[E-trademarks] New security measures in TEAS

Fri Jun 20 19:03:45 UTC 2025

Hi David

I think a meeting is a good idea if A/C will take it.

However, IMHO, I think one letter that first reflects the general theme
that PTO is doing things that could be improved per the stated goals of
admin ( cost/efficiency/etc) ; and then states these in bullet form would
be helpful for new AC  and would set an agenda for the meeting ( if he will
take it).

Hopefully, this will be an opportunity to have someone look at these issues
with a fresh eye.

Regards

Carla

On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 2:14 PM David Boundy <DavidBoundyEsq at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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/20250620/029b0110/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/20250620/029b0110/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/20250620/029b0110/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/20250620/029b0110/attachment.png>