[E-trademarks] [EXT] Re: New security measures in TEAS
Carl Oppedahl
carl at oppedahl.com
Fri Jun 20 20:15:40 UTC 2025
I bet that the June 25 session will be designed solely as a one-way
communications event. Information flowing from some Trademark Office
people and toward us, the paying customers. I bet that nobody who is
meaningfully a decisionmaker about this ill-cast new policy will be (a)
attending the event or (b) in a position to actively listen to the likes
of us.
On 6/20/2025 1:22 PM, Alex Butterman via E-trademarks wrote:
>
> Or could we get a faster response by attending the below session and
> speaking out or sending notes to the moderator during it?
>
> *USPTO Alert*
>
>
>
> *USPTO Hour: Combating trademark fraud and threats *
>
> Join us on *Wednesday, June 25, from noon to 1 p.m. ET* for our next
> USPTO Hour
> <https://links-1.govdelivery.com/CL0/https:%2F%2Fwww.uspto.gov%2Fabout-us%2Fevents%2Fuspto-hour-trademark-pendency-preventing-fraudulent-filings%3Futm_campaign=subscriptioncenter%26utm_content=%26utm_medium=email%26utm_name=%26utm_source=govdelivery%26utm_term=/1/010001978d89f9b7-3570d53f-b5d9-492c-a405-61c32e15fc21-000000/7eFjUjHh-FlhxzNtN_gM1AWpNY-ugyEU5wCqHIDqefY=410>,
> hosted by the Office of the Commissioner for Trademarks.
>
> We'll focus on our efforts to protect the trademark register from
> suspicious filings and fraudulent submissions, including:
>
> * Clearing the inventory of invalid applications and registrations
> * Increasing efficiencies in filing and case management
> * Dealing with improper signatures in trademark filings
> * Preventing application and attorney credential hijacking
>
>
>
>
> USPTO Hour logo
>
> *Register today*
> <https://links-1.govdelivery.com/CL0/https:%2F%2Fwww.uspto.gov%2Fabout-us%2Fevents%2Fuspto-hour-trademark-pendency-preventing-fraudulent-filings%3Futm_campaign=subscriptioncenter%26utm_content=%26utm_medium=email%26utm_name=%26utm_source=govdelivery%26utm_term=/2/010001978d89f9b7-3570d53f-b5d9-492c-a405-61c32e15fc21-000000/fj8Npaz0dvAPrgbnAJeS76Y35IBHpaRGQgEbxoPZzig=410>
>
> *Alex Butterman*
>
> Partner**
>
> *DUNLAP* <https://www.dbllawyers.com/>**
> <https://www.dbllawyers.com/>*BENNETT* <https://www.dbllawyers.com/>**
> <https://www.dbllawyers.com/>*&* <https://www.dbllawyers.com/>**
> <https://www.dbllawyers.com/>*LUDWIG* <https://www.dbllawyers.com/>
>
> /211 Church St., SE; Leesburg, VA 20175/
>
> T: 703-777-7319*BIO* <https://www.dbllawyers.com/attorney/alex-butterman/>
>
> A blue and yellow sign with a letter r AI-generated content may be
> incorrect.
>
> A blue and white sign AI-generated content may be incorrect.
> <https://www.dbllawyers.com/empowering-innovators/>____
>
> This electronic message contains information from Dunlap Bennett &
> Ludwig PLLC and may be confidential or privileged. If you are not the
> intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, or use of the contents is
> prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify
> us and delete the message without copying or disclosing it.
>
> *From:*E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> *On
> Behalf Of *carla calcagno via E-trademarks
> *Sent:* Friday, June 20, 2025 3:04 PM
> *To:* David Boundy <DavidBoundyEsq at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* carla calcagno <cccalcagno at gmail.com>; For trademark
> practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice.
> <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> *Subject:* [EXT] Re: [E-trademarks] New security measures in TEAS
>
> 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/
>
> *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
>
> _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 <mailto: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/20250620/5d4be654/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 11186 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250620/5d4be654/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 27821 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250620/5d4be654/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 43331 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250620/5d4be654/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 3522 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250620/5d4be654/attachment.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image005.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 183076 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250620/5d4be654/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image006.png
Type: image/png
Size: 7679 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250620/5d4be654/attachment-0003.png>
More information about the E-trademarks
mailing list