[E-trademarks] New security measures in TEAS
Carl Oppedahl
carl at oppedahl.com
Fri Jun 20 20:13:29 UTC 2025
I think that most often when a person is an "acting" this or that, the
person tries to avoid doing anything that remotely resembles change.
The person tries to be a caretaker, just keeping existing things more or
less moving along. But not making policy or stirring things up.
On 6/20/2025 1:03 PM, carla calcagno via E-trademarks wrote:
> 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
> 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>
>> <mailto: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>
>> <mailto:e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
>> *Cc:* Rosie Yang <rosieyang1 at gmail.com>
>> <mailto: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.
>>
>>
> --
> 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_ __| _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/b12577ec/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/b12577ec/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/b12577ec/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/b12577ec/attachment.png>
More information about the E-trademarks
mailing list