[E-trademarks] New security measures in TEAS

Thu Jun 19 18:06:55 EDT 2025

Exactly.  This change fails to take into consideration the fact that
requiring the approval of prior counsel affects the ability to meet
deadlines if the change in counsel is happening close in time to a deadline
(not that uncommon).  And, just in general, if the reason for the change in
representation is because the relationship with the former attorney has
become strained in some way, or if the former attorney cannot grant
approval for some reason, an applicant should not be blocked from moving
their application forward just because the prior attorney does not grant
approval for whatever reason.

Under the system we've all been using up until now, the prior attorney
receives notice of the change once it goes through, which gives opportunity
to fix unauthorized changes.  The new requirement appears to increase
rather than decrease risks to applicants.

Rosanne Yang

InfoLawGroup LLP

ryang at infolawgroup.com

614-547-9346

On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 6:01 PM Luke Adam via E-trademarks <
e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:

> I fear this problematic change by the USPTO is the cause for a sticky
> situation we find ourselves in for a client.  A CAR was filed and we are
> waiting to have TSDR and the related systems update (since Monday).  But a
> Petition to the Director is needed soon, and cannot be filed because it
> contains the previous attorney information and it cannot be updated.  An
> odd situation.
> ------------------------------
> *From:* E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> on behalf
> of Gerry J. Elman via E-trademarks <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 19, 2025 2:35 PM
> *To:* For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek
> legal advice. <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> *Cc:* Gerry J. Elman <gerry at elman.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [E-trademarks] New security measures in TEAS
>
> Looks like the USPTO is seeking to stem the tide of bogus changes of
> representation by adding a new layer of approval to document
> such changes.
>
> But wouldn't it have been better practice to announce the change to the
> practitioner community when the change was implemented?  And to have
> consulted with the Office's Advisory Board to facilitate smoother
> transition?
>
> -Gerry Elman
> Elman IP
> Denton, Texas
>
>
> Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device
>
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Dale Quisenberry via E-trademarks <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> Date: 6/19/25 3:05 PM (GMT-06:00)
> To: "For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal
> advice." <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> Cc: Dale Quisenberry <dale at quisenberrylaw.com>
> Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] New security measures in TEAS
>
> Agreed!
>
>
>
> 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 carla calcagno via E-trademarks <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> *Date: *Thursday, 19 June 2025 at 3:02 pm
> *To: *For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek
> legal advice. <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> *Cc: *carla calcagno <cccalcagno at gmail.com>
> *Subject: *Re: [E-trademarks] New security measures in TEAS
>
> For any PTO staffers, this is, in my opinion, yet another recent change
> creating inefficiency, undue cost, inefficiency and waste.  If the client
> has signed the power of attorney, legally that is all that should be
> required.  The solution is more onerous to whatever problem you are trying
> to fix.
>
>
>
> Please, change it back!
>
>
>
> 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/20250619/e227590d/attachment.htm>
-------------- 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/20250619/e227590d/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/20250619/e227590d/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/20250619/e227590d/attachment.jpg>