308.01(b) Insufficient Fee
An otherwise timely opposition will not be accepted via ESTTA unless the opposition is accompanied by a fee that is sufficient to pay, in full, for each named party opposer to oppose the registration of a mark in each class specified in the opposition. [ Note 1.]
A notice of opposition against an application based on Trademark Act § 66(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1141f(a), must be filed electronically through ESTTA and may not under any circumstances be filed in paper form. [ Note 2.] See TBMP § 309.
A notice of opposition against an application based on Trademark Act § 1 or Trademark Act § 44, 15 U.S.C. § 1051 or 15 U.S.C. § 1126, must be filed electronically through ESTTA. [ Note 3.] In rare circumstances, an opposition may be filed on paper, accompanied by a Petition to the Director and the required fee. [ Note 4.] See TBMP § 309. Absent the required fee, the opposition may not be instituted. [ Note 5.]
The institution notice will identify the parties and classes for which the required fees were submitted. See TBMP § 310.
The responsibility for filing proper fees rests with the party filing the fees.
NOTES:
1. See 37 C.F.R. § 2.101(d); Syngenta Crop Protection Inc. v. Bio-Chek LLC, 90 USPQ2d 1112, 1115 n.2 (TTAB 2009) (second named opposer not party to proceeding where notice of opposition named two opposers, but fee payment sufficient for only one opposer and only one opposer identified in ESTTA cover sheet); Vibe Records Inc. v. Vibe Media Group LLC, 88 USPQ2d 1280 (TTAB 2008) (where ESTTA filing process not completed because no fee was paid, date appearing on the ESTTA "Validate" screen is inoperative; opposition dismissed as a nullity).
2. See 37 C.F.R. § 2.101(b)(3).
3. See 37 C.F.R. § 2.101(b)(1).
4. See 37 C.F.R. § 2.101(b)(2).
5. See 37 C.F.R. § 2.101(d). See also DFC Expo LLC v. Coyle, 121 USPQ2d 1903, 1904-05 (TTAB 2017) (among the deficiencies, filing was not accompanied by the required fee).