will take at least 4-6 months after filing your SOU, and longer if any issues arise. Don't plan product launches, licensing deals, or enforcement actions based on optimistic timelines.

What the USPTO Should Do

While individual applicants have limited control over systemic delays, the USPTO has both the authority and the obligation to restore more reasonable processing times. Several reforms would significantly improve the situation:

Increase Examining Corps Capacity

The fundamental problem is that the USPTO does not have enough examining attorneys to handle current application and SOU volumes at acceptable speeds. The agency should prioritize hiring and training additional examiners, with a particular focus on retaining experienced attorneys who might otherwise leave for private practice.

Improve SOU Processing Priority

The USPTO should establish clearer priorities and performance targets specifically for Statement of Use processing, separate from initial examination metrics. SOUs should not be treated as lower priority simply because the mark has already been approved—from the applicant's perspective, the SOU is the final critical step before registration.

Enhance Technology and Automation

While full automation of SOU examination is neither feasible nor desirable, targeted technology improvements could speed certain aspects of the process. For example, automated checks for common specimen deficiencies could flag obvious issues immediately upon filing, allowing applicants to correct problems before formal examination rather than waiting months for an Office Action.

Provide Better Timeline Transparency

The USPTO should publish more detailed data on Statement of Use processing times, broken down by application characteristics (number of classes, type of specimens, etc.). This would allow applicants to plan more accurately and would create public accountability for SOU processing performance.

Consider Targeted Fee Adjustments

The USPTO operates on a fee-funded model, meaning it relies on application and registration fees rather than Congressional appropriations. If increased application volumes are overwhelming the system, the agency might consider modest fee increases specifically designated for hiring additional examining attorneys, with a commitment to restore processing times to pre-2021 levels.

Conclusion

The delays in USPTO Statement of Use processing represent more than just an administrative inconvenience. For thousands of businesses each year, these delays create financial costs, planning uncertainty, and real risks of losing trademark rights after years of investment in the application process.

The root causes are clear: surging application volumes, insufficient examining attorney capacity, and institutional choices that have prioritized other metrics over SOU processing speed. While the USPTO has made improvements in some areas and has worked to increase transparency through its processing dashboards, Statement of Use delays remain a significant weak point in the trademark system.

For applicants, understanding these delays and planning accordingly is essential. File early, prepare clean specimens, use insurance extensions strategically, and work with experienced counsel when navigating complex issues. But individual workarounds are not a substitute for systemic reform.

The USPTO must commit to restoring more reasonable processing timelines across all stages of trademark examination, including the critical final step of Statement of Use review. Trademark rights are essential to commerce, innovation, and brand protection—they deserve a registration system that works efficiently and predictably for all applicants, not just those with the resources to weather years of delays.

Until meaningful improvements materialize, Statement of Use delays will continue to impose hidden costs and risks on entrepreneurs and brand owners who have already invested years and thousands of dollars in securing federal trademark protection. The question is not whether these delays are unacceptable—they clearly are—but whether the USPTO and policymakers will prioritize the reforms needed to fix them.