[E-trademarks] New security measures in TEAS

Thu Jul 3 18:30:11 UTC 2025

This!  That sending an email to the owner -- via the email address they
INSIST we provide -- is ridiculous.  This might be gotten around by putting
the owner also as a recipient of courtesy copies (because those courtesy
email addresses appear to one of the choices for getting approval) but that
is just confusing to the clients generally.  I don't want them getting
notices without my explanation of them.  And I give myself a day to report
out, but they get it directly, then even that looks slow.  There has to be
a better way.

Dineen Pashoukos Wasylik
*Florida Bar Board Certified in Intellectual Property Law*
Dineen Pashoukos Wasylik, P.A.
PO Box 48323
Tampa, FL 33646
813-778-5161 <http://voice.google.com/calls?a=nc,%2B18137785161>
dineen.wasylik at ip-appeals.com

On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 4:03 PM Dale Quisenberry via E-trademarks <
e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:

> This may have already been said, but I think if they require permission
> from anyone it should be the owner of the application.
>
>
>
> C. Dale Quisenberry
>
> Quisenberry Law PLLC
>
> 13910 Champion Forest Drive, Suite 203
>
> Houston, Texas 77069
>
> (832) 680.5000 (office)
>
> (832) 680.1000 (mobile)
>
> (832) 680.5555 (facsimile)
>
> www.quisenberrylaw.com
>
>
>
> *This email may contain information that is confidential and subject to
> the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine and other applicable
> privileges.  This email is intended to be received only by those to whom it
> is specifically addressed.  Any receipt of this email by others is not
> intended to and shall not waive any applicable privilege.  If you have
> received this email in error, please delete it and immediately notify the
> sender by separate email.  Thank you.*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> on behalf
> of Stacy Grossman via E-trademarks <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> *Date: *Thursday, 19 June 2025 at 3:00 pm
> *To: *For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek
> legal advice. <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> *Cc: *Stacy Grossman <sgrossman at sgip.law>
> *Subject: *Re: [E-trademarks] New security measures in TEAS
>
> It's strange that the Trademark Office considers that the power of
> attorney ends once a mark registers, yet when a client instructs a new firm
> and signs a CAR form, we're now required to get authorization from the
> former attorney.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [image: Image removed by sender.]
>
>
>
> *STACY J. GROSSMAN*
>
> *PRINCIPAL*
>
>
>
> o: (212) 873-6120
>
> m: (917) 693-9143
>
> e: sgrossman at sgip.law
>
> www.sgip.law
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 3:10 PM Rosie Yang via E-trademarks <
> e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:
>
> We tried to file a CAR form yesterday, and TEAS was insisting that it had
> to go to the prior attorney for approval, with the explanation suggesting
> that the prior attorney might even need to sponsor/associate with us in
> some way for us to file it.  The explanation was as follows:
>
>
>
> *You will need access to the correspondence email address or one of the
> courtesy email addresses you entered in your application to receive the
> authorization link. Contact your email provider if you need to reset your
> email address password.*
>
> *If there is an attorney representing the trademark owner, use the
> sponsorship tool to connect with them. If you're an attorney, you can
> request association. Attorney support staff can request sponsorship.*
>
>
> * You can save your progress by using the "Save form" link below. You can
> send the saved form to someone else with the correct authorization to
> submit.*
>
>
>
> We sent it to both the teas@ email account and the Trademark Assistance
> Center, but have not yet received any response on what to do.
>
>
>
> Rosanne Yang
>
> InfoLawGroup LLP
>
> ryang at infolawgroup.com
>
> 614-547-9346
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 2:53 PM Shawn M. Dellegar via E-trademarks <
> e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:
>
> I had the same thing yesterday for the first time. TEAS sent another link
> to prior appointed attorney for approval.
>
>
>
> *Shawn M. Dellegar*
>
> Shareholder/Director
>
> 222 N. Detroit Ave., Ste. 600
>
> Tulsa,
>
> OK
>
> 74120
>
> direct line:
>
> 918.592.9807
>
>
>
>
>
> shawn.dellegar at crowedunlevy.com
>
> *v-card <https://crowecdn01.azurewebsites.net/vcards/Shawn-Dellegar.vcf>*
>
> bio <http://www.crowedunlevy.com/our-people/shawn-m-dellegar/>
>
> website <https://www.crowedunlevy.com/>
>
>
>
>
>
> This message may be protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or
> other privileges or protections.  If you believe that it has been sent to
> you in error, do not read it.  Please reply to the sender that you have
> received the message in error and then delete it.  Thank you.
>
>
>
> *From:* E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> *On Behalf
> Of *Katherine Koenig via E-trademarks
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 19, 2025 1:40 PM
> *To:* E-trademarks <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> *Cc:* Katherine Koenig <katherine at koenigipworks.com>
> *Subject:* [E-trademarks] New security measures in TEAS
>
>
>
> *ALERT:* Email contains attachments from external sender.   Be cautious.
>
>
>
> Has anyone else been required to seek authorization by the applicant in
> order to file a new POA?  When there’s another appointed firm, I’ve always
> been able to upload a signed POA and make the change without further
> authorization.  Yesterday, however, I was required to email the applicant
> for authorization even though they’d already signed a POA, which I uploaded
> as always.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Katherine
>
>
>
> Dr. Katherine Koenig
>
> *Registered Patent Attorney*
>
> Koenig IP Works, PLLC
>
> 2208 Mariner Dr.
>
> Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
>
> (954) 903-1699
>
> katherine at koenigipworks.com
>
>
>
> *Targeted Intellectual Property Strategy*
>
>
>
> *The information contained in this communication, including any
> attachments, is privileged and confidential information intended only for
> the use of the individual or entity named above.  If **you are not the
> intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to
> the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review,
> dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly
> prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, do not read
> it.  Please immediately reply to the sender that you have received this
> communication in error and then destroy all paper and electronic copies.
> Thank you.*
>
>
>
> --
> E-trademarks mailing list
> E-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com
> http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com
>
> --
> E-trademarks mailing list
> E-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com
> http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com
>
> --
> E-trademarks mailing list
> E-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com
> http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250703/71649e89/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 7679 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250703/71649e89/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image565060.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 3522 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250703/71649e89/attachment.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image451797.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 183076 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250703/71649e89/attachment.jpg>