[E-trademarks] New security measures in TEAS
Carl Oppedahl
carl at oppedahl.com
Fri Jun 20 10:37:22 EDT 2025
Seems to me that something needs to be done to help the (Acting)
Commissioner for Trademarks get a clue.
I wonder if some listserv member can volunteer to draft up a letter and
then we can collect signatures and send it to the Acting Commissioner.
Bullet points might include:
* yes we understand your good intentions in trying to slow down the
bad actors who try to hijack trademark files at the USPTO
* what you are doing now is just plain wrong
o it wrongly treats the former practitioner (who by your own
policy is presumed to no longer be the attorney) as having veto
power over changes to a file
o it fails to recognize that sometimes the very reason why the
applicant or registrant is making a change is due to some
difficult situation relating to the former practitioner
o your own policy that presumes that the practitioner is no longer
in charge is often wrong, but there are instances where the
practitioner is in fact no longer in charge, in which case there
is just no question that the former practitioner ought not to be
given veto power over changes
* if this hamfisted grant of veto power to the wrong party were the
sort of thing that only every now and then makes trouble for the
filing community, and if the trouble were only minor trouble, that
would be one thing. But many times the present USPTO practice
actively harms an applicant or registrant whose need to make a
change to a file is urgent or pressing.
* You need to pull the plug on what you have just done with this
hamfisted grant of veto power to the wrong party
* We invite you to get in touch with us and share with us some of the
internal workings of your systems, and maybe we could help you come
up with a good way to serve your well-intentioned goal given how
your systems are set up.
Of course one would have to find polite ways to say this stuff.
On 6/20/2025 7:23 AM, Alan Taboada via E-trademarks wrote:
>
> If the attorney(s) of record being replaced no longer represent the
> client (which might be in fact or per USPTO policy of treating
> representation as being ended), how do they have any authority (or in
> some cases even knowledge) to approve or disprove the change in power
> of attorney request?
>
> *From:*E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> *On
> Behalf Of *Rosie Yang via E-trademarks
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 19, 2025 6:07 PM
> *To:* For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek
> legal advice. <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> *Cc:* Rosie Yang <rosieyang1 at gmail.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [E-trademarks] New security measures in TEAS
>
> 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)
>
> https://link.edgepilot.com/s/a780576b/dz6cEQXwR0CAiOmzQ3lWNA?u=http://www.quisenberrylaw.com/
> <https://link.edgepilot.com/s/a780576b/dz6cEQXwR0CAiOmzQ3lWNA?u=http://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 <tel:918.592.9807>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> shawn.dellegar at crowedunlevy.com
> <mailto:shawn.dellegar at crowedunlevy.com>
>
> _v-card
> <https://link.edgepilot.com/s/e4e7c19e/Tz-xpHg54keF4PNwAqv1Sg?u=https://crowecdn01.azurewebsites.net/vcards/Shawn-Dellegar.vcf>_
>
>
>
> bio
> <https://link.edgepilot.com/s/2e2a34a0/5DpRf3MnGESEjY1dWfhD1w?u=http://www.crowedunlevy.com/our-people/shawn-m-dellegar/>
>
>
>
> website
> <https://link.edgepilot.com/s/0fb8ffee/6iZdbR1tIUecx9Qy1c94Mg?u=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
> https://link.edgepilot.com/s/8910a54c/7y36rbtV8EiztJhug2IJnA?u=http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com
>
> --
> E-trademarks mailing list
> E-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com
> https://link.edgepilot.com/s/8910a54c/7y36rbtV8EiztJhug2IJnA?u=http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com
>
> --
> E-trademarks mailing list
> E-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com
> https://link.edgepilot.com/s/8910a54c/7y36rbtV8EiztJhug2IJnA?u=http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com
>
>
>
> Links contained in this email have been replaced. If you click on a
> link in the email above, the link will be analyzed for known threats.
> If a known threat is found, you will not be able to proceed to the
> destination. If suspicious content is detected, you will see a warning.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250620/a63573e7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 3522 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250620/a63573e7/attachment.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 183076 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250620/a63573e7/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 7679 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250620/a63573e7/attachment.png>
More information about the E-trademarks
mailing list