[E-trademarks] New security measures in TEAS

Fri Jun 20 17:28:16 UTC 2025

Thanks Carl

 And perhaps we can also include a number of other items that are vexing.
If this new AC is supposed to be trying to effect cost efficiency and lack
of waste, there are a number of regs that clearly make no sense and we also
can complain about systems that are not working

On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 10:38 AM Carl Oppedahl via E-trademarks <
e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:

> 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
>       - 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
>       - 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
>       - 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>
> <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>
> <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> *Cc:* Rosie Yang <rosieyang1 at gmail.com> <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
>
>
>
> 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.
>
> --
> 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/20250620/c08cbf69/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/c08cbf69/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/c08cbf69/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/c08cbf69/attachment.png>