[E-trademarks] New security measures in TEAS

[David Boundy]

This letter should be about one topic.

But once Mr Squires is confirmed and sworn in, I could easily see a
pilgrimage to meet with him to raise one general issue (failure to observe
Paperwork Reduction Act and President Trump's executive orders on
rulemaking) and presented these not as separate issues, but as a pattern.
I have some paying work that has to get done, but staring next week I can
help set up a mechanism for collecting these issues.

David

On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 1:28 PM carla calcagno via E-trademarks <
e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
> --
> E-trademarks mailing list
> E-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com
> http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com
>


-- 


<https://www.iam-media.com/strategy300/individuals/david-boundy>

*David Boundy *| Partner | Potomac Law Group, PLLC

P.O. Box 590638, Newton, MA  02459

Tel (646) 472-9737 | Fax: (202) 318-7707

*dboundy at potomaclaw.com <dboundy at potomaclaw.com>* | *www.potomaclaw.com
<http://www.potomaclaw.com>*

Articles at http://ssrn.com/author=2936470 <http://ssrn.com/author=2936470>
<https://www.keynect.us/requestCardAccess/USA500DBOUN?>

Click here to add me to your contacts.
<https://www.keynect.us/requestCardAccess/USA500DBOUN?>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250620/40571765/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/20250620/40571765/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/20250620/40571765/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/20250620/40571765/attachment.png>