[E-trademarks] New security measures in TEAS

Fri Jun 20 14:39:44 UTC 2025

Alan, you're right of course.
But it's not even a "policy" of treating representation as ending following
certain events. That's the Office's own duly-passed regulation (2.17(g)).
Tim Ackermann
The Ackermann Law Firm

E:  tim at ackermannlaw.com
P:  817.305.0690
F:  214.453.0810
W: ackermannlaw.com
O: 1701 W. Northwest Hwy. Ste. 100
     Grapevine TX 76051

On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 8:24 AM Alan Taboada via E-trademarks <
e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com> 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 If the attorney(s) of record being replaced no longer represent the client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/
>
>
>
> *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://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
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250620/ae3a9701/attachment.html>
-------------- 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/ae3a9701/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/ae3a9701/attachment.jpg>