Exhibits: Bang-Er Shia v. United States Patent and Trademark Office, Michelle K. Lee, Sarah Harris, William Covey, Et Al.

Case 1:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Document 1-4 Filed 08/17/16 Page 1 of 112 PageID# 389
EXHIBIT AI
BANGSHIA
2.146 Petition to the Director
Filed - March 19,2013
\ G1044
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
IIIRe: Bang-CT Shia

204 Canyon Creek Deciiion on Petition
Victoria, TX 77901-3695 under 37 C.F.R. 2.146
MF.MQRAND1JM AND ORDER
On February 21,2013, the Commissioner for Trademarks ("Commissioner") found that Ms.
Bang-er Shia ("Petitioned)', who is not an attorney, engaged in the widespread unauthorized practice of
law in trademark matters before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office CUSPTO" or "Office"). The
Commissioner therefore issued an.Exclusion Order to Petitioner. (Exhibit 3) ("l&tclusion Order"). A
non-atlomey, such as Petitioner, may only assist atrademark applicant or registrant in matters before
USPTO by providing limited administrative support in the role ofa"correspondenf' or "domestic
representative." Petitioner, however, improperly used these administrative support roles as aplatform to
engage in the widespread.unauthorized practice oftrademark law before USPTO. The Exclusion Order
therefore bare Petitioner from serving before USPTO in the role ofacorrespondent or domestic
representative,
On March 19,2013, Petitioner filed aPetition^ seeking review ofthe Exclusion Order. (Exhibit
4). For reasons set forth herein, the Petition is denied.
T. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
'Ms. Shia has used multiple variations ofher name in filings with USPTO, including "BE Shia","Banger Shia" and
"Bang ErShia." The Exclusion Order inaccurately used the title "Mr." . ,
^Subsequent to filing the March 19,2013 Petition, Petitioner twice "refijed" her Petition msubstantially identical
form. (Exhibits 5,6). Upon learning ofthese two re-filings, USPTO refunded Petitioner fte filing ^ for them.
This Memorandum and Order decides the March 19,2013 Petitioa and the two re-filings ofthat PeUtion. Aat
dis Memorandum and Order does not address any matter before the Office ofEnrollment and Disciphne (OED), as
that office has independent jurisdiction and processes.
Only alicensed attorney is authorized to represent an applicant or registrant in trademaik matters

before USPTO. 37C.F.R. 11.14(a). "Individuals who are not attorneys are not recognized to practice
before the Office intrademark... mattere." 37 C.F.R. 11.14<b); see also Trademark Manual of
Examining Procedures (TMEP)^ 602.01. Anon-attorney can interact with USPTO concerning a
trademark applicant or registrant only in two limited administrative support roles. A"correspondent"
may 'transmit and receive correspondence." TMEP 608.01. A"domestic representative" may receive
service of"process or notice of proceedings affecting the application . or registration or rights
thereunder" for aforeign applicant or registrant. 37 C.F.R. 3.61; see also TMEP 610 ("Designation of
Domestic Representative by Parties NotDomiciled in the United States").
Petitioner is not an attorney, but in late 2011, USPTO Commissioner for Trademarks learned that
Petitioner nevertheless appeared to Be acting as an attorney for numerous trademark applicants and
registrants before USFfO.^
On January 23,2012, the Commissioner issued aShow Cause Order to Petitioner, infonning her
that USPTO suspected her ofengaging in the unauthorized practice oftrademark law before USPTO, and
was considering issuing an exclusion order. (Exhibit 1). An exclusion order would exclude Petitioner
from serving as acorrespondent or domestic representative before USPTO, since she appeared to be using
those administrative support roles as aplatform for unauthorized practice oftrademark law before
USPTO.
The Show Cause Order identified over 230 trademark applications or registrations in which
Petitioner was suspected ofinappropriately acting as attorney for applicants and registrants before
USPTO.' USPTO records indicated that she appeared to be preparing applications and electronically
' The Trademark Manual ofExamining Procedures (TMEP) is areference manual for the practiccs and procedures
ml. TMEP Parts 10 and 11 address representation oftrademark applicants and registrants before USPTO.
*"IfaUSPTO employee suspects that a[non-attomoy]... is engaging in widespread unauthorized practice [oflaw]
by representing applicants or registrants, he or she should bring the matter to flie attemlon of[USPTO senior
management]." TMEP 608.01 ("Actions by Unauthorized Persons Not Permitted").
*This proceeding does not concern the validity ofany ofthese matters.
signing and filing them with USPTO or otherwise acting as attorney for applicants before USPTO.
Petitioner was ordered toshow cause why USPTO should not issue the exclusion order. (Ejîbit 1).
Petitioner responded to the Show Cause Order on February 2,2012. In her Response, Petitioner
asserted that she merely provided administrative support for applicants by serving as their correspondent
or domestic representative. She stated that she merely filed with USPTO so-called "ready to file,
applications and related papers that were "prepared by foreign local services and executed by
applicants/registrants in thfeir own residences before sending to [Petitioner]" for filing with USPTO.
(Exhibit 2, pp. 1,2-3). She attached 19 documents that she said supported this assertion. (Exhibit 2,
attachments). Petitioner also asserted that she personally signed a"few" applications as acorporate
officcr or owner ofthe applicant. (Exliibit 2, pp. 1,4). She did not cite to or provide any supporting
evidence for this assertion.
On February 21,2013, the Commissioner found that Petitioner engaged in the widespread
unauthorized practice oftrademark law before USPTO and issued the Exclusion Order. (Exhibit 3). The
Commissioner found that Petitioner, on aroutine basis, electronically signed and filed documents with
USPTO as ifshe were the attorney for the applicants. (Exhibit 3,p. 2). This activity far exceeds the
limited role ofacorrespondent or domestic representative. {See e.g.. Exhibit 3,p. 2)(referencing
Authorization ofElectronic Signature Statement ofUse by Jenny Wu, dated December 29,2009). The
Commissioner found that a"sufficient and reasonable basis exists to conclude fliat you are engaging in
unauthorized practice before the USPTO" in trademark matters. (Exhibit 3). The Commissioner found
tliat Petitioner misused her administrative support roles ofcorrespondent and domestic representative as a
platfonn to engage in these unlawful activities. ITic Commissioner therefore issued the Exclusion Order
which excluded Petitioner firom participating as acorrespondent ordomestic representative in trademark
matters before USPTO. (Exhibit 3, p. 3).
Petitioner fil6d theinstant Petition onMarch 19,2013, requesting that theDirector ofUSPTO
reverse the Exclusion Order. (Exhibit 4).
n. LEGAL STANDARD
3
TheCommissioner hasautfiority to manage anddirect the activities ofUSPTO that affect the
. administration oftrademark operations. 35 U.S.C. 3(b)(2)(A). This broad authority includes the
authority to exclude a person from serving asa correspondent ordomestic representative before USPTO
where appropriate. See id. Ifan mdividual is dissatisfied with aCommissioner's exclusion decision, the
individual may file a Petition with the USPTO Director who may invoke supervisoiy authority to review
the decision. See35 U.S.C. 2;37C.F.R. 2.146(a)(3).^
m. DISCUSSION
Only a licensed attorney may provide legal representation toapplicants and registrants in
connection with trademark matters before the USPTO. See 37C.F.R. 11.14; TMEP 602.02,
608.01. Practice before USPTO includes, inter alia, preparing a trademark application; prosecuting a
trademark application including bysubmitting an amendment, response, orother document; and signing
amendments and responses toOffice actions. 37 CJF.R. 11.5(b)(2); TMEP 608.01. As a part of
practicing trademark law before USPTO, an attorney accompanies each filing with a binding certification
tliat helps ensure integrity intrademark proceedings.'
Anon-attorney, such asPetitioner, generally may only assist a trademark applicant orregistrant
before USPTO byserving intlie limited capacify of a correspondent or domestic representative. These
roles are-administrative support functions thatdonotinvolve signing applications or otherwise
representing a person before USPTO. Acorrespondent merely transmits correspondence to,and receives
Pursuant lo 35 U.S.C. 3,the Director's authority to decide atrademark petition under 37 C.FJl. 2.146 was
delegated inthis instance to theActing ChiefofStaffoftheOfBce ofPolicy andIhtemationa] Affeirs.
Attorneys practicing intrademark matters'sign certifications with theirfilings before USPTO. Fordocuments filed in
the Office in trademark matters, exc^tfor correspondence that isrequired to besigned by the applicant orparty, each
piece ofcomispondence filed with USPTO by atrademark attornq^ must bear asignature, personally signed bythe
trademark attorney. TMEP 611.01(a); weo&o 37 C.F.R.. 11.18. Through such signature, the trademark attorney is
certifying, inter alia,thatallstatements made therein oftheparty's own knowledge aretrue, allstatements wiafiA
dierein oninformation and beliefare believed tobetrue, and all'statements made therein are made with the knowledge
that whoever, inanymatter within thejurisdiction ofthe Office, knovraigly and willfully folsifies, conceals, orcovers
up by any trick, scheme, ordevice amaterial fact, orknowingly and willfully makes any false, fictitious, orfiaudulent
statements orrepresentations, orknovringly and willfitUy makes oruses any felse writing ordocument knowing the
same tocontain anyfalse, fictitious, orfraudulent statement orentiy, shall besubject to thepenalties setforth under 18
U.S.C. 1001 and any other applicable criminal statute, and violations ofthe provisions ofthis section mayjeopardize
theprobative value of thepaper. TMEP 611.01(a); seealso37 C.F.R. 11.18.
correspondence from, USPTO. TMEP 608.01. Adomestic representative merely receives service of
notices orprocesses onbehalfofforeign applicants. TMEP 610; 37C.F.R. 2.24. Neither a
correspondent nor adomestic representative may prosecute an application orrepresent a party in a
trademark proceeding before USPTO. See e.g., TMEP iSlO.
Here, Petitioner does not deny that she has electronically filed many trademark application
documents with USPTO, orchallenge tiie requirement that only an attorney can electronically file such
documents. Rather, she inexplicably argues that by filing and signing she was acting asa correspondent
or domestic representative.
A. The Exclusion Order Was Proper,
, I.' Petitioner is not an attorney.
Petitioner isnot a licensed attorney and makes no claim otherwise. She acknowledges that she is
not an attorney in her two refiled Petitions. (Exhibit 5, p. 7; Exhibit 6,p. 7). Inthose filings. Petitioner
confirms that she isnot an attorney by referencing tlie notation '*none" in the attorney field for the serial
numbers identified with the Show Cause Order. Id. Likewise. Petitioner's filings with USPTO's Office
ofEnrollment and Discipline show that she isregistered with OED as a patent agent but not as a patent
attorney.
2. Petitioner engaged inwidespread unauthorized practice of law before USPTO in

trademark matters.
As stated above, a non-attorney may not represent others in trademark matters b.efore USPTO,
including the prosecution ofatrademark application, maintenance ofatrademark registiîon, or
participation ina proceeding. 37 C.F.R. 11.5(b)(2X 11.14; TMEP 602.02,608.01. Signing
amendments and responses toOffice actions constitutes the practice oflaw intrademark matters before
USPTO. 37C.F.R. 11.5(b)(2); ITvlEP 608.01. Anon-attorney may not sign atrademark application
document on behalfofanapplicant. See TMEP. 611.01(b) and (c)(another person may not sign the
name ofanauthorized signatory); seealso In re Dermahose Inc., 82USPQ2d 1793 (TTAB 2007); In re
Cowan, 18USPQ2d 1407 (Comm'rPats. 1990). Thislimitation applies equally to signinga document
electronically. 37 C.F.R. 2.193(c); TMEP 611.01 ("the person(s) identified as the signatory must
manually enter tite elements oftheelectronic signature").
In evaluating the March 19,2013 Petition before the Director, areview was conducted of30 of
the230 trademark matters listed intheJanuary 23,2012, Show Cause Order (a sample ofover 10
perccnt). This review included the 19 matters listed in the Petition.
This review ofasample of30 matters confirmed that Petitioner engaged in widespread
unautliorized practice oflaw before USPTO. First, in 14 ofthe 30 matters, Petitioner electronically
signed and filed documents oo behalfofvarious applicants. (Exhibits 7-20). In each ofthese matters,
Petitioner signed the application using "/BANGER SHIA/" or "/Banger Shia/(Exhibit 7, pp 2-3; Ex. 8,
pp 3, 5; Ex. 9, pp 1-3; Ex. 10, pp 3,5; Ex. 11. pp 2,4; Ex. 12, pp 2,4; Ex. 13, pp 1-3; Ex. 14, pp 1-2; Ex.
15, pp 1.3; Ex. 16, pp 2-3; Ex. 17, pp 1-3; Ex. 18, pp 1-3; Ex. 19, pp 1-3; Ex. 20, pp l-2). These 14
applications plainly show that Petitioner engaged in widespread unauthorized practice oftrademark law
before USPTO.
Second, inanoflier 11 matters before USPTO, Petitioner aîn signed and filed documents
electronically on behalfofvarious applicants, though here she typed in the names ofother persons on the
electronic signature line. (Exhibits 21-31). Jn three ofthese matters. Petitioner filed applicant statements
tliat purported to authorize Petitioner to act as attorney for the applicant. In two ofthese matters the
statements said that Petitioner can "bind applicant" before USPTO, (Exhibit 21, p 1; Exhibit 31, p 1), and
in the other matter thestatement said that Petitioner can "sign" for applicant before USPTO. (Exhibit 22,
p1). An applicant cannot, however, waive the USPTO requirement that only an attorney can represent
others intrademark matters before USPTO. In the remaining eight matters, Petitioner simply typed in
names ofother persons on the electronic signature line without any purported autiiorization. In all 11
matters, a check ofthe IP location ofthe computer used inthe electronic signing and filing showed a
location v/ithin a few miles ofPetitioner's stated address of 102 Lindenc^st Ct,Sugar Land, Tic-
*In some ofthese filings. Petitioner referenced herselfas "Representative" or"a.S.Representative." Adomestic
representative, however, cannot sign an application document as an attorney. TMEP 610; 37 CFR 2,24.
I I
(Exhibits 21-31, last document within each exhibit).' Petitioner has acknowledged that she herselffiled
such applications. (Exhibit 2,p. 2) ("[a]]l trademark papers, sent to USPTO by the undersigned, were
prepared by foreigii Applicants atlheir local residwices "). Petitioner further acknowledged that no
applicant w present in Sugar Land when she electronically filed and signed documents with USPTO.
(Exhibit 2,p.2). In sum, whedier Petitioner was typing inher own name orthe name ofanother in the
mandatory signature line, this act ofsigning the application document electronically constitutes acting as
an attorney for the applicant. ITiese 11 matters further show that Petitioner engaged inwidespread
unauthorized practice of trademark lawbefore USPTO.
An example is Petitioner's actions relating to application no. 77691338 in Exhibit 22. Petitioner
prepared and electronically signed and filed Ihe application document, citing apurported authorization
from, the applicant. The purported authorization is entitled "Authorization ofElectronic Signature
Statement ofUse," signed by an individual named "Jenny Wu" who isstated to be arepresentative ofthe
applicant. (Exhibit 22, pI). Petitioner typed in "/Jenny WuT in the mandatory electronic signature line.
(Exhibit 22, "Trademark/Service Mai-k Statement ofUse," p2,4).'"
As to the remaining five matters, in each ofthem the record explicitly shows that Petitioner was
acting as an attorney before the USPTO examining attorney. In each ofthese matters, the examining
attorney states in the official application file thai the application is amended "[i]n accordance with the
authorization granted by Banger Shia" or"(i]D accordance with the authorization by Bang Er Shia." .
(Exhibit 32, p3; Ex. 33, p1; Ex. 34, p2; Ex. 35, p1; Ex. 36, p 1). Plainly, Petitioner represented to these
five different USPTO examining attorneys that she was serving asattorney for the respectwe applicant
The examining attorneys recorded Petitioner's statements. The record shows no actual orattempted
*Electronic records for each and every file are preserved intheTrademark databases and theinfcmiation can be
retrieved atany time. Every filing submitted electronically to USPTO has an IP address indicating from where itis
submitted. Additionally, other electronic data (XML data) will indicate whether a form was signed directly atthe IP
address from which it wassentor iftheform was signed somewhere elseandsentfrom a different IPaddress.
The Petition argues for the first time, widiom citation toevidence, that some unspecified applicants orrcgistrante
may have themselves prepared and signed an electronic version ofthe documents. (Exhibit 4,pp. 8-9; Exhibit 5,p.
12; Exhibit 6,p. 12). As stated, however, the record shows that Petitioner electronically signed and filed the
documents described above.
. i : . 5 I
corrwrion by Petitioner TIae records ofthese five matters further show thatPetitioner engaged in the
widespread unauthorized practice oftrademark law before USPTO.
Petitioner vaguely contends, without citation to or provision of Mppoitmg evidence, that a [flew
applications with [Petitioner's] signatures when submitted toPTO indicated that [Petitioneri had busmess
interests affiliated with the Marks and/or Marie applicants at the time offiling, and was acting more than a
correspondent for said few Marks...(Exhibit2. p. 4; Exhibit 4, p.7.9). Persons who are applying for
atrademark may sign their own application documents even iftliey are not an attorney. TMEP 611.02.
This includes an officer ofacorporate applicant and apartner ofapartnership applicant. Id, Petitioner
does not, however, provide evidence to indicate that she is an applicant, or 6n officer or partner ofan
applicant. See 31 C.F.R. 2.62(b), 2.74(b); TMEP 611.02,611.03(b). Moreover, at most, any such
evidence would only apply to a"[Qew applications/' and would not controvert tiie overwhelming
evidence that Petitioner engaged in widespread unauthorized practice oftrademark law before USFfO."
In sum, in considering the Petition, areview was conducted of30 ofthe 230 matters identified m
the Show Cause Order (over 10 percent), including the matters identified in the Petition. The review
showed that, for all 30 matters, Petitioner engaged in the unauthorized practice oftrademark law before
USFTO. This review indicates thatPetitioner, who is not alicensed attorney, engaged in widespread
unauthorized practice oftrademark law before USPTO. Accordingly, the Exclusion Order is supported
bytherecord.
B. Petitioner's Other Arguments Are Vague, Unsupported and Meritless.

Petitioner claims, without supporting authority, that the Exclusion Order firustrates rights of
foreign applicants to electronically file trademark applications. (Exhibit 4, p. 2). This allegation is
without factual or legal support. Acorrespondent or domestic representative can properly file application
" Petitioner's vague, unsupported contention does not her burden ofproof, "^hen tobe on
petition, the petHion must submit proofin the forai ofaffidavits or declarations maccordwce with P? C.F.R.]
2.20, signed by someone with firsthand knowledge ofthe fects to be proved, and My exhibits. 37
2.146(c). Petitioner has been given ample opportunity but has not conie foiward with any such evident.
Petition failed to Include adeclaration as required by 37 C.F.R. 2.146(c). Pemtoner's general declaration in her
refilcd Petition does not provide supporting evidence. (Exhibit 5, p. 20; Bxhibit 6, p. 20).
i I
documents with USPTO either electronically or in paper. Procedures for eleônic fihng are provided in
IT^/lEP 611.01, which include an authentic electronicsignature by the applicant. Procedures for paper
filing are similarly provided in TMEP 305.02. Acorrespondent.or domestic representative may validly
use these electronic and paper filing options for filing application documents for aforeign entity.
. Petitioner next claims, again without supporting authority, that the 14-day response period in the
Order to Show Cause was improper in that it did not grant a"minimum statutory reply period.' (Exhibit
4, p. 10). Yet there is no statutory requirement for the length oftime for aresponse. If Petitioner felt she
needed more time to respond, she could have requested additional time. She did not. Having failed to
seek additional time she cannot now claim harm. See e.g.. In re Robert B. Surrick, 338 F.3d 224,235-236
(3d Cir. 2003), cert, denied, 540 U.S. 1219 (2004) (quoting U.S. v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725,731, 113 S.Ct
1770 (1993) {"*[n]o procedural principle is more familiar... than that aconstitutional right, or aright of
any other sort, 'may be forfeited in criminal as well as civil cases by the failure to make timely assertioi?
ofthe right before atribunal havingjurisdiction to determine it"'). In addition. Petitioner had alengthy
period oftime before needing to file the instant Petition.
Petitioner mistakenly complains that one ofthe 230 applications referenced in the Order to Show
Cause IS not associated with Petitioner. (Exhibit 4. p. 11). Petitioner states that the Order refers to an
application no. 76257^, however, the Order actually refers to appHeation no. 76257202- (Exhibit 1,
attachment).'^
Petitioner complains that the Exclusion Orderrefers to 'Mr." instead of'Ms." Bang Shia.
(Exhibit 4, p. 2), Nevertheless, the Order clearly identified Petitioner as "BangShia." Ms, Bang Shia has
participated throughout these proceedings.
" Petitioner complains that the electronic filing system (caUed "TEAS") does not accept "non-ASClT A
sienatorv may, however, use asignature that contains non-ASCII characters in some circumstanccs. 37
2.193(c). Also. Petitioner's complaint is belied by the feet that many ofthe so-called "ready-to-file forms attached
tothe Petition bear signatures using ASCII characters. . . ^ d ae
" The Petition correctly notes that the listed applications or registrations do not currently identify Petitioner ^ a
correspondent or domestic representative. She was removed from the conespondent or domestic representative
fields upon issuance oftheExclusion Order.
Petitioner oUiras, without supporting argument, tliat the Exclusion Order frustrates afederal
statute that pVovides for agencies to allow electronic filing." (Exhibit4. p. 6). USPTO roles, however,
explicitly allow lorelectronic filing. TMEP 5 611.01(b) and (c)." The Exclusion Order merely serves
to guard against the unauthorized practice oflaw by Petitioner.
Petitioner claims, without supporting authority, that the Exclusion Order is barred by astatute of
limitation. (Exhibit 4. p. 2). Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 3(bX2)(A), however, the Commissioner has broad
authority to superintend trademark practice before USPTO, particularly in cases like this where the
violations continued up until the date ofissuance ofthe Exclusion Order.
Finally, Petitioner lists, without supporting argument, ahodge-podge ofvarious constitutional and
state law rightsthat she says have not been followed. (Exhibit 4, p. 2-3) ("right to silence." improper
service under state law, "presumption ofinnocence," "speedy trial clause ofthe sfacth amendment," and
"federal rules ofevidence"). These doctrines simply are inapplicable here, as this is an agency matter and
not acivil or criminal judicial proceeding in federal or state court. For example, neither federal nor state
civil rules on service ofprocess apply to correspondence with USPTO. See FedJR.Civ.P. 1("these rules
govern the procedure in all civil actions and proceedings in the United States districtcourts...
rX.R.Civ.P 2("lt]hese rules shall govern the procedure in thejustice, county, and district courts pfthe
State of Texasinall actions of a civil nature
IV. CONCLUSION
The CoiTunissioner properly considered the record before her, including the filings and
documents provided by Petitioner, and appropriately found that Petitioner engaged in widespread
unauthorized practice oflaw before USPTO and issued the Exclusion Order. The Commissioner's
decision is affirmed.
" Tho Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (E-SIGN). codified at 15 U.S.C. 7001. etseq.,
eenerally provides that acontract, signature, or other record "may not be denied legal effect, validity, or
Sforceability solely because it is In electronic fomi." 15 U.S.C. 7001(a). E-SlGN generally preseês an
agency's authority to specify standards and formats for records filed electronicallywith the agency. Id.
10
ORDER
Upon consideration ofthe Petition to the USPTO Director for review under 37.C.F.R.
2. i46(a)(3), itis ORDERED that the Petition is Denied.
\X'X'n^\z
Date / ifLe*""
Leifman
Acting Chiefof Staff
Office ofPolicy and International Affairs
United States Patentand Trademark Office
on behalf of
Margaret Focarino
Commissioner for Patents
performing the functions and diities ofthe Under
Secretary ofCommerce for Intellectual Property and
Director of United States Patent and Trademark Office
cc;
Commissioner for Trademarks
Petitioner:
Bang-erShia
204 Canyon Creek
Victoria, TX 77901-3695
11
fvxiamxa
r c"
UNITED STATES PATENT ANDTRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
In the Matter of: Proceeding No. D2014-31
Bang-er Shia (II), June 30,2014
Respondent.
NOTICE OF HEARING AND ORDER
OnJune 27,2014, theComplaint inthis matter was received and assigned to the
undersigned for hearing pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 32 as implemented by 37 C.F.R. Part 11.*
The parties are encouraged todiscuss settlement inthis matter. If such discussions have
not yet commenced or ifsuch discussions have stalled, each party is reminded that pursuing this
matter through hearing and possible appeals will require the expenditure ofsignificant time and
financial resources. The parties should realistically consider the risk of not prevailing inthe
proceedings despite such expenditures.
A settlement allows theparties to control theoutcome ofthecase rather than have a

decision made forthem. Accordingly, theparties are strongly encouraged to engage in
settlement discussions and attempt toresolve this matter. If atany time the parties seek the
assistance of a settlement judge inthis matter, please advise theCourt of that fact, without
elaboration.
The merependency ofsettlement negotiations, however, does notconstitute a basisfor

failing tocomply strictly with therequirements ofthisOrder,
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:
The claims asserted in this matter shall be decided in an administrative proceeding

pursuant to 35.U.S.C. 32 and the regulations at 37 C.F^. Part 11.^
It is further ORDERED that:
1. Answer. Respondent shall file a response as specified in 37 C.F.R. 11.36. The

response must include an admission or denial of each allegation of liability inthe
' Pursuant to an Interagency Agreement ineffect beginning March 27,2013, Administrative Law Judges ofthe U.S.
Department ofHousing and Urban Development are authorized tohear cases for the U.S. Patent and Trademark
Office.
^ This proceeding isseparate from another matter before the Court that isdocketed asProceeding No. D2014-04
and scheduled for hearmg on July 28,2014.
c
rnmplaint and set forth any affitmative defenses and any mitigating factors or
extenuating circumstances. The Answer must be received by the Docket Clerk on or
before Julv 28.2014:
2. Time and Date of Hearing. The hearing inthis matter will beheld commencing at
10:00 a.m. onOctober 7.2014. mWashington, DC at the U.S. Courtroom inthe HUD
Office ofHearings and Appeals, 409 3rd Street, SW, Suite 201. The hearing is scheduled
to conclude on or before October 9.2014. unless theparties indicate more time is
required by August 26.2014:
3. Discovery. Discovery isnot authorized absent an order ofthe Court after the Answer
has been filed, .37 C.F.R. 11.52. A party moving fordiscovery shall file a motion as
specified by 37 C.F.R. 11.43 and 11.52 demonstrating that discovery is reasoimble and
relevant on or beforeAugust 28.2014. Thenon-moving partymayfile an opposition to
the discovery motion on or before September 8.2014.
4. Affirmative Defenses. Counsel for the OED Director shallfileMotion to Strike

Affirmative Defenses, if any, to bereceived by the Docket Clerk onorbefore August 19.
2014: the Respondent(s) shall file a response to a Motion toStrike Affirmative
Defensesîf anyto bereceived bythe Docket Clerk onorbefore August 28.2014:
5. Witnesses. Onorbefore Au^st 13.2014. the parties shall exchange lists ofwitnesses
expected to be called at the hearing, except for impeachment or rebuttal, together with a
brief statement following each name describing the substance ofthe testimony to be
given;
6. Documents. On or before August 13.2014.the parties willexchange documents and

other items to be offered as exhibits at thehearing. Each document andexhibit shall be
numbered for identification (with the prefix "GOV #." for theGovernment's exhibits and
"RES #." for Respondent's exhibits);
7. Experts. If scientific, technical or otherspecialized knowledge will assist the AU to

understandthe evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert
by knowledge, skill, experience, training, oreducation, may testify thereto inthe form of
an opinion orotherwise. A party seeking to present anexpert athearing must:
a. Disclose to the other party(ies) the identity of anywitness it may use at trialto
present evidence under 37C.F.R. 11.52(e)(3), onorbefore August 13.2014:
b. File a Written Expert Report received by the Docket Clerkon or before August
22.2014. The Written ExportReport shallfollow the format set forth by FRCP
26(a)(2)(B);
c. Any Expert Report rebutting a previously submitted expert report must be

receivedby the DocketClerk on or beforeSeptember 2.2014:
r (
8. Format And Submission of Exhibits. For receipt bythe Docket Clerk oh orbefore
September 23.2014. each party will submit Binders containing the party's exhibits:
[Note: copies of exhibits in scanned electronic format may also befiled, butthe complete
exhibit binders must be received on or before the above date.]
a. Exhibit Binders must be able to remain flat while open. To the extent
practicable, allexhibits will be numbered in theorder they areintended to be
introduced andwill be separated in thebinder(s) by corresponding numbered tabs;
b. To avoid duplication of exhibits, the parties will coordinate andsubmit JOINT

EXHIBITS. These exhibits will be designated "JNT #." The Government
counselwill coordinatethis effort. The other party(s) is expectedto cooperate
fully with the Government's efforts in this regard. TheJointexhibits will be m
separate binder(s), or in a segregated part of the bindercontaining the
Government exhibits;
9. Objections. Any partyobjecting to anyknownexhibitand/orwitness to be presented

at the hearing must file a written objection,stating the legal reasons for the objection,to
be received by the Docket Clerk no later than September 26.2014. The party attempting.
to introduce the exhibit and/or witness must file its response, to be received by the
Docket Cleik, no later than September30.2014. The parties must fax (or email) these
objections and responses to such objections [to each other] immediately upon filing;
10. PRE-HEARING Statements. Each party shall file a pre-hearing statement, to be

received by the Docket Clerk on or beforeSeptember 30.2014. brieflysettingforth the
following:
a. The issues involved in the proceeding;

b. Facts stipulatedby the parties, togetherwith a statementthat the partieshave
made a good faith effort to stipulate to the greatest extent possible;
c. Anticipated witnesses and a summaryof testimony for each witness;
d. Estimated time required for presentation of the Party's case;
e. Facts in dispute;
f. Applicable law; and,
g. Conclusions to be drawn;
11. Motions. Prior to filing any motion, the moving party is required under 37 C.F.R.
11.43 to confer with the non-moving party in a good faith effort to resolve by agreement
the issues raised in the motion. Any motion filed with the Court must be accompaiiied
by a separate, clearly labeled Memorandimi of Points and Authorities in support of said
motion. The Memorandum of Points and Authorities must contain a thorough analysis of
the issues presented along with the concordant application of law to facts;
(' c
a. Dispositive Motioms. Any motion, the granting of which could result in the
disposition of any or ^ (or portion of thereof) of the Countscontainedin the
Complaint, or alleviate the need for a hearing, should be filed as soon as
practicable, but must be receivedby the Docket Clerk no later than September5.
2014:
b. Motions in Limine. Motions directly affecting the conduct of the hearing (other
than those akeady specifiedherein) should be filed as soon as practicable,but
must be received by the Docket Clerk no later than October 2 2014:
12. Transmtttal. The preferred method of electronic document delivery is transmittalas

scanned email attachments. However, documents ten (10) pages or less may be
transmitted to this office by facsimile to (202) 619-7304. The originals of document
so transmitted (bv emaU or facsimile) must be sent bv U.S. mail or commercial
carrier on the next business dav. For further information, please contact the Docket
Clerk on (202) 254-0000;
13. File Nomenclature. Documents filed electronicallyshould be named by docket

number, brief descriptionof document, and date, using the following highlighted
example:
14. Service and Filing. Copies of all documents filed shall be served on all parties of
record at the same time as the originals are filed with the Docket Clerk:
If filing bv United States Postal Service (USPS):

Office of Hearings and Appeals
4517*^ StreetS.W. Room, B-133
Washington, D.C. 20410
If sending bv non-USPS couriers send to:

Office of Hearings and Appeals
4093"* Street S.W., Suite 201
Washington, D.C. 20024
If sending bv email scanned attachment send to: alj.alj@hud.gov
Serviceto all parties of record must be made in the same form filing is made to the
Docket Clerk or to the Court in general (e.g. if a party emails a document to the Judge,
Clerk, Docket Clerk, etc., that party must serve the remainingparties by email as well).
All filings with the Docket Clerk or with the Court in general must be made by 6:00 p.m.
EST for the filing to be docketed on that specific date. Documents received by facsimile
or email after 6:00 p.m. EST will be docketed on the following business date;
r
15. Appearances. Each attorney appearing for a Party must filean Appearance of Counsel
Form provided by theCourt with this Order. If a Party is appearing without attorney
representation, that Party must file a Pro SeAppearance Form also provided bythe Court
with this Order. Saidcompleted forms mustbe received by the Docket Clerk within three
business davs of receipt of this Notice of Hearing and Order. "Fillable-PDF' forms may
be requested from the Courtby emailing alj.alj@hud.gov;
16. Other Matters. Issues including accessibility for the disabled, the needfor
interpreters, courtroom equipment, etc., must bebrought to the attention ofthe Docket
Clerk at least four (4) weeks prior to the start of the hearing; and,
17. Procedure. The hearing proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with 37 C^RR.
Part 11..
So ORDERED,
Alexander Femdndez C
Administrative Law Judge
Enclosures
Appearance of Counsel Form
Pro Se Appearance Form (Respondent only)
r

In the Matter of:

Proceeding Nos. D2014-04
Bang-er Shia, D2014-31
Respondent July 16,2014
NOTICE OF NEW HEARING DATES AND ORDER FOR

OED DIRECTOR RESPONSE
On July 8,2014, the Court granted the OED Director's unopposed Motion to
Consolidate. To allow ample tune for the parties to present their positions m both proceedings
D2014-04 and D2014-31, the hearing dates are extended.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the hearing shall commence at 10:00 a.m. on
October 6.2014. and conclude on or before October 10,2014. All remaining scheduling dates
set forth in the Notice ofHearing and Order, issued on June 30,2014, remain in effect.
It is FURTHER ORDERED that bv July 29.2014. the OED Director shall file a
response to Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, filed July 15,2014
So ORDERED,
lexandbr Fem^dez
Administrative Law Judge
rESPONDNETS BXHIBmiST
10/17/2013
U-*.
0ct2013
CaBusSuwyfiomD^tofCommMMto
RESB ^^VateotOffice ofBangShia,Inc
Commisaonei' show cause lettermis^ga

1/23/2012
RESCrC> file No. addressed to "Bang Shia" sent to
Victoria.TX
ôw causeletternus^ a
lieNo. addiessed to"Bang Shia" sent to 01/23/2012
RES#DfQi
Sugar Land. IX
nifiBRFIof OEDFaeG2081 12/25/2012
01/25/2013
Q/21/2013
03/12/2013
Cornxnisaottio's thenotherwise pending }3/15/2013

RESIrlb dedsionenforced beforethe Petition
RES#J IheOED AttornÂll's solicitation for 03/15/2013

teleconference
wsswa Ihe Attorney Ali*s esqplanation for a ^ 93/27/2013

call as a miscfaaracterization
KESm. ElectronicfiUng receiptofBangShia*s2nd|o4/10/2013

Petition 79/101.128 postedonline
mm M/l 1/2013
Etespondentfs refuse for the case G2081

RES#Ki-N9 Mclosed pursuant to37CJ'.R. 11.22 (1)- 04/12/2013
^ RES#0 JEDAttorney Hwhick vqilaced Attorney 104/18/2013

AH before in OED m081
#Pl-P2 All tradeniatk forms ateprovided online as All time relevant

pftttable e-<lata
mtsaonei's idîig inimauthoxized 13/01/2011

-.iicc oflaw for a foreign agpnqr vitha
8/31/2011
{BS0i.04 ^clientID 767136 in prosecution of
AppticatioaNo* 79101128
Ilio recent vqpdate ofthe TSDRblocks all ^fter lateApril,
RES#R
2013
*10. from public reviewing
RESS TSDR online instruction forfiling, not
(cstricledto U.S. attorneys only 02/05/2014
RESnr(rTs OED's Exhibits of PTO D2014-4 Court record dated

^wing two different OED date stamps /27/2014
IVademaik document published atTSDR

evideodng PTO trademadc examining
attMoeyy aiding inUPL byexaminer- Court record dated
RES#Ui-U6 initiatedi&one interviews for proposed 1/27/2014;
examiner's amendment in orderto expedite publiêdatTSDR
he prosecution
04/17/2014
RES#V 1stpage of Reqjondentfs response to
OEDG2341;a^ S/02/2014
1stpage ofOED attorney Jennifer
[la^dfs response letter
RES#W *iademaik documents of Applications
r ^ted inthe Complaints published atTSDR
asevidenceof Commisaoner's and
Court's aiding inunauthorizedpractice
oflaw (UPL) in tiademaric matters
RESfflC
7 CJJL 2.193 -Trademaric
correspondence andsignature requirements
Yi: Of^poena filed totheCourt dated 06/18/2014
RES#Yi-Y2 Y21 fiaudulently fiilsified unenfoioeable dated 06/23/2014

intendedSubpoena served toall parties
SxtraTSDRpubMed document showing

CounseFs aidingin UPLofa foreign TSDR online
RES#Z Bgenpywithout charging thesame published
jmiscoDdttctofUPL as chaiged to documents
r
EXHIBIT AL
https://us-nig6.mail.yahoo.conVneo/launch?.rand-75ms9pvnnifdt#467.
Print
Subject: PTO D2014-04 D2014-31 OED Dlrectoi's Objections to Respondent's Exhibits

USPTO.tiOV)
From:
To:
Date: Friday, September 26,2014 3:20 PM
Please find attached the OED Director's Objections to Respondent's Exhibits. The on^has been
sent under separate cover via ftfst class mail.
Please contact Elizabeth Mendel directly with any quîons Please

ispto.gov in all correspondence with the PTO regarding this matter.
Kindestregards.
Attachments
40. PTO D2014-04 D2014-31 OED Director's Objections to Respondent's Exhibits.pdf

(3k24KB)
8/5/2016 4:55 PM
1
EXHIBIT AM

In the Matter of
Bang-er Shia, Proceeding No. D2014-04

D2014-31
Respondent
OED DIRECTOR'S PREHEARING STATEMENT
Pursuant to the June 30,2014 Notice of Hearing and Order, the Directorofthe Officeof
Enrollment and Discipline ("OED Dhrector") of theUnited States Patent and Trademark Office
("USPTO" or "Office"), by counsel, submits the following Prehearing Statement:
A. Issues Involved in the Proceeding
The OED Directorreasonably foresees that the Tribunal will be calledupon to resolve the
following legal issues:
1. Did the OED Directorestablish by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent
violated 37 C.F.R. 10,23(a) (engaging in disreputable or grossmisconduct) by:
(a) engagingin unauthorized practice beforethe Office in trademark matters

as Respondent is not, and has neverbeen, an attorney in goodstanding of
the hiêst court ofany State;
(b) entering what purported to be the electronic signatures of trademark
2 applicants ontrademark documents, including Trademark Applications,
^ Responses to Office Action(s), Statements ofUse, and Change of
O S og: Correspondence Address form(s), filed with theOffice, butthatwere not
S the electronic signatures of the trademark applicants;
O ^ ^^c) forging the electronic signature oftrademark applicants to Trademark

y ^ SS Applications, Responses to Office Action(s), Statements ofUse, and
S Change ofCorrespondence Address form(s), filed with the Office;
S Lil
> a:
(d) representing applicant(s) before the USPTO in trademark applicationsby
signing her own electronic signature to Change of Correspondence
Address form(s);
V f
(e) preparing trademark documents, including Trademark Applications,

Responses to Office Action(s), Statements ofUse, and Change of
Correspondence Address form(s), for others and filing thedocuments with
the Office;
(f) continuing to serve asthe correspondence address for applicants before the
USPTO afterbeingexcluded from doing so by the Commissioner for
Trademarks in the February21,2013 Exclusion Order;
(g) concealing that she was continuing to serve asthe correspondence address
for applicants after the Commissioner forTrademarks excluded herfrom
doing so in the February 21,2013 Exclusion Order, by changing the
correspondence address from themailing address sheorigmally listed in
trademark filings to a different mailing address of another property owned
orused byRespondent, or bychanging themailing address to that ofthe
applicant, while authorizing communication by email;
(h) concealing thatshe was continuing to serve as thecorrespondence address

for applicants after the Commissioner forTrademarks excluded herfrom
doing so in the February 21,2013 Exclusion Order, byusing an alternative
email address and au&ori2dng all communication via email; and/or
(i) making false ormisleading statements tothe Office ofEnrollment and

Discipline ("OED") inthe course ofthedisciplinary investigation.
2. Did the OED Director establish byclear and convincing evidence thatRespondent
violated 37 C.F.R. 10.23(b)(4) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty,
fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) by:
(a) engaging in unauthorized practice before theOffice intrademark matters

as Respondent is not, and hasnever been, an attorney in good standing of
(b) entering what purported to bethe electronic signatures oftrademark
applicants ontrademark documents, including Trademark Applications,
Responses to Office Action(s), Statements of Use, and Change of
Correspondence Address form(s), filed with the Office, but that werenot
the electronic signatures of the trademark applicants;
(c) forging the electronic signature of trademark applicants to Trademark

Applications, Responses to Office Action(s), Statements of Use, and
Change of Correspondence Address form(s), filed withthe Office;
(d) representing applicant(s) before the USPTO in trademark applications by

signing her own electronic signatureto Change of Correspondence
Address form(s);
r r
(e) preparing trademark documents, including Trademark Applications,

Responses to Office Action(s), Statements of Use, and Change of
Correspondence Address form(s), for others andfiling the documents with
the Office;
(f) continuing to serve as the correspondence address forapplicants before the

USPTO after being excluded fi:om doing so by the Commissioner for
Trademarks in the February 21,2013 Exclusion Order;
(g) concealing that shev\âs continuing to serve as the correspondence address

for applicants afterthe Commissioner forTrademarks excluded her from
correspondence address fromthe mailing address she originally listedin
trademark filings to a different mailingaddress of anotherpropertyowned
or usedby Respondent, or by changing the mailing address to that of the
(h) concealing that shewas continuing to serve as the correspondence address

ii for applicants afterthe Commissioner forTrademarks excluded her from
% doing so in the February 21,2013 Exclusion Order, by using an alternative
)' email address and authorizing all communication via email; and/or
.X-. (i) making false or misleading statements to OED in the course of the
disciplinary investigation.
1 3. Didthe OED Director establish by clear and convincing evidence thatRespondent

violated 37 C.F.R. 10.23(b)(5) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the
admmistration ofjustice) by:
(a) engaging in unauthorized practice before the Office in trademark matters

as Respondent is not, andhas never been, an attorney in good standing of
(b) continuing to serveas the correspondence address for applicants before the
USPTO afterbeing excluded from doingso by the Commissioner for
(c) concealing that she was continuing to serve as the correspondence address
for applicants after the Commissioner for Trademarks excludedher from
correspondence address from the mailing address she originally listed in
or used by Respondent, or by changing the mailing addressto that of the
c
(d) concealing that she was continuing toserve as the correspondence address
for applicants after theCommissioner for Trademarks excluded her firom
douig so intheFebruary 21,2013 Exclusion Order, by using an alternative
email address andauthorizing all communication via email; and/or
(e) making false ormisleading statements to OED in the course ofthe

disciplinary investigation.
4. Did the OED Director establish by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent
violated 37 C.F.R. 10.23(a) via 10.23(c)(2)(ii) (knowingly giving, or
knowingly participating in a material way in giving, false or misleading
informationto the Office or any employee ofthe Office) by:
(a) knowingly entering what purported to bethe electronic signatures of

trademark applicants ontrademark documents including Trademark
Applications, Responses to Office Actions, Statements ofUse, and
Change of Correspondence Address form(s) filed with theOffice, butthat
were not the electronic signatures ofthe trademark applicants;
(b) knowingly forging the electronic signature oftrademark applicants to

Trademark Applications, Responses to Office Action(s), Statements of
Use, andChange of Correspondence Address form(s), filed with the
Office;
2 (c) knowingly concealing thatshe was continuing to serve asthe

correspondence address for applicants after theCommissioner for
T Trademarks excluded her from doingso in the February 21,2013
Exclusion Order, bychanging thecorrespondence address from the
mailing address she originally listed intrademark filings to a different
mailing address of another property owned or used byRespondent, orby
changing themailing address tothat ofthe applicant, while authprizing
communication by email;
(d) knowingly concealing that she wascontinuing to serve as the

correspondence address for applicants after the Commissioner for
Trademarks excluded her from doing so in the February 21,2013
Exclusion Order, byusing an alternative email address andauthorizing all
communication via email; and/or
(e) knowingly making false ormisleading statements to OED in thecourse of

the disciplinary investigation.
violated37 C.F.R. 10.77(a) (handling a legal matter whichthe practitioner
knows or should know that die practitioner is not competent to handle without
associating with another practitioner who is competent to handle it) by engaging
4
r"
in unauthorized practice before the Office in trademark matters, as Respondent is

not andneverhas beenan attorney in good standing of the highest courtof any
State?
violated 37 C.F.R. 10.47 (a) and (c) (aiding a non-practitioner or a non-lawyer
in the unauthorized practiceof law beforethe Office) by aidmgin the
unauthorized practiceof law beforethe Officein trademarkmattersby
completing and/or filing trademark documents on behalfof "foreign local
services" not authorizedto practicebeforethe Office in trademarkmatters?
7. Did the OED Director establish by clearand convincing evidence that Respondent
violated 37 C.F.R. 10.23(b)(6) (which proscribes engagmg m conduct that
adversely reflects on the practitioner's fitness to practice before the Office) by
engaging in acts andomissions notpreviously set forth in paragraphs No. 1-6
above?
8. Did the OED Director establish by clear and convmcing evidence that Respondent
violated 37 C.F.R. 11.804(a)(violating or attempting to violate the USPTO
Rules ofProfessionalConduct,knowingly assistingor inducing anotherto do so,
or do so through the acts ofanother) by engaging in the unauthorized practice of
law before the Office in trademark matters as Respondent is not, and has never
been, an attorney m good standing ofthe highest court of any State?
9. Didthe OED Director establish by clearandconvincing evidence that Respondent

" violated 37 C.F.R. 11.303(a)(1) (making a false statement of material factor
'' lawto a tribunal or failing to correct a false statement of material fact or law
previously madeto the tribunal by the practitioner) by:
(a) entering what purported to bethe electronic signatures oftrademark

applicants on trademark documents filed with the Office, but that werenot
the electronic signatures ofthe trademark applicants;
(b) forging the electronic signature of trademark applicants to Trademark

Applications, Responses to Office Action(s), Statements ofUse, and
Changeof Correspondence Address fonn(s), filed with the Office;
(c) concealing that she wascontinuing to serve as the correspondence address

for applicants after the Commissioner for Trademarks excluded her from
correspondence address from the mailingaddress she originally listed in
or used by Respondent, or by changing the mailing address to that of the
applicant, while authorizing communication by email; and/or
r . r
(d) concealing that shewas continuing to serve as the correspondence address

for applicants after theCommissioner forTrademarks excluded her from
doing so in the February 21,2013 Exclusion Order, by using an alternative
email address and authorizing all commxmication via email;
10. Did the OEDDirector establish by clearand convincing evidence that Respondent
violated 37 C.F.R. 11.505 (practicing lawin a jurisdiction in violation of the
regulation of the legal profession in thatjurisdiction, or assisting another in doing
so) by:
(a) engaging in unauthorized practice before the Office in trademark matters,

as Respondent is notand never has been anattorney in good standing of
the hiêstcourt ofany State; and/or
(b) aiding in theunauthorized practice of lawbefore theOffice in trademark
matters by completing and/or filing trademark documents on behalfof
"foreign local services" not authorized to practice before the Office in
trademark matters?
11. Did the OED Directorestablish by clear and convincing evidencethat Respondent
violated 37 C.F.R. 11.804(c) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,
deceit, or misrepresentation) by:
(a) engaging in unauthorized practice before theOffice intrademark matters

as Respondent is not, and hasnever been, an attorney in good standing of
the highest court of any State;
(b) entering what purported to be the electronic signatures oftrademark

applicants on trademark documents, including Statements of Use and
Change of Correspondence Address form(s), filed withthe Office, butthat
were not the electronic signatures of the trademark applicants;
(c) representing applicant(s) before theUSPTO in trademark applications by

signing her own electronic signature to Change of Correspondence
Address form(s);
(d) preparing trademark documents, including Statements of Use and Change

of Correspondence Addressform(s), for others and filing the documents
with the Office;
(e) continuing to serve as the correspondence address for applicants before the
USPTO after being excluded from doing so by the Commissionerfor
(Q concealing that she was continuingto serve as the correspondence address

r f

or used by Respondent, or by changing the mailing address to that ofthe
(g) concealing that she was continuing to serve as the correspondence address
for applicants after the Commissionerfor Trademarks excluded her from
email address and authorizing all communication via email.
violated 37 C.F.R. 11.804(d) (engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the
administration ofjustice) by:
(a) engaging in imauthorized practice before the OfQce in trademark matters

as Respondent is not, and has never been, an attorney in good standing of
(b) concealing that she was continuing to serve as the correspondence address
or used by Respondent, or by changing the mailing address to that ofthe
(c) concealing that she was continuing to serve as the correspondence address
email address and authorizing all communication via email.
B. Facts Stipulated by the Parties, Together with a Statement that the Parties Have
Made a Good Faith Effort to Stipulate to the Greatest Extent Possible
The OED Director has made a good faith effort to agree on stipulated facts to the greatest
extent possible. However, Respondent has refused to cooperate in gêeing on stipulated facts.
On Monday, September 22,2014, at 10:43 AM, counsel for the OED Director sent thirty-one
C
proposed stipulated facts to Respondent viaemail and asked for her input byWednesday,
September 24,2014,9:00 AM, EST.^ Respondent did not respond.
Having not heardfrom Respondent, coimsel for the OED Director emailed Respondent
again onWednesday, September 24,2014, at 10:35 AM. Counsel forwarded theMonday email
along with theattached proposed stipulated facts and requested thatRespondent respond nolater
than 5:00 PM, EST. Counsel for the OED Director advised Respondent that if she did not
respond, counsel would assume thatshedidnot agree to anyof the proposed stipulated facts.
Outlook email confirmed that the email was deliveredto Respondent's email box at 10:35 AM,
EST. Respondent did not respond to the September 24 email.
Thus, Respondent has neither accepted nor rejected the OED Director'sproposed
stipulated facts, norhas sheproffered any alternative proposed stipulated facts. Counsel for the
OEDDirector has made a good faith effortto complywith this Tribunal's scheduling order, but
Respondent's failure to cooperate has stymied that effort.
C. Anticipated Witnesses and a Summary of Testimonyfor Each Witness
Witnesses on Direct
1. Respondent, Dr. Bang-er Shia, maybe called as a hostile witness and, ifso, may
be questioned about: all aspects of her representation of others before the USPTO, representation
of others in trademarkmatters before the USPTO, all trademarkapplicationswhich are exhibits,
serving as domestic representative and/or correspondence address for trademark applicants,
selecting the electronic trademark form(s) for use in the relevant trademark filing, completing the
' The proposed stipulated facts are not controversial. For example, one of the proposed
stipulated facts is that Respondent's mailing address is 102 Lindencrest Court, SugarLand,
Texas 77479. [Her address is an important issue in the case.] This is the address Respondent
provided to the OED Director as her mailing address, and is the address this Tribunal and
counsel for the OED Director have been usmg throuôut this proceeding.
c: r
electronic trademark form(s) usedin the trademark filing, filing of electronic trademark
documents withthe USPTO, signing electronic trademark documents in her ownname, signing
the names of others to trademark documents, use ofthe Trademark Electronic Application
System ("TEAS") system, representation of foreign trademark applicants before the USPTO,
filing of electronic documents on behalfof foreign trademark applicants, the inquiry by the
Commissioner for Trademarks and the ExclusionOrder, her filings in trademarkcases after the
Exclusion Order, her uivolvement in OED's investigation of her conduct (including, but not
limited to herresponses to OED during thedisciplinary investigation), the information obtained
during the OED investigation, the OED Director's exhibits. Respondent's exhibits, theparties'
joint exhibits, theallegations setforth inthe Complaints and Amended Complaints, and the
assertions setforth in Respondent's Answers.
2. v Tanya Amos, Administrator ofTEAS intheLegal Policy Office oftheUSPTO,
may be called totestify regarding all aspects ofthe TEAS system, the legal implications ofall
types ofelectronic signatures accepted by the TEAS system, the importance ofselecting the
proper electronic form(s) for filing with the Office, the content ofsuch documents, the method of
filing documents with theTEAS system, the types ofsignatures accepted onelectronic
documents filed using the TEAS system, who is authorized to sign electronic docimients, how to
determine the mannerin whichelectronic documents were signed usingthe TEAS system, using
XML raw datato determine the type of signature usedin the electronic filing, all aspects of IP
addresses associated with electronic documents filed using the TEAS system, using the TEAS
Stampto determinethe IP address, the TrademarkImage Capture& Retrieval System
("TICRS"), the OED Director'sexhibits. Respondent's exhibits, the parties'joint exhibits, the
c r
allegations set forth in the Complaints and Amended Complaints, and the assertions set forth in
Respondent's Answers.
3. Robert Lavache, Attorney Advisor, Office oftheCommissioner for Trademarks,

may becalled to testify regarding allaspects ofthe Commissioner's inquiry into the
unauthorized practice oftrademark law by Respondent, the Commissioner's show cause order.
Respondent's response to theshow cause order, the Commissioner's Exclusion Order, the
USPTO Director's decision on petition affirming the Commissioner's exclusion of Respondent,
policies and procedures for preparing and signing electronic trademark documents filed with the
Office, the legal significance oftrademark documents signed and filed with theOffice, the role
ofthe correspondence address, therole ofthe Domestic Representative, practice of foreign
attorneys before the Office, the qualifications oftrademark practitioners that practice before the
OMce, theOED Dkector's exhibits. Respondent's exhibits, theparties' jointexhibits, the
allegations set forth inthe Complaints and Amended Complaints, and the assertions set forth in
Respondent's Answer.
4. Marynell Gainer, Manager ofNetwork Security Operations Center, Windstream
Communications, Inc. ("Windstream"), has been deposed and herdeposition may beintroduced
as her testimony in this matter.
Rebuttal Witnesses
5. William Griffin, Deputy Director of the Office of Enrollment andDiscipline
("OED") may be called as a fact witness totestify onrebuttal about OED date stamps and OED's
receipt of theletter of January 23,2012from the Commissioner for Trademarks to Respondent.
10
r c
6. The OED Durector reserves the right to call additional witnesses as rebuttal or
impeachment witnesses as permitted bytheTribunal's June 30,2014, Notice of Hearing and

Order.
D. Estimated Time Required for Presentation of the OED Director's Case-in-Chief
Counsel for the OED Director estimates that the OED Director's case-in-chief, case in
rebuttal, and opening statements will take 3.5 days. The lengthof time is estimated basedon the
participation of an interpreter which will greatly increase the amount of time needed for
presenting testimony.
E. Facts in Dispute
The OED Director reasonably foresees that the Tribunal will be calledupon to resolve the
following main factual disputes:
1. i Whether Respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice of trademark law
before the USPTO.
2. ^ Whether Respondent is, or haseverbeen, anattorney in good standing in the
highest court of any State.
3. Whether Respondent forged the electronic signatures of trademark applicants on
trademark documents that were electronically filed with the USPTO.
4. Whether Respondent selected the trademark application form(s) usedin the
trademark applications she filed with the Office.
5. Whether Respondent completed the trademark application form(s) used in the
trademark applications she filed with the Office.
11
r ("
6. Whether Respondent completed trademark applications entering information with

legal significance, such as the goods and services involved, intrademark applications before
electronically filing those trademark applications with the Office.
7. Whether Respondent entered the electronic signature of trademark applicants
using a "Direct" signature and then electronically filed the trademark application with the
USPTO.
8. Whether Respondent prepared documents containing the handwritten signatures
oftrademark applicants, and electronically filed those documents with theUSPTO using the
HSIGN-On method.
9. WhetherRespondent prepared Responses to OfficeAction(s).
10. Whether Respondent entered the electronic signature of trademark applicants on
Responses to Office Action(s) and then electronically filed theResponses with theOffice.
1'1. Whether Respondent prepared Statements of Use for trademark applicants.
Statements of Use and then electronically filedthe Statements of Use with the Office.
13. Whether Respondent prepared declarations in support of Statements ofUsefor
trademark applicants.
declarations in support of Statements of Useandthen electronically filedthe Statements of Use
with the Office.
15. Whether Respondent prepared Change of Correspondence Address fonn(s) for
trademark applicants.
12
r
16. Whether Respondent signed her own electronic signature to Change of
Correspondence Address fonn(s) for trademark applicants.
17. Whether Respondent entered the electronic signature oftrademark applicants on
Change of Correspondence Address form(s) and then electronically filed the Change of
Correspondence Address form(s) with the Office.
18. Whether Respondent continued to act as correspondence address for trademark
applicants after being excluded from doing so by the Commissioner for Trademarks in the
February 21,2013 Exclusion Order.
19. Whether Respondent attempted to conceal that she was continuing to act as the
correspondence address for trademark applicants after being excluded from doing so by the
Commissioner for Trademarks m the February 21,2013 Exclusion Order.
20. Whether Respondent attempted to conceal that she was continuing to act as the
Commissioner for Trademarks in the February 21,2013 Exclusion Order by changing the
correspondence address originally listed in the trademark document to a different mailing
address of another propertyowned or used by Respondent, while authorizing communication by
email.
21. WhetherRespondent attempted to conceal that she was contmuing to act as the
correspondence address for trademark applicants afterbeingexcluded fromdoingso by the
Commissioner for Trademarks in the February 21,2013 Exclusion Orderby changing the
correspondence address originally listedin the trademark document to the trademark applicant's
address, whileauthorizing communication by email.
13
r r
22. Whether Respondent attempted to conceal that she was continuing to act asthe
Commissioner forTrademarks in the February 21,2013 Exclusion Order by changing theemail
address originally listed in thetrademark document to oneof herother email addresses.
23. Whether Respondent attempted to conceal that she was continuing to act^ the
correspondence address for trademark applicants after being excluded from doing so bythe
mailing address onthe trademark document without changing the email address authorized for
communication.
24. Whether Respondent provided false or misleading information to OED during the
disciplinary investigation when she stated that she didnote-file trademark application serial
numbers 77/691,338,77/955,711, and 79/101,128.
25.; Whether Respondent provided false or misleading information to OED during the
disciplinary investigation when she stated that she did not electronically sign thenames of
trademark applicants CaiMei Yue; Chemg Yang; Tseng, Mmg-Yi; and/or Jenny Wu.
26. Whether Respondent aided inthe unauthorized practice of lawbefore the Office
by completing and/or filing trademark documents on behalfof "foreign local services" not
authorizedto practice before the Office in trademark matters.
F. Applicable Law
1. Jurisdiction
Congress vestedthe USPTO with plenary, statutory authority to promulgate regulations
"govem[ing] the recognition and conduct of agents, attorneys, or otherpersons representing
applicants or other parties before the Office." 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2)(D). Pursuant to thatauthority,
14
c C
the USPTO enacted itsCode ofProfessional Responsibility, 37C.F.R. 10.20 etseq., which
includes anumber ofmandatory "Disciplinary Rules" setting forth the mmimum level ofconduct
below which no registered patent practitioner can fail without being subjected to disciplinary
action. iSfee 37 C.F.R. 10.20(b). Ifaregisteredpatentpractitioner fails to comply with his or
her professional obligations, the USPTO has the authority to suspend or exclude the practitioner
from further practice before theOffice. See 35 U.S.C. 32; 37 C.F.R. 11.19.
The USPTO Code of Professional Responsibility applies to acts before May 3,2013. See
37 C.F.R. 10.20 etseq. The Code is applicable to Respondent's misconduct inengaging in the
unauthorized practice of law in trademark matters before the Office prior toMay 3,2013.
TheUSPTO Rulesof Professional Conduct apply to persons who practice before the
Office and became effective May 3,2013. See 37 C.F.R. 11.101 through 11.901. Any
misconduct after May 3,2013 isgoverned bythese Rules. The USPTO Rules ofProfessional
Conduct are applicable toRespondent's misconduct mengaging inthe unauthorized practice of
law in trademark matters before the Office after May 3,2013.
2. Practice in Trademark Law before the USPTO
Only attorneys may represent others before the Office intrademark matters. 37 C.F.R.
11.14(a) states;
Attorneys. Any individual who is an attorney as defined in 11.1 mayrepresent

others before the Office in trademark and o&er non-patent matters. An attorney
is not required to apply for registration orrecognition to practice before the Office
in trademark and other non-patent matters. Registration as a patent practitioner
does not itselfentitle an individual to practice before the Office in trademark
matters.
Ânattorney is defined as "an individual who is a member in good standing ofthehighest court
of any State, including an individual who is in good standing ofthehighest-court of one State
and not underan order of any court or Federalagency suspending, enjoining, restraining,
disbarring or otherwise restricting the attorney from practice before the barof another State or
Federal agency. A non-lawyer means a person who is not an attorney or lawyer." 37 C.F.R.
11.1.
15
c r
Being a registered patent agent before the Office does not itself entitle anindividual to
practice before the Office intrademark matters. At all relevant times, 37 C.F.R. 11.14(b)
provided:
Non-lawyers. Individuals who arenotattorneys arenot recognized to practice

before the Office in trademark and other non-patent matters, except that
individuals not attorneys who were recognized to practice before the Office in
trademark matters underthis chapter priorto January 1,1957, will be recognized
as agents to continue to practice before the Office in trademark matters. Except as
provided in thepreceding sentence, registration as a patent agent does not itself
entitle an individual to practice before the Office in trademark matters.
(emphasis added). See also Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure ("TMEP") 602.^
A registered patent agent, who is notanattomey, is notpermitted to practice before the
Officedn trademark matters. See In re Zhorovsky, Proceeding No. D2011-62 (USPTO Nov. 17,
2011) (suspending patent agent for engaging intheunauthorized practice of trademark matters
before the Office).^

'; The TMEP explains that anindividual who is notauthorized under 37C.F.R. 11.14 to
practice before the USPTO intrademark cases isnot permitted torepresent a party inprosecution
oftrademark applications, in themaintenance of registration, or in a proceeding before the
USPTO. SeeTMEP 608.01 (citations omitted). Thetrademark regulations specifically set
foilh that "onlyan individual qualified to practice under 11.14 ofthis chapter mayrepresent an
applicant, registrant, or party to a proceeding before theOffice intrademark cases." See 37

C.F.R. 2.17(a) and TMEP 602.
Practicebeforethe Office includes, among other things, actions such as preparing
necessary documents in contemplation of filing those documents withthe Office, corresponding
Âvailable at:
http://e-foia.uspto.gov/Foia/ReterivePdf?system=OED&flNm=0585_DIS_2010-02-18.
16
C C
or communicating with the Office, representing a clientthroughpreparing or filing documents,
and communicating with and advising a clientconcerning pendingmatters. See 37 C.F.R
11.5(b).
The entirety of 37 C.F.R 11.5(b) sets forth:
Practice before the Office includes, but is not limited to, law-related service that
comprehendsany matter connectedwith the presentationto the Office or any of
its officers or employees relating to a client's rights, privileges, duties, or
responsibilities under the laws or regulations administered by the Office for the
grant ofa patent or registration of a trademark, or for enrollment or disciplinary
matters. Such presentations include preparing necessary documents in
contemplation of filing the docunients with the Office, corresponding and
communicating with the Office, and representing a client through documents or at
interviews, hearings, and meetings, as well as communicating with and advising a
client concerning matters pending or contemplated to be present before the Office.
;Additionally, the rules governing practice before the Office further define "practice
before the Office in trademark matters":
^[C]onsulting with or givingadviceto a client in contemplation of filing a

trademark application or other documentwith the Office;preparing and
' prosecuting an application for trademark registration; preparing an amendment
: which may require written argumentto establishthe registrability ofthe mark;
'.and conducting an opposition, cancellation, or concurrent use proceeding; or
conducting an appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.
37 C.F.R 11.5(b)(2).
Accordingly, an individual who does not meet the requirements of 37 C.F.R. 11.14
cannot do any ofthe following in trademark matters: prepare an application, response, or other
document to be filed in the USPTO; sign amendments, responses to Office actions, petitions to
the Director under 37 C.F.R. 2.146, requests to change the correspondence address, or letters of
express abandonment; authorize issuance of examiner's amendments and priority actions; or
otherwise represent an applicant, registrant, or party to a proceeding in the USPTO. See TMEP
611.03-611.03(1).
17
c r
Disciplinary cases have recognized that selecting forms, completing and preparing,
signing, and filing, trademark applications and other trademark docxmients with the USPTO is
considered practice before the Office intrademark matters. See Inre Zhorovskyt supra; Inre
Jensen, Proceeding No. D2009-46 (USPTO February 18,2010) (reprhnanding attomey for
allowing non-attomey to sign and file trademark applications before the USPTO);^ Statewide
Grievance Committee v. Goldstein, 1996WL 753092 (Conn. Super. 1996)(restraining non-
attomeys from engaging in conduct constituting the practice oflaw including offering trademark
legal foims.
3. Electronic Filing
Applications and other documents in trademark matters maybe filed withtheUSPTO as
paper documents submitted viamail orthey may befiled electronically using TEAS. USPTO
regulations setforth requirements for filing trademark applications and other documents in
trademark matters using TEAS. SeeTMEP 301. Applicants may also submit a TEAS Plus
application. Additional specific regulations apply to TEAS Plus applications, such asthe
requirement for maintaining a valid email correspondence address for electronic communication
with the Office. See 37 C.F.R. 2.22 (a)(6) and 2.23(a)(2).
4. Signature Requirements for Tradeihark Documents
A person who electronically signs an electronic signature to a trademark document to be
electronically filed with the Office must do so themselves with their own name. See 37 C.F.R.
2.193(a)(2) and(c). No other person is permitted to enter the electronic signature of another
person when electronically signing and filing a trademark document withthe Office. SeeTMEP
611.01(b). Additionally, the signatory who signsa docimient in connection with a trademark
Âvailable at
htto://e-foia.uspto.gov/Foia/ReterivePdf?svstem=OED&flNm=0585 PIS 2010-02-18.
18
c
application, registration, orproceeding before theTTAB must setforth thename ofthesignatory
in printed or typed form beneath or adjacent to theelectronic signature. See37 C.F.R. 2.193(d)
and TMEP 611.01(c).
The trademark regulations governing signmures sets forth that "[e]ach piece of
correspondence that requires a signature must bear...[a]n electronic signature that meetsthe
requirements of paragraph (c)of this section, personally entered by the person named as the
signatory." 37 C.F.R. 2.193(a)(2) (emphasis added). Paragraph (c) establishes the
requirements for electronic signatures:
A person signing a document electronically must: (1) Personally enter any

combination of letters, numbers, spaces and/or punctuation marks that he or she
has adopted as a signature, placed between two forward slash ("/") symbols in the
signature block on the electronic submission...
37 C.F.R. 2.193(c)(1).
37C.F.R. 2.193(e) explains that documents filed in connection with a trademark
applicationor registration must be signed by the "proper person." Who is the ''proper person"
varies based on the document being submitted. Specifically, the regulation provides:
Unless otherwise specified by law, the following requh:ements apply:
(1) Verification offacts. A verification offacts in support ofan application

for registration, amendment to an application for registration, allegation of
use under 2.76 or 2.88, request for an extension oftime to file a
statement ofuse under 2.89, or an affidavit under section 8,12(c), 15, or
71 ofthe Trademark Act must be swom to or supported by a declaration
under 2.20, signed by the owner or person properly authorized to sign on
behalf ofthe owner. A person who is properly authorized to verify facts on
behalf of an owner is:
(i) A person with legal authority to bind the owner (e.g. a corporate
ofificer or general partner ofa partnership);
(ii) A person with firsthand knowledge ofthe facts and actual or

implied authority to act on behalf of the owner; or
19
r c
(iii) Anattorney as defined in 11.1 ofthischapter who hasan actual

writtenor verbalpowerof attorney or an impliedpower of attomey
from the owner.
(2) Responses to Office actions, amendments to explications, requestsfor

express abandonment, requestsfor reconsideration offinal actions, and
request to divide. Responses to Office actions, amendments to
applications, requests for express abandonment, requests for
reconsideration offinal actions, and request to divide must be signed by
the owner ofthe application or registration, someone with legal authority
to bind the owner (e.g., a corporate officer or general partner ofa
partnership), or a practitioner qualified to practicexmder 11.14ofthis
chapter, in accordance with the following guidelines:
(i) If the owner is represented by a practitionerqualifiedto practice

before the Office under 11.14 of this chapter, the practitioner
must sign, except where the owner is required to sign the
correspondence; or
(ii) If the owner is not representedby a practitioner qualified to

practice under 11.14 of this chapter, the individual owner or
someone with legal authority to bmd the owner (e.g., a corporate
officer or general partner of a partnership) must sign. In the case
ofjoint owners who are not represented by a qualifiedpractitioner,
all must sign.
TheTMEP provides examples of parties who are authorized and potentially unauthorized
to signresponses, petitions to the Director under37 C.F.R. 2.146, amendments, requests for
express abandonment, and other documents that must be signed by the applicant or registrant, or
by someone with legal authorityto bind the applicant or registrant. See TMEP 611.04.
Authorized parties (who are presumedto be authorizedto represent an applicant)
provided as examples in the TMEP include:
Person signing for a foreign corporation identifies him/herself as "general

counsel" or "in-house counsel" AND a "corporate officer" or another
corporate office position (e.g., "Secretary," "Treasurer," or "Vice President).
5'ee TMEP 611.04.
20
r c
The potentially unauthorized parties provided asexamples intheTMEP include

signatories that arepresumed to be unauthorized to represent an applicant or registrant,
including:
Person signing appears to be a foreign attorney (e.g., "solicitor" or "barrister"

for a foreign entity), or is a foreign law consultant witha law firmin the
United States.
Person signing identifies him/herself as a non-attorney representing applicant

or registrant in some othercapacity (e.g., accountant, paralegal, trademark
administrator, business manager,personal assistant, or legal secretary).
Person signing provides the address of a foreign firm.
Person signing in an applicationor registration owned by a foreign entity

identifieshim/herselfas "attorney for applicant,""attorney at law," or similar
language, but does not specify an address or firm.
Person signing identifies him/herself as "attomey-in-fact."
Person signing in an application or registration ownedby a foreign entity

'. identifies him/herself as "in house counsel" or "general counsel," with no
other indication of officer status or recognition to practice in the United States
or before the USPTO per 37 C.F.R. 11.14(a) or (c).
' Person signing identifieshim/herselfas "representative of," "agent for," or

representing" applicant or registrant, with no other explanation.
C(
Personsigningidentifies him/herselfas an "authorized signatory" but

provides no other indication of the natureof the signer's relationship to
applicant or registrant.
TMEP 611,04.
5. Correspondence Address
A correspondence address is used by the owner/apphcant to allow someone to receive
correspondence firom the Office on behalfof the applicant. Customarily an individual is named
21
r. r
as a correspondence address in order to ensure that the applicant orapplicant's authorized

representative receives Office communications in atimely manner.^
Under 37 C.F.R. 2.18(a), the methods forestablishing a correspondence address are set
forth, including specific directions for applicants who arenotrepresented by a practitioner
qualified imder 11.14:
(3) If an application, registration or proceeding is not beingprosecuted by a

practitioner qualified under 11.14 of this chapterand the applicant,
registrant, or partyto the proceeding designates a correspondence address
in writmg, the Office will send correspondence to the designated address if
appropriate.
(4) If an application, registration or proceeding is not being prosecuted by a

practitioner qualified under 11.14 of this chapter and the applicant,
registrant, or party to the proceeding has not designateda correspondence
;i address in writingi but a domestic representative has been appointed, the
Office will send correspondence to the domestic representative if
appropriate.
(5) If the application, registration or proceeding is not beingprosecuted by a

practitioner qualifiedunder 11.14 of this chapter, the applicant,
s; registrant, or partyto the proceeding has not designated a correspondence
address, and no domestic representative has been appointed, the Office
will send correspondence directlyto the applicant, registrant, or party to
the proceeding.
5ee37C.F.R.2.18(a)(3H5).
Additionally, as explainedin the TMEP,"... [t]heUSPTO may send official
communications concerning an application by e-mail only if the applicantor the applicant's
qualified practitioner authorized e-mailcommunication." See TMEP 609.01. It is the
applicant, registrant, or qualified practitioner who may authorize e-mailcommunication withthe
USPTO. SeeTMEP 304.03, This authorization may be designated in the initial application or
in any official Office conununication. See TMEP 304.03.
A foreign applicant may also appoint a domesticrepresentative, which is discussed below.
22
(. : C-
In order to change the correspondence address, only an applicant, registrant, or party to a
proceeding, or someone with legal authorityto bind the applicant, registrant, or party (e.g., a
corporate officeror generalpartnerof a partnership) may change the correspondence address in a
trademark application. 37 C.F.R. 2.18(b)(lH2). Specifically,"... [a] request to change the
correspondence address must be made in writing signed by the applicant, registrant, or party
(e.g., a corporate officer or general partner of a partnership), or a practitioner qualified to
practice under 11.14 ofthis chapter, in accordancewith 2.193(e)(9)." 37 C.F.R. 2.18(b)(2).
6. Domestic Representative
If a trademark applicant is not domiciled in the United States, the applicant may
designate a domestic representative who resides in the United States on whom notices or process
in proceedings affecting the mark may be served. See 37 C.F.R. 2.24(a)(1) and TMEP 610.
(An exaniple of such a proceeding would be an Opposition in a Trademark Trial and Appeal
Board ("TTAB") proceeding.) A domestic representativeis not authorized to prosecute an
application or represent a partyin a proceeding before the USPTO, unless the representative is a
qualified practitioner who has been recognized by the USPTO as the representative of the
applicantor registrant See TMEP 609.04. As with a correspondence address, only the
applicant or registrant, someonewith legal authority to bind the applicant or registrant(e.g., a
corporate officer or general partner of a partnership), or a practitionerqualified to practiceunder
11.12 may appoint a domestic representative. 37 C.F.R. 2.193(e)(8) and TMEP 610.
Specifically, 37 C.F.R. 2.193(e)(8) states, "[a] designation or revocation of a domestic
representative must be signed by the applicant or registrant, someone with legal authority to bind
the applicant or registrant (e.g., a corporate officer or general partner of a partnership), or a
practitioner qualified to practice under 11.14 "
23
r r
7. Powers of Attorney
Any power of attorney filed with the Office must designate by name at least one
practitioner meetmg the requirements of 11.14 (that is,anattorney who may represent others
before the Office). See 37 C.F.R. 2.17(c) and 11.14. Specifically,
thepower of attorney must: (1)Designate by name at leastonepractitioner

meeting the requirements of37 C.F.R. 11.14; and (2) Be siêdby the
individual applicant, registrant, or partyto a proceeding pending before
the Office, or by someone with legal authority to bind ie applicant,
registrant, or party (e.^., a corporate officer or general partner of a
partnership)....
37 C.F.R. 2.17(c); see also TMEP 605.01. The regulations do not provide for an owner/
applicant, or someone withlegal authority to bind theapplicant, to name a non-lawyer as hisor
her representative before the Office via a power of attorney.
8.;^ USPTO Disciplinary Proceedings^

a. Willfulness
' Forpurposes of USPTO disciplinary proceedings, "willfiilness" maybe established in
anyof several different ways. Furst, if a respondent "intentionally does an act which is
prohibited, irrespective of evilmotive or reliance on erroneous advice," the violation is willfiil.
Halvonikv. Dudas, 398 F. Supp. 2d 115,124-125 (D. D.C. 2005) (citations omitted) (discussing
"willfulness" in context of USPTO disciplinaryproceeding filed against a registeredpatent
practitioner). Second, if a respondent acts with"careless disregard of statutory requirements,"
the violationis willful. Id. (citations omitted). Third, if a respondent acts with such "gross
neglect" of a known legal duty as to be the equivalentof an intentionalmisdeed,the violationis
willful. Id. (case citations omitted). Cf. Bryan v. UnitedStates, 524 U.S. 184,196-97 (1998)
(noting that some courts have interpreted willfuhiessto mean "indifference to the requirements
^Generally speaking, USPTO disciplinary proceedings follow the provisions of 558(c) ofthe
Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. 500 etseq.
24
r r
of the law") (citations omitted); Butz v. Glover Livestock Comm 'n Co., 411 U.S. 182,187n. 5
(1973) ("willfully" couldreferto conduct that was merely careless or negligent).
b. Burdens of Proof
The OED Director has the burden of proving violations of the USPTO Code of
Professional Responsibility or Rules ofProfessional Conduct by clear and convincing evidence.
See SI C.F.R. 11.49. The Respondent has the burden ofproving any affirmative defenses by
clear and convincing evidence. Id.
c. Factors in Determining Sanction
In determining any sanction, the following four factors must be considered ifthey are
applicable: (1) whether the practitioner has violated a duty owed to a client, to the public, to the
legal system, or to the profession; (2) whether the practitioner acted intentionally, knowingly, or
negligently; (3) the amount ofthe actual or potential injury caused by the practitioner's
misconduct; and (4) the existence of any aggravating or mitigating factors. See 37 C.F.R.
11.54(b).
d. Aggravating or Mitigating Factors in Determining Sanction
The American Bar Association has promulgateda list ofaggravating and mitigating
factors for use in assessing attomey disciplinary sanctions. See American Bar Association
STANDARDS FOR IMPOSING LAWYER SANCTIONS (2005) 9.2 ("Standards"). The
Standards have been referenced in USPTO disciplinary proceedings when the Tribunal is
determiningthe appropriate sanction to be imposed. See, e.g.. In re Hermann^D2008-04
(USPTO July 8,2009), at 19.'
' Available at:

http://e-foia.uspto.gov/Foia/ReterivePdf?svstem=OED&flNm=0569 PIS 2009-07-08.
25
(" ('
Aggravation or aggravating circumstances are any considerations orfactors that may

justify an increase inthe degree ofdiscipline to be imposed. Standards 9.21. Aggravating
factors include: (a) prior disciplinary offenses; (b) dishonest or selfish motive; (c) a pattern of
misconduct; (d) multiple offenses; (e)bad faith obstruction ofthedisciplinary proceeding by
intentionally failing to comply with rules ororders ofthe disciplinary agency; (f) submission of
false evidence, false statements, or otherdeceptive practices during the disciplinary process; (g)
refusal to acknowledge wrongful nature ofconduct; (h) vulnerability of victim; (i) substantial
experience inthe practice oflaw; (j) indifference to making restitution; and (k) illegal conduct,
including that involving the use of controlled substances. Standards 9.22.
Mitigation or mitigating circumstances areany considerations or factors thatmay justify
a reduction in the degree of discipline to be imposed. Standards 9.31. Mitigating factors
include: (a) absence of a priordisciplinary record; (b)absence of a dishonest or selfish motive;
(c) personal or emotional problems; (d)timely good faith effort to make restitution or to rectify
consequeffces of misconduct; (e)full andfree disclosure to disciplinary board or cooperative
attitude toward proceedings; (f) inexperience in the practice of law; (g) character or reputation;
(h) physical disability; (i) mental disability or chemical dependency including alcoholism or drug
abuse ...; (j) delay in disciplinary proceedings; (k) imposition of otherpenalties or sanctions; (1)
remorse; and (m) remoteness of prior offenses. Standards 9.32.
The followmg factors should not be considered as either aggravating or mitigating:
(a) forced or compelled restitution; (b) agreeing to the client's demand for certainimproper-
behavior or result; (c) withdrawal of complaint against the lawyer; (d) resignation prior to
completion ofdisciplinary proceedings; (e) complainant's recommendation as to sanction; and (f)
failure of injured client to complain. Standards 9.32.
26
c
9. Conclusions to be Drawn
a. Factual Conclusions
The following factual conclusions are to be drawn by the Tribunal:
1. Respondent is a registered patent agent.
2. Respondent's registration number is 57,568.
3. Respondent is associated with the following email addresses: bs@pat--

bangshia.com, bangershia@yahoo.com, and ryu204@yahoo.com.
4. Respondent is associated with three mailing addresses: 102 Lindencrest Court,

Sugar Land, Texas 77479; 204 Canyon Creek, Victoria, Texas, 77901; and 3015 Summerfield
Ridge Court, Sugar Land, Texas 77479.
5. Respondent is not now, nor has she ever been, an attorney in good standing in the
highest court of any State.
6..^; Respondent engagedin the unauthorized practiceoftrademarklaw beforethe

USPTO.
7.' Respondent forged the electronic signatures oftrademark applicants on trademark

documents that were electronically filed with the USPTO.
8.. Respondent selectedthe trademarkapplicationform iised in the trademark

applications she filed with the Office.
9. Respondent completed the trademark application forms used in the trademark

applications she filed with the Office.
10. Respondent completed trademark applications entering information with legal

significance, such as the goods and services involved, in trademark applications before
electronically filing those trademark applications with the Office.
11. Respondent entered the electronic signature oftrademark applicants usinga

"Direct" signature and then electronically filed the trademark application withthe USPTO.
12. Respondent prepared documents containing the handwritten signatures of

trademark applicants, and electronically filed those documents with the USPTO using the
HSIGN-On method.
13. Respondent prepared Responses to Office Action(s).
27
c c
14. Respondent entered the electronic signature oftrademark applicants on Responses

to Office Action(s) andthenelectronically filed the Responses withthe Office.
15. Respondent prepared Statements of Use for trademark applicants.
16. Respondent entered the electronic signature of trademark applicants on

Statements ofUse and then electronically filed the Statements of Use with the Office.
17. Respondent prepared declarations insupport of Statements ofUse for trademark

applicants.
18. Respondent entered the electronic signature of trademark applicants on

declarations in support of Statements of Useandthen electronically filedthe Statements of Use
with the Office.
19. Respondent prepared Change of Correspondence Address form(s) for trademark

applicants.
20. Respondent signed her ownelectronic signature to Change of Correspondence

Address form(s) for trademark applicants.
2l i. Respondent entered the electronic signature of trademark applicants on Change of

Correspondence Address form(s) and thenelectronically filed the Change of Correspondence
Address form(s) with the Office.
22:. Respondent continued to actas correspondence address fortrademark applicants

after being;excluded from doing so by the Conmiissioner for Trademarks in the February 21,
2013 Exclusion Order.
23. Respondent attempted to conceal that she was continuing to act as the
correspondence address fortrademark applicants after being excluded firom doing so bythe
Commissioner for Trademarks in the February 21,2013 Exclusion Order.
correspondence address originally listed in the trademark document to a different mailing
address of anotherproperty owned or used by Respondent, while authori2dng communication by
email.
correspondence address for trademark applicants afterbeingexcluded from doing so by the
Commissioner for Trademarksin the February21,2013 Exclusion Order by changingthe
correspondence address originally listedin the trademark document to the trademark applicant's
address, while authorizing communication by email.
28
c C"
26. Respondent attempted to conceal that she was continuing to actas the
Commissioner for Trademarks in the February 21,2013 Exclusion Order by changing the email
address originally listed in thetrademark document to one ofherother email addresses.
27. Respondent attempted to conceal thatshewas continuing to actas the

correspondence address fortrademark applicants after being excluded from doing so bythe
mfliling address onthe trademark document without changing the email address authorized for
communication.
28. Respondent provided false or misleading information to OED during the

disciplinary investigation when she stated that she did note-file trademark application serial
numbers 77/691,338,77/955,711, and 79/101,128.
29. Respondent providedfalse or misleading information to OEDduringthe

disciplinary investigation when shestated thatshedidnotelectronically signthenames of
trademark applicants Cai Mei Yue; Chemg Yang; Tseng, Ming-Yi; and/orJenny Wu.
30.^ Respondent aided in the unauthorized practiceof law beforethe Officeby

completing!and/orfiling trademark documents on behalfof "foreignlocal services" not
authorizedto priactice before the Office in trademark matters.
b. Legal Conclusions
The following main legal conclusions are to be drawn by the Tribunal:
1. This Tribunal has jurisdiction over this disciplinary proceeding.
2. The OED Director established by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent
violated 37 C.F.R. 10.23(a) (engaging in disreputable or gross misconduct) by engaging in
unauthorized practice before the Office in trademark matters as Respondent is not, andhas never
been, an attorney in good standing ofthe highest court of any State.
violated 37 C.F.R. 10.23(a) by entering whatpurported to be the electronic signatures of
trademark applicants on trademark documents, including Trademark Applications, Responses to
Office Action(s), Statements of Use, and Change of Correspondence Address fonn(s), filed with
the Office, but Aat were not the electronic signatures of the trademark applicants.
violated 37 C.F.R. 10.23(a) by forging the electronic signature of trademark applicants to
Trademark Applications, Responses to Office Action(s), Statements of Use, and Change of
Correspondence Address form(s), filed with the Office.
29
c ^
5. The OED Director established by clear andconvincing evidence that Respondent
violated 37C.F.R. 10.23(a) byrepresenting applicant(s) before the USPTO in trademark
applications by signing her own electronic signature to Change ofCorrespondence Address
form(s).
6. The OED Director established by clearand convincing evidence that Respondent

violated 37C.F.R. 10.23(a) by preparing trademark documents, including Trademark
Applications, Responses to Office Action(s), Statements ofUse, and Change of Correspondence
Address form(s), for others and filing the documents with the Office.
7. The OEDDirector established by clearand convincing evidence that Respondent

violated 37C.F.R. 10.23(a) by contmuing to serve as the correspondence address forapplicants
before the USPTO afterbeingexcluded from doing so by the Commissioner for Trademarks in
the February 21,2013 Exclusion Order.
8. The OED Director established by clear and convincing evidencethat Respondent

violated 37 C.F.R. 10.23(a) by concealingthat she was continuing to serve as the
correspondence address for applicants afterthe Commissioner for Trademarks excluded herfrom
doing so in the February 21,2013 Exclusion Order, by changing the correspondence address
fromthe mailing address she originally listed in trademark filings to a different mailing address
of anothercproperty owned or usedby Respondent, or by changing the mailing address to thatof
the applicant, while authorizing communication by email.
9.'* The OED Director established by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent
violated37 C.F.R. 10.23(a)by concealing that she was continuing to serve as the
correspondence address for applicants after the Commissioner for Trademarks excluded her from
doing so in the February 21,2013 Exclusion Order, by usingan alternative email address and
authorizmg all communication via email.
violated 37 C.F.R. 10.23(a)by making false or misleading statements to the OED in the course
ofthe disciplinary investigation.
11. The OED Directorestablished by clearand convincmg evidence that Respondent

violated 37 C.F.R. 10.23(b)(4) (engaging in conductinvolvingdishonesty, fiaud, deceit, or
misrepresentation) by engagmg in unauthorized practice beforethe Office in trademark matters
as Respondent is not, and has never been, an attorney in good standing ofthe highestcourt of
any State.
12. The OED Director established by clear and convincingevidencethat Respondent

violated 37 C.F.R. 10.23(b)(4) by entering what purported to be the electronic signaturesof
trademark applicants on trademark documents, including Trademark Applications, Responses to
Office Action(s), Statements ofUse, and Change of CorrespondenceAddress form(s), filed with
the Office, but that were not the electronic signatures ofthe trademark applicants.
30
c c
13. The OED Durector establishedby clear and convincingevidence that Respondent
violated 37 C.F.R. 10.23(b)(4) by forging the electronic signature of trademark applicants to
Trademark Applications, Responses to Office Action(s), Statements of Use, and Change of
CorrespondenceAddress form(s), filed with the Office.
violated 37 C.F.R. 10.23(b)(4) by representing applicant(s) before the USPTO in trademark
applications bysigning herown electronic signature to Change of Correspondence Address
form(s).
violated 37 C.F.R. 10.23(b)(4) by preparing trademark documents, including Trademark
Applications, Responses to Office Action(s), Statements ofUse, and Change of Correspondence
Address form(s), for others and filingthe documents with the Office.
16. The OEDDirector established by clearand convincing evidence that Respondent

violated 37C.F.R. 10.23(b)(4) by continuing to serve asthe correspondence address for
applicants before the USPTO after being excluded firom doing so by the Commissioner for
Trademarks in the February 21,2013 Exclusion Order.
17;^. The OED Director established by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent
violated 37C.F.R. 10.23(b)(4) by concealing thatshe was continuing to serve asthe
doing so itfthe February 21,2013 Exclusion Order, by changing the correspondence address
from the mailing address she originally listed intrademark filings to a different mailing address
ofanother-property owned or used by Respondent, or by changing the mailing address to that of
18. The OED Director established by clear and convincing evidence thatRespondent
violated 37 C.F.R. 10.23(b)(4) byconcealing that she was continuing to serve asthe
doing so mthe February 21,2013 Exclusion Order, by using an alternative email address and
authorizing all communication via email.
19. The OED Director established by clear andconvincing evidence that Respondent
violated 37 C.F.R. 10.23(b)(4) bymaking false ormisleading statements to OED inthe course
20. The OED Directorestablished by clear and convincing evidencethat Respondent

violated 37 C.F.R. 10.23(b)(5) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the admmistration ofjustice)
by engaging inunauthorized practice before the Office intrademark matters asRespondent is
not, andhasneverbeen, an attorney in good standing of the highest courtof any State.
21. The OED Director established by clearandconvincing evidence thatRespondent

violated 37C.F.R. 10.23(b)(5) by continuing to serve asthecorrespondence address for
31
c r
applicants before theUSPTO after being excluded from doing sobytheCommissioner for
Trademarks in the February 21,2013 Exclusion Order. .
violated 37 C.F.R. 10.23(b)(5) by concealing that she was continuing to serve as the
correspondence address for applicants after the Commissioner for Trademarks excluded herfrom
doing so hi the February 21,2013 Exclusion Order, by changing the correspondence address
from the mailing address she originally listed in trademark filings to a different mailing address
of another property owned or used by Respondent, or by changing the mailing address to thatof

violated 37 C.F.R. 10.23(b)(5) by concealmg that she was continuing to serveas the
correspondence address for applicants after theCommissioner forTrademarks excluded herfrom
doing so in the February 21,2013 Exclusion Order, by using an alternative email address and
violated 37 C.F.R. 10.23(b)(5)by making false or misleading statements to OED in thecourse
25 The OED Directorestablished by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent,

violated 3'7 C.F.R. 10.23(a) via 10.23(c)(2)(ii) (knowingly giving, or knowmgly participating
in a material way in giving, false or mislea(Kng information to theOffice or any employee ofthe
Office) byknowingly entering what purported to bethe electronic signatures oftrademark
applicants on trademark documents including Trademark Applications, Responses to Office
Actions, Statements ofUse, and Change of Correspondence Address form(s) filed with the
Office, but-that were not the electronic signatures of thetrademark applicants.
26. TheOED Director established by clear andconvincing evidence thatRespondent

violated 37C.F.R. 10.23(a) via 10.23(c)(2)(ii) byknowingly forging the electronic signature
oftrademark applicants to Trademark Applications, Responses to Office Action(s), Statements
ofUse, and Change of Correspondence Address form(s), filed with theOffice.
violated 37 C.F.R. 10.23(a) via 10.23(c)(2)(ii) by knowingly concealing that shewas
continuing to serve asthe correspondence address for applicants after theCommissioner for
Trademarks excluded her from doing so in theFebruary 21,2013 Exclusion Order, by changing
the correspondence address from the mailing address she originally listed intrademark filings to
a different mailing address of another property owned or used by Respondent, or by changing the
mailing address to that of the applicant, whileauthorizing communication by email.

violated37 C.F.R. 10.23(a)via 10.23(c)(2)(ii) by knowinglyconcealingthat she was
continuing to serve as the correspondence address for applicants after the Commissioner for
32
c c
Trademarksexcluded her from doing so in the February21,2013 Exclusion Order, by using an

alternative email address and authorizing all communication via email.
violated 37 C.F.R. 10.23(a) via 10.23(c)(2)(ii) by knowingly making false or misleading
statements to OED in the course ofthe disciplinary investigation.
30. The OED Director established by clear and convmcing evidence that Respondent
violated 37 C.F.R. 10.77(a) (handling a legal matter which the practitioner knows or should
know that the practitioner is not competent to handle without associating with another
practitioner who is competent to handle it) by engaging in unauthorized practicebeforethe
Office in trademark matters, as Respondent is not andneverhas been an attorney in good
standing of the highest court of any State.
31. The OED Director establishedby clear and convincing evidence that Respondent
violated 37 C.F.R. 10.47 (a) and (c) (aiding a non-practitioner or a non-lawyer in the
unauthorized practice of law beforethe Office) by aiding in the unauthorized practice of law
before the Office in trademark matters by completing and/or filing trademark documents on
behalfof "foreign local services" not au&orized to practice beforethe Officein trademark
matters.
32.*^: The OED Director established by clearand convincing evidence that Respondent
violated 3C.F.R. 10.23(b)(6) (which proscribes engaging in conduct thatadversely reflects on
the practitioner's fitness to practice before the Office) by engaging in actsandomissions not
previously set forth in paragraphs No. 1-31 above.
33.: The OED Directorestablished by clearand convincing evidence that Respondent

violated 37 C.F.R. 11.804(a) (violating or attempting to violatethe USPTO Rulesof
Professional Conduct, knowingly assisting or inducing another to do so, or do so through the acts
of another) by engaging in the unauthorized practice of lawbefore the Office in trademark
matters as Respondent is not, and has never been, an attorney in good standing of thehighest
court of any State.
34. The OED Directorestablished by clearand convincing evidence that Respondent

violated 37 C.F.R. 11.303(a)(1) (making a false statement of material fact or lawto a tribunal
or failing to correct a false statement of material fact or lawpreviously made to the tribunal by
the practitioner) by enteringwhat purported to be the electronic signatures of trademark
applicants on trademark documents filed withthe Office, but thatwerenot the electronic
signatures of the trademark applicants.
violated 37 C.F.R. 11.303(a)(1) by forging the electronic signatureoftrademark applicants to
Statementsof Use and Change of CorrespondenceAddress form(s), filed with the Office.
violated 37 C.F.R. 11.303(a)(1) by concealing that she was continuing to serve as the
33
r c
correspondence address forapplicants after theCommissioner for Trademarks excluded herfrom

fromthe mailing address she originally listed in trademark filings to a different mailing address
ofanother property ownedor usedby Respondent, or by changing the mailingaddress to that of
violated37 C.F.R. 11.303(a)(1) by concealing that she was continuing to serve as the
correspondence address for applicants after the Commissioner for Trademarks excluded herfrom
doing so in the February 21,2013 Exclusion Order, by using an alternative email address and
38. The OED Dkector established by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent
violated 37 C.F.R. 11.505 (practicing lawin a jurisdiction in violation of the regulation of the
legal profession in that jurisdiction, or assisting ano&er in doing so) by engagmg in unauthorized
practice before theOffice in trademark matters, as Respondent is notandnever hasbeen an
attorneyin good standingof the highest courtof any State.
violated 3?>C.F.R. 11.505 by aiding in theunauthorized practice of lawbefore the Office in
trademarkjjnatters by completing and/or filing trademark documents on behalfof **foreign local
services" not authorized to practice beforethe Office in trademark matters,
40.' The OED Director established by clearand convincing evidence that Respondent
violated 37 C.F.R. 11.804(c) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fi:aud, deceit, or
misrepresentation) by engaging inunauthorized practice before the Office intrademark matters
as Respondent isnot, and has never been, an attorney ingood standing ofthe highest court of
any State.
violated 37 C.F.R. 11.804(c) byentering what purported to bethe electronic signatures of
trademark applicants ontrademark documents, including Statements ofUse and Change of
Correspondence Address form(s), filed with the Office, but that were not the electronic
signatures of the trademark applicants.
42. TheOED Dkector established by clear andconvincing evidence thatRespondent

violated 37 C.F.R. 11.804(c) by forging the electronic signature of trademark applicants to
Statements of Use and Change of Correspondence Address form(s), filed withthe Office.
violated 37 C.F.R. 11.804(c) by representing applicant(s) before the USPTO in trademark
applications bysigning herown electronic signature to Change ofCorrespondence Address
form(s).
44. The OED Dkector established by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent
violated 37 C.F.R. 11.804(c) by preparing trademark documents, including Statements of Use
34
c
and Change ofCorrespondence Address form(s), for others and filmg the documents with the
Office.
45. The OED Durector established by clearand convincing evidence that Respondent
violated 37 C.F.R. 11.804(c) bycontinxiing to serve as the correspondence address for
applicants before theUSPTO after being excluded from doing so bythe Commissioner for
Trademarks in the February 21,2013 Exclusion Order.
violated 37 C.F.R. 11.804(c) by concealing that she was continuing to serveas the
correspondence address for applicants after the Commissioner forTrademarks excluded her from
from the mailing address she originally listed in trademark filings to a different mailing address
of another property owned or used by Respondent, or by changing the mailingaddress to that of
the applicant, while authorizing communicationby email.
violated 37 C.F.R. 11.804(c) by concealing that she was contmuing to serve as the
correspondence address for applicants after the Commissioner forTrademarks excluded herfrom
.. doing so in the February.21,2013 Exclusion Order, by using an alternative email address and
wâuthorizing all communication via email.
s 48. The OED Director established by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent
:a violated 37 C..F.R. 11.804(d) (engaging m conductthat is prejudicial to the administration of
justice) by engaging in unauthorized practice before the Office in trademark matters as
Respondent is not, and has neverbeen, an attorney in goodstanding of the highestcourtof any
State.
49. The OED Director establishedby clear and convincing evidencethat Respondent
violated 37 C.F.R. 11.804(d) concealing that she was contmuing to serve as the
correspondence address for applicants afterthe Commissioner for Trademarks excluded her from
doing so in the February 21,2013 Exclusion Order, by changingthe correspondence address
from the mailmg address she originally listedin trademark filings to a different mailing address
ofanotherproperty owned or used by Respondent, or by changingthe mailing addressto that of
the applicant, while authorizing commimication by email.
violated 37 C.F.R. 11.804(d) by concealing that she was continuing to serve as the
correspondence address for applicants after the Conamissioner for Trademarksexcludedher from
doingso in the February 21,2013 Exclusion Order, by using an alternativeemail address and
35
r
r
Respectfully submitted,
September 30,2014
MelindaM. DeAtley
Elizabeth Ullmer Mendel
Associate Solicitors
Mail Stop 8 Office of the Solicitor
United States Patent and Trademark Office
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virgmia 22313-1450
(571) MIIPCDeAtley direct)
(571)BBB|(fa^)
spto.gov
tuspto.gov
Counsel for:
Director of the Office of Enrollment and Discipline
36
EXHIBIT AN
Favorite Links Date modified ILocation:
. B.
^ A.Jnitial Decision arid prdef
1 File Folder
Music --j J File Folder . ^ RIe Folder
V-.
Recently Changed D.B(hibi E. Rôndent's documents
Public
Fite Folder .i RIe Folder
G. s H. OED Director's PreipcKed
Siippfeinei^
.Jr Fife Folder FileFolder
J.
File Folder
Fote
;;n.
PatEmiîl8^12;SPM
BANG--ER SHIA HEARING - VOLUME I
Page 10 Page 12
1 translator's oath. Mr. Li, could you 1 interpreter to translate even though you
2 raise your right hand please? 2 understand what I'm saying in English.
3 (The interpreter was swom.) 3 Okay? I need you to respond orally.
4 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Thank you. 4 DR. SHIA (interpreter): Okay.
5 Please be seated. 5 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Now I need you to
6 Now, before I continue, I want to 6 relax. Lean back in your chair for me.
7 establish the ground rules for today. 7 DR. SHIA (interpreter): Can you
8 And did everybody notice what I just 8 give me a few minutes, let me know what
9 did? I spoke in a sound bite. And 9 this is about?
10 that's because I'm very accustomed to 10 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: I just want to
11 working with an interpreter. In fact. 11 talk to. I just want to talk to you.
12 while I was growing up in Miami, I used 12 DR. SHIA (interpreter): I'm pretty
13 to interpret for my parents all the 13 confused. What kind of case we have
14 time, only the language wasn't Into 14 here?
15 Mandarin, it was from English to Spanish 15 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: I understand. I
16 and from Spanish into English. 16 just want to talk to you. Just look at
17 Now, for the interpreter to be able 17 me, okay? All right? Just look at me.
18 to translate what we're saying 18 Dr. Shia, I understand that today's
19 accurately, we're going to need to 19 proceeding is stressful.
20 really limit the length of our 20 Dr. Shia?
21 sentences. 21 DR. SHIA (directly): I know her.
22 If we don't limit the length of our 22 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Dr. Shia, I need
Page 11 Page 13
1 sentences, it's not going to make it 1 you to concentrate on me, okay?
2 across the language breach. Is that 2 DR. SHIA (interpreter): I want to
3 clear to everybody present? 3 orient myself. What kind of case we
4 DR. SHIA (interpreter); I'm pretty 4 have here?
5 emotional now and I need to I'm kind 5 JTDGE FERNANDEZ: Today's
6 of -- what kind of case we have here? 6 proceeding is a patent trademark
7 I'm pretty emotional and confused now. 7 hearing.
8 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Okay. Mrs. -- 8 DR. SHIA (interpreter): So what
9 Dr. Shia, could you tell me who you are, 9 I'm here for?
10 please? 10 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: You're here
11 DR. SHIA (interpreter): I'm 11 because the Patent Trademark Office
12 Bang-er Shia. 12 brought a case where they want to review
13 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Who is the 13 whether or not you should still be able
14 gentleman next to you? 14 to file cases in front of them. Do you
15 DR. SHIA (interpreter): My family. 15 understand?
16 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: And who is this 16 DR. SHIA (interpreter): I'm very
17 family member of yours? 17 confused now.
18 DR. SHIA (interpreter): My 18 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Okay. The Court
19 husband. 19 stands in recess. And we're off the
20 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Okay. Another 20 record.
21 thing about working with an interpreter 21 (Discussion held off the record.)
22 is that you have to wait for the 22 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: We are going to
T: (703) 837-0076 Toll Free (877) 837-0077 F: (703) 837-8118

http://www.casamo.com Casamo and Associates transcriptcasamo.com
BAN6--ER SHIA HEARING - VOLXJME I
Page 14 Page 16
1 take a short recess until 11:45. We 1 THE INTERPRETER: Trademark.

2 will be back here at 11:45. And at 2 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: How long has this
3 11:45, we will figure out where we go 3 proceeding been going on?
4 from there. I would like lead counsel 4 DR. SHIA (interpreter): I'm pretty
5 and Dr. Shia's husband to see me in 5 stressful, so I don't remember.
6 chambers, please. And we are in recess. 6 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Has it been more
7 (Recess taken.) 7 than a month?
8 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Dr. Shia. Please 8 DR. SHIA (interpreter): I don't
9 stand. And we're still interpreting, 9 want to answer this question because I'm
10 right? Okay. How are you feeling? 10 very stressful. I think it's like a
11 DR. SHIA (interpreter): Pretty 11 dream right now.
12 tense, stressful and confused. 12 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Ifiifortunately, we
13 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Okay, tense and 13 don't have the luxury of picking and
14 stressful, I understand. I need you to 14 choosing what questions we can answer so
15 tell me what you mean by "confused." 15 I need you to give me your best answer.
16 DR. SHIA (interpreter): Everything 16 DR. SHIA (interpreter): My best
17 I did was legal. I'm not sure 17 understanding is I've never done
18 whether why they sued me. 18 anything illegal.
19 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Okay. That much, 19 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Okay, but that
20 I can work with. Please stay standing 20 wasn't my question.
21 while we're talking. Do you know why 21 DR. SHIA (interpreter): Can you
22 you're here today? 22 repeat your question?
Page IS Page 17
1 DR. SHIA (interpreter): Yeah, 1 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Of course. How
2 because they sued me. 2 long has it been since US PTO accused
3 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Who is the 3 you of doing something wrong?
4 "they"? 4 DR. SHIA (interpreter): I don't
5 DR. SHIA (interpreter): US PTO. 5 have any memory. I'm too tense.
6 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: And why did they 6 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Okay. Has it
7 sue you? 7 been more than a month?
8 DR. SHIA (interpreter): Just now. 8 DR. SHIA (interpreter): It should
9 I had a short memory loss, but I think I 9 be over a month, but I know I've never
10 remember they sued me for violation for 10 done anything illegal.
11 patent and trademark. 11 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Okay. Has it
12 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: You need you to 12 been more than two months? Why don't
13 explain to me why, as best you can, why 13 you sit down while we talk?
14 you think they sued you. 14 DR. SHIA (interpreter): Can I ask
15 DR. SHIA (directly): Patent and 15 questions?
16 trade. 16 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Sure.
17 DR. SHIA (interpreter): I'm under 17 DR. SHIA (interpreter): I would
18 enormous pressure, but I think they said 18 never do anything illegal. Anything I
19 I -- is the unauthorized practice of 19 did was at the request of my clients.
20 patent and trade law. 20 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Okay, but that
21 DR. SHIA (directly): Trademark 21 wasn't a question. What was a
22 only. 22 statement. What's your question?
T: (703) 837-0076 Toll Free (877) 837-0077 F; (703) 837-8118

http;//wvw,casamo.com Casamo and Associates transcriptcasamo.com
BANG--ER SHIA HEARING - VOLXJME I
Page 18 Page 20
1 DR. SHIA (interpreter): I don't 1 filing the documents?
2 have question. You ask me a question 2 DR. SHIA (interpreter): It should
3 just now. 3 be true, but I don't know which. It's
4 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Right. So I need 4 because of the big pressure.
5 you focus on me. I need to you keep 5 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Counsel,
6 answering iny questions, okay? 6 thoughts?
7 DR. SHIA (interpreter): Okay. 7 MS. DeATLEY: I'm sorry. Your
8 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: This process with 8 Honor, could you repeat the question?
9 pro where they made the accusation of 9 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: There was no
10 unauthorized practice of trademark 10 question. I just asked you for
11 law 11 thoughts.
12 DR. SHIA (interpreter): It's 12 MS. DeATLEY: Your Honor, the OED
13 in5>ossible. Everything I did was legal. 13 Director does not oppose if Dr. Shia
14 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Has it been more 14 wishes to get counsel at this point, at
15 than two months that they made that 15 this time. We understand that she's
16 accusation? 16 very upset.
17 DR. SHIA (interpreter): I'm pretty 17 DR. SHIA (interpreter): What kind
18 confused now, but what I did was all at 18 of counsel?
19 the request of my clients and was legal. 19 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: I got it.
20 JUDGE FERNANDEZ; I need to you 20 Dr. Shia, do you remember that
21 focus on me, and I need you to answer ray 21 months and months ago, you and I had a
22 question. 22 conversation where I told you it might
Page 19 Page 21
1 DR. SHIA (interpreter): No 1 be a good idea to get a lawyer?

2 problem. Everything I did was legal. 2 DR. SHIA (interpreter): I always
3 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Has it been more 3 been innocent whether with a counsel or
4 than two months? 4 without counsel.
5 DR. SHIA (interpreter): I have to 5 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: That's not ray
6 check. I can't say it right away 6 question. My question is: Do you
7 because it's like a nightmare, and I 7 remember the conversation that we had
8 think it's because of the pressure. 8 months ago where I told you you should
9 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Let's try a 9 think about getting a lawyer?
10 different question. 10 DR. SHIA (interpreter): To say the
11 DR. SHIA (interpreter): But I know 11 truth, I don't remember the details.
12 that I will never do anything illegal. 12 But I've never done anything illegal so
13 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Let's try a 13 I'm not afraid.
14 different question. 14 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Okay. So you
15 Do you remember filing documents 15 don't remember the conversation?
16 with the Court where you make arguments 16 DR. SHIA (interpreter): I'm under
17 about why you haven't done anything 17 great pressure. Do you mean that when
18 wrong? 18 you ask me to get a lawyer?
19 DR. SHIA (interpreter): Yes, it 19 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: We had a
20 is. But because of the enormous 20 conversation where I suggested that it
21 pressure, it's like a nightmare. 21 might be a good idea for you to get a
22 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Do you remember 22 lawyer. Do you remember that
T: (703) 837-0076 Toll Free (877) 837-0077 F: (703) 837-8118

http://www.casamo.com Casamo and Associates transcriptScasamo.com
BANG-ER SHIA HEARING - VOLUME I
Page 22 Page 24
1 conversation? 1 lawyer would help, and she tells me

2 DR. SHIA (interpreter): I'm pretty 2 she's innocent. She doesn't need a
3 confused now, so to say the truth, I 3 lawyer. I have -- I have to finish. I
4 don't remember. 4 have to conclude this hearing. I have
5 JUDGE FERNANDEZ; That's okay if 5 to have it done. There is no way to get
6 you don't remember. 6 around it. If we can't do it today.
7 DR. SHIA (interpreter): But I I 7 then I have to keep calling you back
8 will never do anything illegal. 8 until we can do it. So what do you want
9 JUDGE FERNANDEZ; Okay. You're 9 me to do?
10 feeling very tense right now; right? 10 DR. SHIA (interpreter): What kind
11 DR. SHIA (interpreter); Yes, 11 of evidence do they have when they sue
12 because I -- I know I have never done 12 me?
13 anything illegal, so I don't know what 13 JUDGE FERNANDEZ; Well, I can have
14 I'm doing here. 14 a hearing, and they'll put on their
15 JUDGE FERNANDEZ; Okay. And you've 15 evidence and then you'll get to ask
16 told me a couple of times that you're 16 about the evidence. But the problem is.
17 feeling confused; correct? 17 you're telling me you're under pressure.
18 DR. SHIA (interpreter): Yeah, 18 you're confused, and you're stressed.
19 because I'm under enormous pressure now. 19 And I need to make sure that you are
20 It since I'm sued by them and I can't 20 well enough to continue with the
21 really concentrate myself. 21 hearing.
22 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Don't you think 22 Answer this question: Do you
Page 23 Page 25
1 it would be a good idea to have a lawyer 1 understand what I just told you?
2 here helping you? 2 DR. SHIA (interpreter); Yes.
3 DR. SHIA (interpreter): I'm still 3 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Answer this
4 kind of confused and so I can't really 4 question: Are you well enough to
5 position myself right. But I think I'm 5 continue with the hearing?
6 innocent without a lawyer. 6 DR. SHIA (interpreter); I'm under
7 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: All right. Well, 7 great pressure, but I would not do
8 what do you want me to do? 8 anything illegal.
9 DR. SHIA (interpreter): Now 9 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: That doesn't
10 they they sued me. 10 answer my question.
11 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Exactly. But 11 DR. SHIA (directly); I did not do
12 here's ray problem. You're telling me 12 anything illegal. Nothing to be afraid
13 you're confused, you're stressed, and 13 of.
14 you're under pressure. You're basically 14 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: I understood it

15 telling me you can't go forward. No, 15 when you said it in Mandarin, but that
16 no, no, it's time for you to listen. So 16 doesn't answer my question. I'm under a
17 I'm stuck with a hearing that I can't 17 lot of stress too, but I can conduct the
18 conclude because I have a respondent 18 hearing.
19 that's basically telling me that she 19 DR. SHIA (interpreter): I have
20 can't continue. 20 nothing to afraid to to be afraid of.
21 I need you guys to stop. 21 I had -- had -- I had not done anything
22 I've asked her if she thinks a 22 illegal.
T: (703) 837-0076 Toll Free (877) 837-0077 F; (703) 837-8118

http;//www.casamo.com Casamo and Associates transcriptcasamo.com
BANG--ER SHIA HEARING - VOLUME I
Page 26 Page 28
1 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Now, this is the 1 2 o'clock?
2 fifth time that I see you turn around 2 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: 2 o'clock.
3 and look behind you. What are you 3 DR. SHIA (interpreter): Can I say
4 looking at? 4 something?
5 DR. SHIA (interpreter): I can't 5 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Not yet, not yet.
6 believe they sued me. I would not do 6 I am going to keep calling you back
7 anything illegal. 7 until I make one of two determinations:
8 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: It's tough to get 8 That you can continue with the
9 a grip, isn't it? 9 hearing -- look at me or that you
10 DR. SHIA (interpreter): I don't 10 absolutely cannot continue with the
11 know what they had -- they have against 11 hearing. Do you understand?
12 me. 12 If you absolutely cannot continue
13 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: So you understand 13 with the hearing, I am going to ask you
14 why you're here. 14 to get a medical certificate that says
15 DR. SHIA (interpreter): I have to 15 that you are incapable of conducting
16 check ny documents. I'm under too much 16 your own defense at a hearing.
17 pressure. Anything in the past has been 17 That means you're going to have to
18 like a nightmare. 18 undergo a psychiatric evaluation at your
19 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: You told me you 19 expense to do so.
20 were here because PTO sued you; correct? 20 Do we understand each other?
21 DR. SHIA (interpreter): I have to 21 DR. SHIA (interpreter): Can I
22 look into the documents. 22 answer the question?
Page 27 Page 29
1 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Look at it. I'll 1 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Go ahead.

2 wait. 2 DR. SHIA (interpreter): There are
3 DR. SHIA (directly): Okay. 3 a lot of things that happened in the
4 DR. SHIA (interpreter): Okay, I 4 past, so that caused a lot of pressure
5 would do not do anything illegal. I 5 for me; however, I will never do
6 have nothing to be afraid of. 6 anything illegal.
7 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: So why are you 7 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Again, that
8 here? 8 wasn't a question. You have until
9 DR. SHIA (interpreter): I have to 9 2 o'clock.
10 look into it carefully because I'm under 10 DR. SHIA (interpreter): Okay.
11 enormous pressure. 11 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: We're in recess.
12 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Okay. The Court 12 (Recess taken.)
13 has determined that at this point the 13 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Ms. DeAtley, what
14 respondent cannot participate in her 14 exhibit number is the Coicplaint, please?
15 defense and unfortunately, at least at 15 What exhibit number is the Conplaint,
16 12:07, the hearing cannot go forward. 16 please? Translate, please.
17 We are going to take a recess until 17 MS. DeATLEY: We did not make that
18 2 o'clock in the afternoon. Let's call 18 an exhibit. Your Honor. Your Honor, may
19 it lunch and we will try again at 2. 19 I approach?
20 Dr. Shia, look at me. Go ahead and 20 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Is this mine?
21 interpret that, please. 21 Which one is it?
22 THE INTERPRETER: I'm sorry. 22 MS. DeATLEY: This is the July 22nd
T; (703) 837-0076 Toll Free (877) 837-0077 F; (703) 837-8118

http://www.casamo.com Casamo and Associates transcript@casamo.com
bang-er shia HEARING - VOLUME I
Page 50 Page 52
1 We anticipate that respondent will 1 translate for that?
2 argue that she was only acting as a 2 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Of course.

3 correspondent address and domestic 3 DR. SHIA (interpreter): I'm a
4 representative before the office. 4 patent representative.
5 Ms. Amos will explain that a 5 DR. SHIA (directly): Patent agent.
6 correspondent address solely receives 6 DR. SHIA (interpreter): Patent
7 correspondence from the office and 7 agent. We have applicant from Taiwan
8 forwards it to the applicant, that a 8 for trademark. In Taiwan, patent and
9 domestic representative receives service 9 the trades belong to the same office.
10 of process from within the agency and 10 It is the same practice in China
11 outside of the agency, and this is 11 too. Whenever people from Taiwan or
12 similar to a registered agent for a 12 China want to apply for U.S. trademark,
13 corporation. 13 they do it through the Patent and
14 The evidence will show that 14 Trademark Office here.
15 respondent acted beyond that authority 15 So as far as a trademark is
16 and actually engaged in unauthorized 16 concerned, mine is their correspondent
17 practice. 17 address. When they apply for a
18 You will hear evidence that the 18 trademark here, they do it through the
19 Commissioner for Trademarks excluded 19 trademark agent. They translate the
20 respondent from acting as a 20 application, and I'll file that from the
21 correspondent address and domestic 21 states.
22 representative for engaging in the 22 So I didn't do anything else except

Page 51 Page 53
1 unauthorized practice of trademark law 1 for transfer it from my address to the

2 before the office. Respondent disobeyed 2 office. So I'm the U.S. correspondent
3 this Exclusion Order and continued to 3 only. I didn't have any unauthorized
4 serve as the correspondent address for 4 practice of trademark law. They have
5 applicants before the office. 5 translation of their trademark
6 Respondent did this by changing her 6 application, and they have forms filled
7 mailing address from that originally in 7 out. Those forms are all online.
8 the application to another of her 8 I'm only a place for their
9 properties or those that she used, or to 9 correspondent just in case they lose
10 one of the applicant. 10 their application. So I didn't do
11 She also changed her email address 11 anything illegal. And ray address is
12 from one that she was using to another 12 posted on US PTO website. I'm the
13 that she uses, or to not changing it at 13 correspondent address in the
14 all. 14 United States. All the forms are
15 Summarily, respondent knowingly 15 provided online. The applicant's just
16 engaged in the unauthorized practice of 16 putting their individual information on
17 trademark law before the office. 17 those forms, so I didn't do anything
18 Thank you. 18 illegal. I'm only a correspondent
19 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Dr. Shia, do you 19 address just to prevent the -- prevent
20 want to make a statement? Now's the 20 the missing of those correspondence.
21 time. 21 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Thank you.
22 DR. SHIA (interpreter): Can I 22 Okay, Dr. Shia, what we're going to
T: (703) 837-0076 Toll Free (877) 837-0077 F; (703) 837-8118

BANG-ER SHIA HEARING - VOLUME I
Page 62 Page 64
1 as responses, change of correspondent addresses 1 can't recall.

2 electronically in the same manner. 2 Q. Hg. Amos, could you speak up a little
3 Q. Who nay access the TEAS systsa? 3 bit when you are answering the question?
4 A. Any member of the public and also 4 A. Yes. Sorry.
5 basically anyone who has access to the 5 Q. Are there any circumstances in which
6 www.uspto.gov website. 6 a person can sign the electronic signature of
7 Q. Why are electronic forms available 7 another to a document and file it with the
8 online to the public? 8 office?
9 A. One of our goals is to make the 9 A. No, absolutely not. And in fact, we
10 filing process easier, and we found that when 10 have --if you review our -- the rules in our
11 you do it electronically, the data is 11 Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure and
12 automatically uploaded in our internal systems, 12 actually the form help instructions, we
13 which cuts down on errors. So we're actually 13 specifically state that you must personally
14 actively trying to encourage electronic filing 14 sign the signature.
15 of forms. 15 Q. What is TSDR?
16 Q. Who are the primary users of the TEAS 16 A. TSDR -- and I might be butchering the
17 systsQ? 17 real name. The acronym I believe is the
18 A. It's members of the public. And it 18 Trademark Status and Document Retrieval System,
19 generally breaks down to roughly about 19 but in essence, it's our external database that
20 70 percent are applicants and users represented 20 is used to review the status of documents and
21 by attorneys and then 30 percent are pro se 21 also to actually view the record. So that
22 applicants. 22 would show the initial application, any
Page 63 Page 65
1 Q. Generally, who can file a trademark 1 correspondence coming in and any communication
2 application? 2 going out from the US PTO.
3 A. The generally, the owner of the 3 Q. Who can view the TSDR?
4 mark is the one who would file the trademark 4 A. TSDR is viewable by both our internal
5 application. In fact, that's who is identified 5 US PTO members and also by external members of
6 in the first field. 6 the public. Anyone who has access to the
7 Q. And do you have to be an attorney? 7 US PTO website can view TSDR.
8 A. You don't have to be an attorney; 8 Q. What is TICRS?
9 however, as I indicated, there are some 9 A. TICRS is our internal equivalent of
10 benefits to having an attorney. And about, you 10 TSDR. It's the database where you can view
11 know, roughly 70 percent of our customers do 11 records within the US PTO. And I believe it
12 use an attorney for the application process. 12 might also be available in our public search
13 Q. Are foreign attorneys permitted to 13 room but I'm not positive.
14 practice before the office in trademark 14 Q. You said internal. Who can view it?
15 matters? 15 A. All US PTO employees, but
16 A. There are very specific rules as to 16 specifically definitely trademark eirployees who
17 which foreign attorneys can practice. And as 17 have it installed as part of the trademark
18 of now, it's in very limited -- certain 18 baseline on the conputer systems.
19 Canadian attorneys are the only ones who are 19 Q. And what are the purposes of having
20 allowed to practice if they are representing 20 two different electronic syst^ns for viewing
21 someone in Canada. And there's a lot of very 21 trademark applications?
22 specific rules that off the top of ray head I 22 A. I'm not really sure why it was set up
T: (703) 837-0076 Toll Free (877) 837-0077 F: (703) 837-8118

BAN6-ER SHIA HEARING - VOLUME II
Page 181 Page 183
1 Office Action form, a Statement of Use, 1 forward, Ms. DeAtley, it's a fair
2 and a Change of Correspondence Address 2 question. Why don't you rise for me,
3 form. 3 please, okay? I don't want confusion on
4 BY DR. SHIA (INTERPRETER): 4 the record, so do you want to give me a
5 Q, Can you -- can I ask -- can I ask you 5 factual stipulation of what the answer
6 to read the part 37 CFR (c) (1) and (c) (2)? And 6 to the question is if you're not happy
7 did I do anything wrong? 7 with your witness's answer, or take the
8 A. I'll read the first 8 witness's answer.
9 JUDGE FERNftNDEZ: Go ahead and read 9 MS. DeATLEY: I'll take my
10 (c)(1) and (c)(2) into the record. 10 witness's answer. Your Honor.
11 A. 37 CFR 2.193(c) states: 11 JUDGE FERNANDEZ; All right.
12 "Requirements for electronic 12 BY DR. SHIA (interpreter):
13 signature: A person signing a 13 Q. So that did you mean that Person A
14 document electronically must: (1) 14 cannot file to US PTO using the other's
15 personally enter any combination of 15 computer?
16 letters, numbers, spaces and/or 16 A. Oh, what this rule is stating is that
17 punctuation marks that he or she has 17 the person who is signing must personally enter
18 adopted as a signature placed between 18 their signature between two forward slashes at
19 two forward slash symbols in the 19 a particular computer.
20 signature block on the electronic 20 Q. One can have several or many
21 submission or, (2) sign the verified 21 computers. Do you mean that the signatory
22 statement using some other form of 22 person should be the applicant himself?
Page 184
Page 182
1 electronic signature specified by the 1 A. I apologize, what was the last part?
2 Director." 2 Do I mean the what?
3 THE INTERPRETER: Need me to 3 Q. The signatory person should be the

4 translate that? 4 applicant itself, himself?
5 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: I need you to 5 A. Well, as indicated by 37 CFR
6 translate everything. 6 2.193(e)(1), to the extent we're referring to
7 I'm going to phrase this next 7 an initial application, it's -- the rule states
8 question because otherwise, we will be 8 that it must be signed by the owner or someone
9 here all afternoon. I need to you tell 9 who's authorized to act on behalf of the owner,
10 us what the factual predicate is of the 10 and that includes a person with -- so it's the
11 violations addressed by PTO under 37 CFR 11 owner or someone with legal authority to bind
12 2.193(c). Do your best. 12 the owner, or a person with firsthand knowledge
13 THE WITNESS; Yeah. In this 13 of the facts, or an attorney. 37 CFR
14 particular case, what is being alleged 14 2.193(c)(1) is describing that the signature
15 here is that the person who entered this 15 must be personally entered.
16 signature using the Direct Signature 16 Q. I'm kind of confused here. You
17 method, the name of the person, and then 17 mentioned a person with firsthand knowledge, a
18 when the IP address locater was used, 18 lawyer, or a person with legal authority.
19 the IP address and on the XML did not 19 question is whether people of that kind can
20 correlate with the same location as 20 sign this in place of the applicant, the owner.
21 where the signatory was located. 21 A. "Hie rule is that either the owner
22 JUDGE FERNANDEZ; Before we go 22 must sign or a person who is properly
T: (703) 837-0076 Toll Free (877) 837-0077 F; (703) 837-8118

http://www.casamo.com Casamo and Associates transcriptOcasamo.com
BANG-ER SHIA HEARING - VOLUME II
Page 189 Page 191
1 later on, Dr. Shia. 1 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Okay, I need to

2 BY DR. SHIA (INTERPRETER): 2 know what the question is.
3 Q. According to 37 CPR 2.193(c)(2), the 3 BY DR. SHIA (INTERPRETER):
4 signature can be given using the other methods 4 Q. So I want to know before the change
5 specified by the Director; right? 5 of the law, you said your law states that a
6 A. Yes, that is it does say that the 6 person legally bound is authorized to sign.
7 signed and verified statement, en^hasis on the 7 And I'm a person legally bound with the owner.
8 word "verified," can be used using some other 8 Uy form submitted to you states that Dr. Shia
9 form of electronic signature specified by the 9 legally bound with the a^^licant because I also
10 Director. 10 told the applicant that we should follow the
11 Q. question is: Did the Director of 11 rule.
12 US pro ever give us this form? 12 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Maybe it's

13 A. Give us? I apologize, give us what 13 getting lost in the translation, but I'm
14 form? 14 not understanding the question. This
15 JUDGE FERNMTOEZ: This form. 15 even happens when everything is in
16 THE WITNESS: Which form are we 16 English. Sometimes what we need to do
17 talking about? 17 is stop and start again. So let's just
18 BY DR. SHIA (interpreter): 18 erase everything that happened for the
19 Q. So it is said --it says that without 19 last 20 seconds. Take a moment. Gather
20 direct signature, you have to sign the verified 20 your thoughts before you speak.
21 statement and you have other forms of signature 21 Rephrase your question in your mind and
22 specified by the Director. So if the US PTO 22 then state it.
Page 190 Page 192
1 Director does not give us the so-called other 1 BY DR. SHIA (interpreter):
2 forms, does it mean that any form of signature 2 Q. The old rule says any person legally
3 could can be accepted? 3 bound with the applicant can sign or to make
4 A. We have the form the our 4 decision for the applicant. I don't rsnember
5 electronic filing forms specify the appropriate 5 exactly. On January 23, 2012, US PTO office
6 forms for signature. You can as indicated 6 sent me a letter asking me to reply in 14 days
7 in the rule, you can sign directly. TEAS 7 to prove icy innocence, and I responded by
8 allows you to do that in two methods. You can 8 sending all the authorization documents from
9 either sign it yourself or send it to someone 9 applicant to US PTO.
10 else to enter your signature personally between 10 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Okay, I think I
11 two forward slashes, or you can attach a 11 understand the question. And, Dr. Shia,
12 handwritten signature. It's the same two 12 I need you to listen to me, and you tell
13 forms, we just allow you to send it to a third 13 me if the way I'm phrasing the question
14 party for signature. 14 is the way you want to say it, okay?
15 Q> I will leave that to the judge. What 15 I'm going to try to phrase it in
16 I meant is (c)(1) and (c)(2), they are equally 16 way that she can answer it.
17 legal. If the PTO Director didn't give me the 17 If Dr. Shia establishes that she
18 other forms, so you can -- you can't say that I 18 had legal authority to bind her clients,
19 made a mistake for (c)(1). Also, (c)(1), the 19 then PTO's case falls apart, doesn't it?
20 requirements for (c) (1) is to personally sign 20 THE WITNESS: The rule requires a
21 it; however, the term "a person with firsthand 21 person with legal authority to sign, so
22 knowledge" was a newly added term. 22 to the extent that someone with legal
T; (703) 837-0076 Toll Free (877) 837-0077 F: (703) 837-8118

Page 193 Page 195
1 authority signed the documents, there 1 have to look for each particular case at
2 would 2 the entity applying for the trademark.
3 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: So the answer to 3 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Let's let him
4 iny question is yes? Say it. 4 translate.
5 THE WITNESS: Yes. 5 Okay, I'm sorry. We'd have to look

6 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Okay. Now I'm 6 at each case to the entity applying for
7 going to ask you another couple of 7 the mark?
8 questions and it's for ray edification 8 THE WITNESS: And determine the
9 here. Let's take a closer look at 9 legal entity type, and then look at the
10 37 CFR 2.193(e)(1)(i), because this is 10 rules applicable to that entity type to
11 the sort of thing that I look at and 11 make a determination as whether that
12 makes me insane: "A person with legal 12 person as it relates to that particular
13 authority to bind the owner, e.g." -- 13 entity type has legal authority to bind.
14 and we all know what "e.g." means. It 14 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: I'm sorry, but I
15 means "for exaitple" --a corporate 15 dropped the exhibit binder so I don't
16 officer or general partner of a 16 know what exhibit we're on anymore.
17 partnership." Go on. 17 THE WITNESS; X.
18 It's ray turn. Judges love that 18 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Go on.
19 sort of language and hate it at the same 19 Except it's not as clean as all
20 time, because the minute we see "e.g.," 20 that, is it? It doesn't say "a
21 we know it means that it's an exairple, 21 regulatory officer within a
22 but it can be other things. 22 corporation," doesn't say "regulatory
Page 194 Page 196
1 THE WITNESS: Correct. 1 officer within the legal structure." It

2 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Now, before I 2 says "a person with legal authority to
3 even go to ii and iii, why can't I make 3 bind." I can authorize an agent to bind
4 a determination that a domestic 4 me. It doesn't have to be somebody
5 representative -- am I using the term 5 within the corporate structure, does it?
6 correctly? 6 THE WITNESS: No.
7 IHE WITNESS: Yes. 7 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: So why again

8 JUDGE FERNANDEZ; -- isn't somebody 8 can't I authorize a domestic
9 who can legally bind -- 9 representative to do it?
10 THE WITNESS: Because -- 10 THE WITNESS: I don't know the
11 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: an owner? My 11 answer.
12 question 12 DR. SHIA (interpreter); Actually,

13 THE WITNESS: Because you don't 13 in many forms we submitted to US PTO, we
14 have or I don't have the evidence in 14 specifically had this wording copied
15 the record as to whether or not the 15 from this law into our forms, "with
16 domestic representative is also some 16 legal authority to bind the owner."
17 sort of corporate officer for each of 17 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: That's argument.
18 these conpanies. 18 Dr. Shia. And I swear I'm going to let
19 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Exactly. But the 19 you talk to me about that later. Let's
20 regulation says "e.g.," it doesn't say 20 concentrate on questions right now. I
21 "i.e." 21 have a couple more.
22 THE WITNESS: Correct. So we would 22 When PTO takes the information.
T: (703) 837-0076 Toll Free (877) 837-0077 F: (703) 837-8118

BAN6-ER SHIA
HEARING - VOLUME II
Page 201 Page 203
1 BY DR. SHIA (INTERPRETER): 1 not con^lete?

2 Q. I mean whether I'm a legal bound 2 MS. DeATLEY: Yes, sir.
3 person under (c) (1) as well as under (c) (2). 3 JUDGE FKKNANDEZ: I'm going to go
4 A. The question is whether you're a 4 ahead and admit Respondent's Exhibit X
5 legal person? 5 into evidence with the notation that it
6 Q. Okay, I was accused today, but I -- 6 is not conplete. I know how to find the
7 I'm supposed to be protected under (c) (1) and 7 rest of it if I need to. Don't worry.
8 (c)(2) because under (c)(1), I'm a person with 8 I know it's not coinplete. And when I
9 the legal authority. Under (c) (2), you never 9 refer to the regulation, you have ray
10 provided other forms for me to submit, so 10 word that I will use the conplete one.
11 that's why I gave the wording in ny submission 11 MS. DeATLEY: Thank you. Your
12 with "with legal authority to bind the owner." 12 Honor.
13 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Okay, we 13 (Respondent's Exhibit X was received and

14 understand what you're saying. She's 14 admitted into evidence.)
15 not in a position to answer that 15 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Do you want to
16 statement, but we understand what you're 16 amend your objection?
17 saying. 17 MS. DeATLEY: Your Honor, our
18 DR. SHIA (interpreter); I want to 18 objection is also that it's not a proper
19 introduce Exhibit P2. 19 exhibit, as it's a federal regulation
20 judge FERNANDEZ; Before we move 20 and it shouldn't be evidence. But we
21 off of Exhibit X, do you want to put 21 ask that you would take judicial notice
22 Exhibit X into evidence? Because just 22 of it.
Page 202 Page 204
1 because you mention it does not mean 1 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: And that's
2 it's in evidence. 2 absolutely correct. I is not a proper
3 DR. SHIA (interpreter): Yes, yes. 3 exhibit because it is a regulation, and
4 I'm not a lawyer, so I don't understand 4 I can take judicial notice of it, but
5 the procedure, but I want to take it. 5 I'm going to admit it anyway because we
6 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: That's why I'm 6 are dealing with a pro se. So I'm going
7 helping you. We're not there yet. Do 7 to let the exhibit into evidence anyway.
8 you have any objection? 8 Before we go forward to Exhibit P,
9 MS. DeATLEY: Which one are we 9 let's go back to N4 and N5. Dr. Shia,
10 talking about? 10 did you want to try to introduce N4 and
11 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Exhibit X is just 11 N5 into evidence?
12 a copy of 37 CFR 2.193. 12 DR. SHIA (interpreter): Yes.
13 MS. DeATLEY: Your Honor, we 13 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Same objections?
14 object, as it is not a conplete copy of 14 MS. DeATLEY: We don't object to
15 2.193. 15 this. Your Honor.
16 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: What's missing? 16 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Hearing no
17 MS. DeATLEY: I'm sorry? 17 objection, I'll admit Exhibits N4 and N5
18 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: What's missing? 18 into evidence.
19 MS. DeATLEY: The second part of 19 (Exhibit No. N4 was received and admitted
20 2.193(2) and 2.193(3). And, wait, 4, 5, 20 into evidence.)
21 6, 7, 8, 9. 21 (Exhibit No. N5 was received and admitted
22 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Okay. So it's 22 into evidence.)
T: (703) 837-0076 Toll Free (877) 837-0077 F; (703) 837-8118

BANG-ER SHIA
HEARING - VOLUME II
Page 213 Page 215
1 downloading it because you want to modify it at 1 A. The yes, that's correct. You
2 a later point. So yes, in that scenario, the 2 signed. The form does have a Help section that
3 signature information is wiped out and you must 3 explains the three different signature
4 personally sign it again. 4 approaches and how they're intended to be used.
5 Q. So a foreign applicant from a foreign 5 That's up above this. That would be on the
6 country entered all the data into the system, 6 verification I can't remember what the
7 then downloaded into a portable file, then send 7 section of the form's called without the form.
8 the file to a domestic representative, then the 8 Signature Information page. And if you click
9 domestic representative sent it to -- into the 9 on those radio buttons, you'll get information
10 system again, so at this point, the original 10 on how each signature approach -- also --I'm
11 signature of the applicant will not be there. 11 sorry.
12 A. Correct. 12
That's how the form was Q. No, it doesn't state clearly here.
13 designed. To the extent you wanted to have the 13 I see the small print here. If you
14 foreign signature, some other -- the authorized 14 are atteo^ting to file during that specific
15 signatory sign, you should use the Email Text 15 period, you must use either --I'm not sure
16 Form to Second Party approach or the 16 that's the one. Dr. Shia, can you tell me
17 Handwritten Signature approach where you can 17 where did you read where -- where the part --
18 upload it. The -- the form's designed so that 18 DR. SHIA (directly); Warning;
19 the person who's saving the OBJ file is going 19 "Warning; Click on the
20 to be the one who will upload the data and then 20 Pay/Submit button only if you are now
21 enter the signature, hit the Pay/Submit button. 21 entirely prepared to conplete a
22 Q. You missed one point. When a foreign 22 Pay/Submit process. After clicking
Page 214 Page 216
1 applicant downloads the data into a portable 1 the button, you cannot return to the
2 file and send that send that file to 2 form. If you will, you will have left
3 dcmiestic representative, then domestic 3 the TEAS site entirely."
4 representative send it into the US PTO system 4 THE INTERPRETER; Okay, here is
5 again, the signature, the original signature of 5 what Dr. Shia reads that's under step 5,
6 the applicant is to be erased 6 first warning;
7 A. Yes, that's correct. 7 "Click on the Pay/Submit button
8 Q. - by the US PTO? 8 only if you are now entirely prepared
9 A. That's the way the form was designed. 9 to complete the Pay/Submit process.
10 Again, if you want to have a third party sign 10 After clicking the button, you cannot
11 the form, you either use the Email Signature to 11 return to the form, since you will
12 Second Party approach or you use the 12 have left the TEAS site entirely."
13 Handwritten approach. The Direct Signature is 13 BY DR. SHIA (interpreter);
14 for the person filling out the form to 14 Q. I'm a domestic representative. The
15 personally sign the data there and then retain 15 applicant entered the data and download it to a
16 a copy. 16 file and send that file to me. I upload it
17 Q. You never esqplained that here. 17 into your system and check whether there is any
18 A. Explained it? 18 error, but you erased his signature.
19 JUDGE FERNANDEZ; Explained where? 19 A. Correct. If you use the Sign
20 BY DR. SHIA (INTERPRETER): 20 Directly method, the form requires you to
21 Q. You tell -- you tell us we can 21 resubmit a signature after you iq)load the data
22 download portable data, and people signed. 22 again because the presunption is that you're
T: (703) 837-0076 Toll Free (877) 837-0077 F: (703) 837-8118

BANG--ER SHIA HEARING - VOLUME I I
Page 217 Page 219
1 saving it because you might be making a tweak 1 sign your own name. That's what we're
2 so we require you to review the information and 2 arguing about.
3 then Sign Directly, date it again before you 3 Now, I understand that your
4 click the Pay/Submit. 4 position is -- look, I'm not taking a
5 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Here is the 5 side yet. I haven't decided anything.
6 fundamental disagreement. You're saying 6 I'm just trying to grab the entire
7 that what you did was right and they're 7 argument so that everybody understands
8 saying that what you did was wrong. 8 what we're talking about.
9 There's no disagreement about what you 9 And what I'm hearing so far is --
10 did. Do you understand? There's no 10 what I'm hearing so far is this -- and
11 argument about what happened. The 11 you're pointing at the document where it
12 argument about whether the argument 12 says what the explanation is, or part of
13 that exists is about whether or not it 13 the explanation, doesn't say that. Am I
14 was proper, not about whether or not it 14 wrong?
15 happened. 15 DR. SHIA (interpreter): Because it
16 So if I understand what you're 16 gives the inpression for the foreign
17 saying, if I understand what you're 17 applicants that the portable data
18 trying to tell us is, PTO, look, I got 18 includes everything.
19 this document from my client and I 19 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Right. Now, what
20 uploaded it. And when I uploaded it, 20 Ms. Amos I hear telling you is we have
21 your testimony removed the signature so 21 rules and regulations in the book online
22 I had to sign it, because otherwise, 22 that tell you who can sign what, and
Page 21B Page 220
1 your system wouldn't take it. And PTO 1 how. And there are links that you can
2 is saying Dr. Shia, you chose the wrong 2 click on these forms that tell you who
3 way of doing it. 3 can sign what, and how. And what she
4 If you were -- it's my turn. If 4 hasn't said but I'm sure somebody will
5 you were going to do that, you needed 5 say eventually, so I'll say it, is if
6 if you were going to upload that 6 you have a question, I'm sure there's a
7 document, you needed to do it in a 7 help line you can call.
8 different way so that your client did 8 THE WITNESS: Thank you. Email.
9 the signature, because we think you were 9 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Or email. Where
10 not an authorized representative to sign 10 that'll tell you who can sign what, and
11 that. 11 how, and that they also expect people
12 Did I screw something up on that? 12 will make mistakes. And that's why we
13 Now I think I've really sinplified 13 are here.
14 things, right? It's okay. You can talk 14 DR. SHIA (directly): As an
15 to me. 15 equivalent option for -- as a equivalent
16 MS. MENDEL: Your Honor, the I'm 16 option for
17 sorry, Your Honor, the point is even if 17 DR. SHIA (interpreter): Number 1,
18 she did it some other way, she could 18 I'm a legally bound person. Number 2
19 never sign someone else's name. 19 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Your position is
20 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: I'm with you, I'm 20 that you are -- let's make sure that we
21 with you. You couldn't sign somebody 21 get the translation correct, okay? That
22 else's name for them; you could only 22 you are -- I want to use the language of
T; (703) 837-0076 Toll Free (877) 837-0077 F; (703) 837-8118

BANG-ER SHIA
HEARING - VOLUME II
Page 221 Page 223
1 the regulation because we're losing 1 I'm I'm a -- I'm the Electronic
2 stuff in the translation -- "a person 2 Filing Administrator so all I do is
3 with legal authority to bind." Okay? 3 administer our filing system. To the
4 Right? That's what you mean? Because 4 extent that you have a legal question
5 when I hear "legally bound," that to me 5 that you email into our TEAS mailbox or
6 doesn't mean much. I'm interpreting 6 you call our 1-800 number with a
7 what you're saying as a person with 7 question, then it's sent over to me or
8 legal authority to bind. That's what 8 ray staff for answering.
9 you mean, right? 9 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: What she just
10 DR. SHIA (interpreter): Yes. 10 said was, "I don't know."
11 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Okay. So that's 11 THE WITNESS: Right.
12 your position. I get that. Now, what 12 DR. SHIA (interpreter): My other
13 other questions do you have for 13 question is for the counsel of the other
14 Ms. Amos? 14 party.
15 BY DR. SHIA (INTERPRETER): 15 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Counsel's not
16 Q. name, as a domestic 16 there yet so we're not going to be
17 representative, has been on US PTO website ever 17 dealing with that just yet.
18 since 2005. Why didn't you accuse me of 18 BY DR. SHIA (INTERPRETER):
19 anything until 2012? 19 Q. Then ny question is why there is no
20 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Before she 20 materials about things happened in 2005 or 2006
21 answers that question, let me ask you a 21 in the coiq>laint file?
22 question. Is it your position that 22 A. I can't answer that because that's
Page 222 Page 224
1 you've been doing this same thing since 1 not within the scope of what I do or what I
2 2005? 2 know.
3 Let's let him translate that much 3 Q. I have more questions. The question
4 if he can. 4 is whether we can find all the foims from
5 DR. SHIA (interpreter): Yes, yes. 5 US PTO website.
6 Ever since 2005 or from the early 2006, 6 A. All of our electronic forms are
7 I have been a domestic representative 7 available at www.uspto.gov/trademarks.
8 for patents applicants and also, the 8 Q. That's not ny question. Hy question
9 clients give me their trademark 9 is whether all the ccanmunications with US PTO
10 applications and they -- they give me 10 from us can be located on US PTO w^site.
11 the files. I upload it to US PTO system 11 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: I'm not sure I
12 and check errors, because the conputers 12 understand what you're asking.
13 may be unconpatible with each other. 13 BY DR. SHIA (interpreter):
14 That's what I'm I have been doing. 14 Q. On January 23, 2012 I received a
15 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Okay. I know 15 letter from US PTO and telling me that I
16 what your answer is, but why don't you 16 violated -- I had unauthorized practice of U.S.
17 go ahead and give it. 17 tradenark law. Th^ want me to provide
18 THE WITNESS: What's the question? 18 evidences to prove ny innocence within 14 days.
19 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: The question was: 19 I using -- using certified mall, I provided
20 Why didn't you tell me I was doing this 20 them with all the authorization letters.
21 wrong before? 21 documents, and other document other
22 THE WITNESS: But I don't think 22 materials to US PTO to prove ny innocence. I
T; (703) 837-0076 Toll Free (877) 837-0077 F: (703) 837-8118

http: //\mvt. casamo. com Casamo and Associates transcriptcasamo.com
Page 229 Page 231
1 because this is duplicative of Joint 1 answer.
2 Number 3. 2 DR. SHIA (interpreter): I want the

3 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Joint 3 isn't in. 3 Court to admit Dl, D2, D3 as evidence.
4 MS. DeATLEY: Okay, thanks. 4 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: It's in already.
5 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: So I will put Dl, 5 DR. SHIA (interpreter): And
6 2, and 3 into evidence. It's ordered. 6 Exhibit R too.
7 (Exhibit No. Dl - D3 were received and 7 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: It' s in already.

8 admitted into evidence.) 8 DR. SHIA (interpreter): And HI,
9 DR. SHIA (interpreter); I want to 9 and H2. HI shows that I sent mail
10 ask a question from the witness. 10 through U.S. Post Office to Trademark
11 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Sure. 11 Office on March -- Trademark Petition
12 BY DR. SHIA (interpreter): 12 Office on March 11, 2013.
13 Q. Exhibit Dl, D2, and D3, why can't I 13 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Actually, it
14 locate it from Exhibit R, the from this page 14 shows it on March 12, 2013.
15 on Exhibit R? 15 DR. SHIA (interpreter): Yes, it is
16 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: I'm lost. I need 16 March 12. H2 shows that the mail
17 a clarification. I think she wants you 17 arrives at US PTO on March 15, 2013.
18 to look at Exhibit R. 18 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Any objection?
19 THE WITNESS: Okay. 19 MS. DeATLEY: No, objection.
20 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Do you know what 20 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: So ordered. HI
21 Exhibit R is? 21 and H2 are received in evidence.
22 THE WITNESS: Yes. 22 (Exhibit Nos. HI - H2 were received and
Page 230 Page 232
1 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: What is it? 1 admitted into evidence.)

2 THE WITNESS; Exhibit R is a 2 BY DR. SHIA (INTERPRETER):
3 screenshot from our Trademark Status and 3 Q. However, I cannot find from the
4 Document Retrieval System. This is 4 portal shown on Exhibit R loy response, any
5 where you can enter a serial number, 5 documents of isy response.
6 registration number, and view the status 6 A. Can I am I the Trademark Status
7 of a particular file. 7 and Document Retrieval System is set ixg to
a JUDGE FERNANDEZ: And I think now I 8 handle documents relating to specific
9 understand the question. Go on. 9 application that's been filed, all subsequent
10 Dr. Shia, I think your question is: 10 documents, so, for exanple, the response, the
11 Why can't I retrieve the letter 11 letter sent out with Office Action, any
12 identified by Dl, 2, and 3 through the 12 Statement of Use, this document does not fall
13 portal that is replicated in Exhibit R? 13 into that category. And it's a of a
14 THE WITNESS: And again, this is 14 document type that I personally do not know how
15 not a trademark application. 15 we file it, track it, within the US PTO.
16 Exhibit Dl, D2 and D3 is not a trademark 16 JTJDGE FERNANDEZ: The answers are
17 initial application filing or a 17 getting much more succinct.
18 response. Those are the types of 18 THE WITNESS: I'm trying.
19 documents this appears to be 19 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Go ahead.
20 different type of matter, and I don't 20 Dr. Shia, what Ms. Amos is trying
21 have any knowledge over how we handle 21 to tell you is that the system is set up
22 them or where they're kept so I can't 22 to keep track of the doomients that have
T: (703) 837-0076 Toll Free (877) 837-0077 F: (703) 837-8118

http: //vniuw. casamo. com Casamo and Associates transcriptcasamo.com
BANG--ER SHIA
HEARING - VOLUME II
Page 233 Page 235
1 to do with the mark. 1 Attorney John Broderick said that I

2 Look at me. When they asked you 2 violated the attorney-client term by
3 for information, that had to deal with 3 giving me those documents. But PTO want
4 you and with the disciplinary matters 4 me to prove my innocence. Then why did
5 that they were concerned about. Those 5 you -- you say that I violated
6 are part, I suspect, of a separate 6 attorney-client privilege with this.
7 record system within US PTO. And what 7 with these documents?
8 Ms. Amos is telling you is that those 8 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: I don't think
9 aren't kept with the records for the 9 anybody's making that allegation now, so
10 individual mark. 10 I don't think you have to worry about
11 Now, by my count, she's told you 11 that.
12 this with regard to at least four 12 DR. SHIA (interpreter): This is

13 different documents on four different 13 really a nightmare.
14 occasions, but the answer's always the 14 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: I can imagine.
15 same. She's not hiding the ball. Do 15 It's very difficult. So why don't we do
16 you understand? 16 this. It's 2:52. Let's reconvene at
17 DR. SHIA (interpreter): I want -- 17 3:20, all right? We are in recess.

18 I want 18 (Recess taken.)
19 JUDGE FEKNANDEZ: I need you to 19 JUDGE FERNANDEZ; So exactly what
20 answer ray question. Do you understand? 20 happens behind that door, right? No one
21 DR. SHIA (interpreter): I'm not 21 knows.
22 quite clear. Ever since I sent in the 22 Okay, Dr. Shia, do you have any
Page 234 Page 236
1 mail, I have been waiting for response 1 more questions?

2 from PTO and I thought PTO thought I'm 2 DR. SHIA (interpreter): Yes.
3 innocent. 3 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Please continue.
4 JUDGE FERNANDEZ; I got to tell 4 DR. SHIA (interpreter); I want the
5 you, if PTO thought you were innocent. 5 Court to admit Ql, Q2, Q3, and Q4 as
6 you wouldn't be here. 6 evidence.
7 DR. SHIA (interpreter): The at 7 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Any objection?
8 the end of 2013, I received a letter for 8 MS. DeATLEY: No, Your Honor.
9 the first case from a lawyer named John 9 JUDGE FERNANDEZ; So ordered.
10 from OED, disciplinary action, PTO sent 10 (Esdiibit Nos. Ql - Q4 were received and
11 him all the documents I sent to PTO to 11 admitted into evidence.)
12 prove my innocence, and but he 12 DR. SHIA (interpreter); I want to
13 thought that I was I -- I was wrong. 13 confirm whether HI and H2 have been
14 I'm I was pretty much shocked, 14 admitted.
15 because the documents I sent to PTO, 15 JUDGE FERNANDEZ; Yes, they have.
16 then the OED received them and OED used 16 DR. SHIA (interpreter); Ql was
17 those documents to prove that I did 17 filed by a foreign attorney, originated
18 things wrong. 18 from Xiamen patent patent and
19 All those forms are from ray 19 trademark ag. And Q2 shows that it is
20 clients, saying that they ask me to 20 submitted by Xiamen patent and trademark
21 represent them to become a person with 21 ag to US PTO. I think "ag" is the
22 legal authority to bind the owner. 22 shortened form for agent. Q3 and Q4 are
T; (703) 837-0076 Toll Free (877) 837-0077 F: (703) 837-8118

BANG-ER SHIA HEARING - VOLUME I I
Page 241 Page 243

1 DR. SHIA (interpreter): Exhibit W4 1 know what forms were electronically accepted or
2 and W6 were all admitted by US PTO. 2 were not.
3 They should be included. They should be 3 Q. Those forms that OED counsel used to
4 included in the list that you sent me on 4 discipline me.
5 January 23, 2012. There are also many 5 A. Right. I'm not part of the OED suit.
6 other documents 6 I'm our Trademark Electronic implication System
7 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Dr. Shia, I'm 7 Administrator so I'm here to answer questions,
8 Still waiting for a question. 8 if you have any, about the filing process. And
9 BY DR. SHIA (interpreter): 9 I also used to be an examining attorney so I
10 Q. Why we used your w^site to download 10 can tell you which documents we have in TSDR
11 the forms and you still accuse me of violating 11 and questions like that, but I don't handle OED
12 the laws? 12 matters.
13 A. Can I answer? Again, I thinlc the 13 DR. SHIA (interpreter); What I
14 issue at hand is not whether the -- used our 14 mean is that I submitted those forms.
15 electronic forms but whether the appropriate 15 You accepted. If I did anything wrong,
16 party signed the document or to the extent that 16 you should not have accepted those
17 you couldn't get the appropriate whether you 17 forms. Then you accepted all the forms
18 were able to submit the form unsigned, which is 18 I submitted, then seven years later, you
19 an option, unless you're using the TEAS Plus 19 came back and say I did something wrong.
20 form, which does require a signature at the 20 Today on this list, if there are
21 at the time of filing. 21 only one or two trademarks that you said
22 Q. These were signed by themselves, and 22 I did wrong, I can accept. I can
Page 242 Page 244
1 we attached them in our files. Or they sent me 1 correct them immediately. However,
2 the E file, portable E file downloaded and I 2 there are so many here, I don't know why
3 just uploaded those files. The E signature of 3 I'm here today. Thank you.
4 theirs were eliminated. That's not really ly 4 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Any redirect?
5 fault. I have no idea whatever why I'm here 5 MS. DeATLEY: Yes, Your Honor.
6 today. You accuse me big trouble, so I don't 6 EXAMINATION
7 know what 1 did wrong. You have accepted all 7 BY MS. DeATLEY;
8 the forms we submitted. 8 Q* I just have a few follow-vqp
9 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Dr. Shia, I need 9 questions, Hs. Amos. I'll start with an easy
10 you to listen very carefully to me. If 10 one.
11 you don't from this point forward ask 11 If someone has a question when they
12 the witnesses -- the witness new 12 are coipleting a trademark application, who can
13 questions, I'm going to have her step 13 they call?
14 down. It is 3:40 in the afternoon and 14 A. They can either they can call --
15 she's had enough. 15 we have a Trademark Assistance Center, TAC, set
16 DR. SHIA (interpreter): I have one 16 up where they can dial a 1-800 number and speak
17 question. 17 with a specialist, or they can email TEAS at
18 BY DR. SHIA (interpreter); 18 uspto.gov. We have a dedicated mailbox and
19 Q. All the forms I submitted to you, you 19 respond to inquiries as they come into our
20 accepted; right? 20 mailbox.
21 A. I can't answer that question because 21 Q. There were a lot of questions about
22 I don't have the record before me so I don't 22 37 CFR Section 2.193. Can someone sign someone
T; (703) 837-0076 Toll Free (877) 837-0077 F: (703) 837-8118

BANG -ER SHIA HEARING - VOLUME I I
Page 249 Page 251

1 want to waste time, I just want to 1 know what to do.
2 concentrate on Ul. It is sent to me on 2 A. Is the question whether we have
3 May -- 3 assistance available as to who -- what is it?
4 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Dr. Shia, before 4 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: The question is
5 we go any further, you remember what I 5 if I sent you this information, there
6 said to you before, right? Do you have 6 was something wrong with it, why did you
7 any questions for this witness? 7 use it to hurt me rather than to tell me
8 EXAMINATION 8 the right thing to do?
9 BY DR. SHIA (INTERPRETER): 9 THE WITNESS: And again, that's
10 Q. question is that I don't 10 just not something that, one, I have
11 understand that you accepted the documents, the 11 knowledge on. It's outside of the scope
12 application, and you sent me the letter, Office 12 of what I do at the agency. And two, we
13 of Action, and you called me and I passed those 13 can't comment on the validity of marks
14 information to xsy client, and you said that I 14 to the extent this is turned into a
15 violated the law. 15 registration.
16 A. Iftifortunately, US PTO guidelines 16 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: She's telling you
17 prohibit me to comment on what went into -- and 17 she can't know, and if she did know, she
18 I don't have any Imowledge of what went into 18 wouldn't tell you.
19 the making the decision-making process or 19 THE WITNESS: I'm not allowed
20 whatnot. So we're not allowed to comment on 20 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: The bottom line
21 the validity of a trademark registration. I 21 is in her job, she doesn't know the
22 just don't know. This is beyond the scope of 22 answer to your question.
Page 250 Page 252
1 what I do at the office. 1 But she's also told you earlier,
2 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: That's a 2 Dr. Shia, that there are lots of ways to
3 different answer than you were giving 3 get help from the agency if you have a
4 before. Sounds to me like you were 4 question with regard to a filing.
5 coached. 5 I think your question, though, is
6 THE WITNESS; No. I've created a 6 interesting. If you know that I'm
7 form paragraph for Trademark Assistance 7 turning in information incorrectly, why
8 Center with this particular answer so 8 didn't you correct it? And that
9 that they don't answer the questions 9 question hasn't been answered.
10 regarding the legal -- we can't talk 10 Now honestly, sitting here, you
11 about why examiners made particular 11 know, I don't make decisions on the
12 decisions. I promise it. 12 snap, so I have to think about what
13 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: I believe you, I 13 impact, if any, that has on your case.
14 believe you. I'm with you. Got it. 14 I don't know what it gets you; I don't
15 BY DR. SHIA (INTERPRETER); 15 know what it doesn't get you. But I do
16 Q. No, the issue is your reviewing 16 think it's interesting that they
17 lawyer told my client to designate a domnstic 17 received things and don't let you know
18 representative like me, then the documents from 18 that there are things wrong with them,
19 loy clients were all submitted to your office 19 or at least it hasn't been told to me
20 and you accepted them. However, these 20 what happens. Maybe they'll tell us
21 documents became evidences for iiy crime. Then 21 later. But I do know that as a
22 you should give me answers, because I didn't 22 practitioner, you have a responsibility
T: (703) 837-0076 Toll Free (877) 837-0077 F; (703) 837-8118

Page 26S Page 267
1 that issue 1 think has been addressed 1 that if there's a question about the
2 already in the pleadings. 2 authenticity of these stamps, we can
3 DR. SHIA (interpreter); That's not 3 bring the actual stamps in.
4 your answer at first. At first, you 4 Now, to the extent that we can
5 said that there was no difference 5 bring them both in at the same time.
6 between those two stamps. 6 they truly are in use in business in
7 MS. MENDEL: Okay, this again has 7 OED. And, as we know, stamps with dates
8 been briefed. Your Honor. 8 are very inportant in OED for various
9 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: It's okay. I 9 reasons. So therefore, we can bring
10 don't remember the brief. 10 them in one at a time and they can be
11 MS. MENDEL: Okay. Well, what 11 presented to you.
12 Ms. DeAtley said was that stamps what 12 JUDGE FERNANDEZ; Look, I'm not the
13 was your ~ 13 slightest bit inclined at the moment to
14 MS. DeATLEY: I don't know, but 14 have an attorney testify about this.
15 basically paraphrasing, they're not 15 but and I'm virtually certain that an
16 they're not -- I don't know. 16 attorney did not statrp these documents.
17 MS. MENDEL: Okay, she can't 17 I am somewhat intrigued by what
18 remember what she said. 18 appears to be an irregularity in the way
19 MS. DeATLEY: Very little 19 a document was handled or documents were
20 difference. 20 handled. And I'd be lying if I said I
21 MS. MENDEL; Very little difference 21 wasn't.
22 between the two stamps. We can bring 22 So I am inclined to err on the side
Page 266 Page 266

1 the stamps in if you would like, if that 1 of caution because there's no jury that
2 would make everyone happy. 2 could possibly be biased -- it's just
3 JUDGE FERNANDEZ; Why don't you get 3 me -- and order PTO to produce someone
4 off your feet for a second. What's 4 that can get to the mystery of what is
5 going on with the stanps? What do you 5 going on with these stairps. So in the
6 remember? 6 words of Captain Jean-Luc Picard from
7 MS. DeATLEY: What do I remember? 7 that great series Star Trek: The Next
8 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: What do you 8 Generation, make it so. Okay? Thank
9 remember about the stands? 9 you.
10 MS. DeATLEY; What do I remember 10 So, all right, so we got somebody
11 about the stamps? I can tell you --I'm 11 on the stamps. It's not going to be the
12 sorry. Your Honor. 12 lawyer unless something horrible
13 JUDGE FERNANDEZ; It's good for the 13 happens, which I don't see. I'm sure
14 circulation. 14 you're going to want to say something.
15 MS. DeATLEY: It is. Thank you. 15 right? On your own behalf during your
16 What I remember about the stands is 16 turn, right, when it's your turn to
17 that I discussed the stairps with my 17 present your case, I'm sure you're going
18 client, but when this issue was raised. 18 to want to speak on your own behalf,
19 I was given information about it. We've 19 want to talk to the person about the
20 briefed what we've briefed, I think any 20 stamp.
21 discussion with my client about the date 21 DR. SHIA (interpreter): Yes.
22 staitps is confidential, but I do know 22 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Any Other witness
T: (703) 837-0076 Toll Free (877) 837-0077 Ft (703) 837-8118

Page 269 Page 271

1 that you're going to want to present? 1 witness and they did that.
2 DR. SHIA (interpreter): I still 2 PTO came to me and said, We need a
3 have a question about the legitimacy of 3 deposition subpoena for that witness.
4 this document. 4 Let me tell you the story. Then, if you
5 JUDGE FERNfiNDEZ; Show that to 5 have a question, you can tell me
6 counsel first. 6 afterwards. Okay?
7 DR. SHIA (interpreter): It's a 7 So I said it was okay.
8 deposition. 8 They go to the District Court.
9 DR. SHIA (directly): In the 9 This one's in the Eastern District of
10 Ifiiited States District of Arkansas, but 10 Arkansas. They fill out the sulêna
11 we before the Administrative Law Judge. 11 papers. In most District Courts, the
12 DR. SHIA (interpreter): It says 12 attorney can sign the subpoena. It's
13 "In The United States of Arkansas," but 13 been years since I've done this, that
14 we are in the court of U.S. 14 the attorney can sign the subpoena. I
15 Administrative Law Judge. 15 used to do it myself, issue the
16 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: It's Marynell 16 subpoena, take the deposition of the
17 Gainer. That's the deposition. 17 witness, okay? And it is common after
18 MS. DeATLEY: Thank you. 18 that that a deposition can be used
19 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Okay. This is 19 virtually for any purpose.
20 the deposition of Marynell Gainer, or -- 20 Now, I read what you wrote when you
21 did I say it okay? Have you seen this 21 submitted it to us, and your argument
22 before? 22 you had a couple of decent arguments.
Page 270 Page 272
1 MS. DeATLEY: I believe it has the 1 You know, your first argument if I
2 correct pronunciation. 2 remember correctly was they didn't ask
3 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Can someone tell 3 for documents. So you remember when I
4 me what this is? 4 said yesterday I'm just not pretty, I'm
5 MS. DeATLEY: That's the deposition 5 intelligent too? Okay, well, what you
6 that we took of the records custodian. 6 don't know because you don't practice
7 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: That's all you 7 law is that normally when you serve a
8 have to say. All right. You guys don't 8 subpoena to testify, it is common
9 actually think I read this stuff before 9 practice to ask the person to bring
10 I have to, do you? 10 documents. So even though they didn't
11 Okay, we filed an order on this, 11 specifically ask for an ad
12 right? Okay, let me explain to you how 12 testificandum --a subpoena duces tecura,
13 this works. Have a seat. There's no 13 which is one to ask for documents, it's
14 great mystery here. There really isn't. 14 okay to ask the witness to bring
15 This is what happens. According to the 15 documents to where the witness is going
16 rules that we have, PTO comes to the 16 to testify. So they didn't do anything
17 judge and says, Judge, there's a witness 17 wrong. That's one.
18 that is not within the area of where the 18 The other one is you must be asking
19 hearing is going to happen. We need to 19 yourself, well, how can they possibly
20 go to the District Court where the area 20 practice in Arkansas? There is a rule
21 is for that witness and we need to issue 21 that says that a Government lawyer
22 a sulôena to get a deposition form that 22 it's in basically every District Court
T; (703) 837-0076 Toll Free (877) 837-0077 F: (703) 837-8118

BANG-ER SHIA HEARING - VOLUME III
Page 303 Page 305
1 JUDGE FERNANDEZ; Of course. 1 them whether why they made a mistake to

2 BY MS. MENDEL: 2 confuse V with a B. You should ask why they
3 Q. Where else have you worked in the 3 mistook a V as B. That's a conversation over
4 last ten years? 4 the phone.
5 A. Do you mean work or residence? 5 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: I think I
6 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Resided. 6 understand what happened.
7 MS. MENDEL: No, the question was 7 When you signed 15) with Windstream
8 worked. 8 and they took your information over the
9 DR. SHIA (interpreter): You asked 9 phone, did they write your name down
10 that in the past ten years. I have to 10 incorrectly? It's been a long time,
11 check ray resume. 11 right?
12 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Do you have a 12 DR. SHIA (interpreter): It was a
13 copy of your resume? 13 long time ago. I don't know why they
14 DR. SHIA (interpreter): Answers 14 did this.
15 for those questions are not here. 15 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: I understand.

16 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Do you have the 16 But you ended up with the user name
17 information? 17 Vang-er with a V as opposed to a B.
18 MS. MENDEL: I don't, but I can ask 18 Correct?
19 the question a different way. 19 DR. SHIA (interpreter): Actually,

20 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Go ahead. 20 I never noticed this until they provided
21 BY MS. MENDEL: 21 information from Windstream.
22 Q. Have you used any other addresses 22 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: All right. But
Page 304 Page 306
1 besides the three you gave us as a mailing or a 1 understand nobody's blaming you for
2 business address in the last ten years? 2 that. We just want to make sure that
3 A. Far as I can remember, no. 3 that is you.
4 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: And that's a fair 4 DR. SHIA (interpreter): My anger
5 answer. See? That's a fair answer. 5 is from that they make a fake stamp to
6 MS. MENDEL: That's fine. Thank 6 proceed Case D2014-04 to sue me.
7 you. Your Honor. 7 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Right. We're
8 BY MS. MENDEL: 8 going to get to the bottom of that
9 Q. I want to ask about email addresses. 9 stamp. Probably not today, but remember
10 Windstream is your Internet provider? 10 yesterday, I ordered that somebody's
11 A. Yes. That's what I provided to your 11 going to appear and talk about that
12 office because OED called me and threatened me 12 stanp. And I think we've gotten to the
13 to settle the case. I didn't agree, so I went 13 bottom of the user name.
14 to a congressman. 14 BY MS. MENDEL:
15 Q. Okay. The question was -- 15 Q. And the authorized user is Ricky Yu?
16 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: You got "Yes." 16 A. I don't know how we set up the
17 MS. MENDEL: I didn't hear it. 17 Internet service.
16 Thank you. 18 Q. Look at Government Exhibit 517,
19 BY MS. MENDEL: 19 please.
20 Q. And Vang-er Shia, spelled with a V, 20 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: I missed that
21 is your user name? 21 exhibit.
22 A. Then you should ask Vang-er, Ask 22 MS. MENDEL: I'm sorry, you don't
T: (703) 837-0076 Toll Free (877) 837-0077 F: (703) 837-8118

BANG--ER SHIA HEARING - VOLUME I I I
Page 379 Page 381
1 answer that you didn't like, and that's 1 I've never told anôdy that I'm -- I'm an
2 the problem when you ask questions that 2 officer of the applicant. I'm Bang-er Shia.
3 you really can't control the answers to. 3 I'm the domestic representative.
4 BY DR. SHIA (interpreter): 4 Is there anything among these
5 Q. So in Ul under the -- under the 5 documents that shows I'm that indicates that
6 heading "Mendment," there is one sentence. It 6 I'm a U.S. attorney?
7 says: 7 A. Not on the examiner's amendment, no.
8 "In accordance with the 8 Q. If the examiner thought that I I
9 authorizations granted by Bang-er Shia 9 was authorized to respond to US PTO, will ny
10 on M^y 20, 2008, the application has 10 client think the same way?
11 been amended as indicated below." 11 A. I have no way of knowing what your
12 As far as your e3qpertise goes, do you 12 client would think.
13 think that I am a person with legal authority 13 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Would it be
14 to bind the owner? 14 reasonable for a client to think the
15 A. Are you asking me as of what I know 15 same thing? I asked a question.
16 right now? Or are you asking me about this 16 THE WITNESS: Again, I would
17 particular application and examiner's 17 respond that without having the entire
18 amendment? 18 application records before me I can't
19 Q. Your understanding for this sentence. 19 make a judgment about whether it was
20 This sentence is from US PTO's examiner. If 20 reasonable for these examining attorneys
21 you read this sentence, do you think that the 21 to believe that this was an authorized
22 US pro examiner thought I was a person with 22 party.
Page 380 Page 382
1 authorization to respond to US PTO? 1 If whatever appeared in the

2 A. Based just on this document and that 2 application files led them to believe
3 sentence, yes, it appears that the examiner 3 that this party was authorized, then
4 believed that this person was authorized. But 4 yes, I would think it's reasonable for
5 again, I am -- do not know if there was 5 her client to believe she was
6 something in the application itself or 6 authorized.
7 elsewhere in the record that would have led 7 BY DR. SHIA (interpreter):
8 this examining attorney to believe that this 8 Q. 37 CFR 2.193, does this rule apply
9 was a properly authorized person. 9 for only the case where you have only
10 Q. So from Ul through U6, whenever -- 10 E signature without handwritten printed
11 wherever there is such wording from US PTO's 11 signature?
12 examiners, do you think that the US PTO 12 A. It applies to all signatures.
13 examiner thought that I was the person with 13 Q. So if we provide a printed signature,
14 legal authority to respond to US PTO? 14 it should be legal; right?
15 A. It appears that they did. 15 A. I don't know what you mean by a
16 I would note that on Exhibit U6, 16 printed signature.
17 after the name, it says "officer" in 17 Q. That the applicant hand-signed the
18 parentheses, which seems to indicate that the 18 paper document.
19 examiner believed that the person whose name 19 A. If the applicant personally submitted
20 appears there was an officer of the applicant. 20 a handwritten signature, that con^lies with
21 Q. Maybe he knows better about the rules 21 that rule.
22 and he assumed that I was an officer. However, 22 Q. After the applicant personally sign
T: (703) 837-0076 Toll Free (877) 837-0077 F: (703) 837-8118

http: //wvw. casatno. com Casamo and Associates transcript@casamo.com
BANG -ER SHIA HEARING - VOLUME I I I
Page 383 Page 385

1 the paper document, then we turn that document 1 BY DR. SHIA (interpreter):
2 to US pro, would that be considered legal 2 Q. In 37 CFR 2.193, it says you will
3 document? 3 provide a full, (c)(2) --
4 A. It's considered to be submitted by an 4 MS. MENDEL: If you look at
5 authorized party, yes. 5 Exhibit X in front of you, that's the
6 Q. So if I give you that handwritten 6 regulation.
7 signature, do you still require an E signature? 7 MS. DeATLEY; Can we give her a
8 A. No. 8 rule book, Your Honor?
9 Q. So even E signature does not follow 9 JUDGE FERNANDEZ; If she needs it.
10 your rule. It doesn't matter. Right? 10 she'll ask for it.
11 A. I'm not understanding how it doesn't 11 THE WITNESS; What was the
12 follow our rule. I don't understand the 12 question?
13 question. 13 BY DR. SHIA (interpreter);
14 Q. Some of your forms do not allow 14 Q. To verify the statements, is there a
15 people to attach their handwritten 15 form provided by PTO?
16 signatures 16 A. There's a signature block on the TEAS
17 MS. MENDEL; Your Honor? 17 form part.
18 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Hold on. 18 Q. No, that's not what I meant.
19 BY DR. SHIA (INTERPRETER): 19 Can you explain under (c) (2) other
20 Q. in the signature mark? 20 forms of electronic file electronic
21 MS. MENDEL; We went through this 21 signature specified by the Director?
22 all about a half an hour ago for a half 22 A. Currently, there are no other forms
Page 384 Page 386
1 an hour, quite some time, about whether 1 of electronic signature specified by the
2 documents could be -- hand-signed 2 Director. Only that -- only the form in (c) (1)
3 documents could be attached and if there 3 is currently acceptable.
4 was a blank to attach it, etc. 4 Q. So will anyone who violated (c) (1) be
5 DR. SHIA (interpreter); So today 5 protected by (c)(2)?
6 we are on the issue of signature, right? 6 A. There's no other form of electronic
7 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: We are on the 7 signature acceptable at this time, so the only
8 issue, but you keep asking different 8 way to comply with the requirements for an
9 variations of the same question over and 9 electronic signature are in (c)(1).
10 over and over again. 10 Q. But the submission will not violate
11 And I have been very patient, but 11 any will not violate (c)(2).
12 the saying goes you only get so many 12 A. What submission?
13 bites at the apple before you're left 13 Q. A person, if he does not follow
14 with an apple core. You need to 14 (c) (1), he wouldn't he will not necessary
15 understand that a lawyer appearing in 15 violates (c)(2) because you does you did not
16 front of me doesn't get all that 16 provide in a form.
17 patience. Normally, they get one shot 17 JUDGE FERNANDEZ; Okay, we're not
18 and it's done. And they certainly don't 18 going to go into this. You've been told
19 get ray help. So if I don't hear a new 19 there's nothing promulgated. If you
20 question from this point forward, you're 20 have an argument to make with regard to
21 done. 21 (c) (2) you can make the argument, but
22 Objection sustained. 22 getting the witness to agree with your
T: (703) 837-0076 Toll Free (877) 837-0077 F: (703) 837-8118

http://wvw.casamo.com Casamo and Associates transcriptOcasamo.com
BANG--ER SHIA HEARING - VOLUME I I I
Page 403 Page 405
1 Q. Okay. Let's start with that pink 1 BY MS. MENDEL:
2 sheet. Just the pink sheet. Hold that up. 2 Q. At sy request, did you, in fact.
3 Okay, can you tell the -- tell us what that 3 download and print the documents from the ODUS
4 document is? 4 syst^ this morning so we could coiqpare them?
5 A. This is an OED intake form. 5 A. Yes, I did.
6 Q. And where did you get that document? 6 Q. Did you bring those documents? I'm
7 A, This came out of the original file 7 sorry.
8 regarding Dr. Shia, G2081. 8 A, Yes, I did.

9 Q. And what was attached to that pink 9 Q. And could you show those to the
10 document? 10 Court?
11 A. This is the original grievance 11 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Thank you. Show

12 document that was received by OED in that same 12 those to Dr. Shia, please. Show the
13 matter. 13 original to Dr. Shia. Okay?
14 Q. Take a look at, if you would, in 14 DR. SHIA (interpreter): Is this
15 front of you Joint Exhibit 6. And turn to page 15 original?
16 61470. Does the original document that you 16 MS. MENDEL; Yes.
17 brought today appear to be the same as the 17 DR. SHIA (interpreter): When did
18 document that's marked 61470? 18 you punch the holes here?
19 A. Yes. 19 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: When were the
20 Q. On the original document, what does 20 holes punched?
21 it show with respect to the OED date stamp? 21 THE WITNESS: They would have been
22 A. It is dated November 8, 2012. 22 punched when they were processed and put
Page 404 Page 406
1 Q. Can you e:q>lain -- maybe if you could 1 into the original file.
2 pull up Respondent's Dl, do you have that? 2 DR. SHIA (interpreter): Usually,
3 A. Yes. 3 when you process it
4 Q. And can you explain why Respondent's 4 JUDGE FERNANDEZ; YOU can ask her
5 Dl appears not to have that same date atassg as 5 questions when it's your turn, okay?
6 is on the other document we looked at a second 6 MS. MENDEL; Your Honor, I would
7 ago in Joint 6? 7 move the admission of the original two
8 A. From my understanding, OED's scanner 8 documents as Government 603 and the copy
9 is a black-and-white scanner so it does not 9 as Government 604.
10 scan color, and depending on the quality of the 10 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: So you'd like to
11 scan, if things are in color, it may appear 11 move the original in as 603 and the copy
12 light or not at all in the scanned copy. 12 in as Government 604?
13 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: May I see the 13 MS. MENDEL; Yes, Your Honor.
14 original, please? And it's light blue. 14 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Dr. Shia, any
15 I just want the record to reflect that 15 objection?
16 it's light blue, which I know from ray 16 DR. SHIA (interpreter): No.
17 own e3q)erience is a notoriously 17 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: So ordered.
18 difficult color to copy. In fact, I'll 18 (Government Exhibit Nos. 603 - 604 were
19 take judicial notice of the fact that a 19 received and admitted into evidence.)
20 lot of the editing and proofing gallies 20 BY MS. MENDEL:
21 are in light blue because the color does 21 Q. Now I want to ask you about the
22 not reproduce easily. 22 different date stamps.
T: (703) 837-0076 Toll Free (877) 837-0077 F: (703) 837-8118

Page 407 Page 409
1 Can you explain why the date staiq> on 1 THE INTERPRETER; I'm sorry.
2 what was just admitted as government 2 A. It says "OED front desk," which I
3 Exhibit 603 is different froa the date stangp on 3 wrote this morning.
4 other documents received by OED, such as Joint 4 MS. MENDEL: Give that to the
5 Exhibit 11? 5 judge. Your Honor, may we admit that as
6 A. OED has more than one date stanper 6 Government 606?
7 and it depends on which contractor processes 7 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Any objection,

8 that document. 8 Dr. Shia?
9 Q. And did you bring an OED date stamp 9 DR. SHIA (interpreter); No.
10 with you today? 10 JUDGE FERNANDEZ; So ordered.
11 A. Yes. 11 (Government Exhibit No. 606 was received
12 Q. And can you show us? 12 and admitted into evidence.)
13 And did you prepare a sample with 13 BY MS. MENDEL:
14 that date stamp? 14 Q. The one that was just admitted as

15 A. No, I did not. 15 (sovemment 606# you indicated that was from the
16 MS. MENDEL; Your Honor, may I ask 16 front desk?
17 her? Could you just -- well, let me 17 A. Yes.
18 back up. 18 Q. And what typically gets stamped at

19 DR. SHIA (directly): I have this? 19 the front desk?
20 JUDGE FERNANDEZ; No. You'll have 20 A. Most incoming mail.

21 an opportunity. 21 Q. And where is the other date stamp
22 DR. SHIA (interpreter); I want to 22 used?
Page 408 Page 410
1 keep a copy of this. 1 A. It is used in the contractors'
2 JUDGE FERNANDEZ; I'm sorry? 2 office.
3 DR. SHIA (interpreter); I want to 3 Q. Please look at Government 521. Can

4 keep a copy of this. 4 you tell us what that is?
5 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Give it back to 5 A. This is a letter dated May 2, 2014,
6 Mr. Lastella. We will make you a copy. 6 from me to Dr. Shia.
7 It's with me. It's not going anywhere. 7 Q. And in that letter, did you -- in
8 MS. MENDEL; May I move that in as 8 that letter, did you, among other things.
9 Government 605? 9 explain to Dr. Shia about the date stands? The
10 JUDGE FERNANDEZ; Any objection? 10 second paragraph.
11 DR. SHIA (interpreter): No. 11 A. Yes.
12 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: So ordered. 12 MS. MENDEL: Your Honor, move the

13 (Government Exhibit No. 605 was received 13 admission of 521.
14 and admitted into evidence.) 14 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Any objection.

15 BY MS. MENDEL: 15 Dr. Shia?
16 Q. Did you bring a sample of the other 16 DR. SHIA (interpreter): No.
17 date stanqp in OED? 17 JUDGE FERNANDEZ; So ordered.
18 A. Yes, I did. 18 (Government Exhibit No. 521 was received
19 Q. Okay. Can you show us that one? Can 19 and admitted into evidence.)
20 you read into the record the writing at the 20 BY MS. MENDEL:
21 top? 21 Q. Since you're here, I would like to

22 A. It says -- 22 ask you a couple of questions about the second
T; (703) 837-0076 Toll Free (877) 837-0077 F: (703) 837-8118

Page 411 Page 413
1 investigation. 1 A. The majority of the mail's processed

2 Were you also involved in an 2 at the front desk. Anything that we may
3 investigation of a second disciplinary matter 3 receive such as internally may be processed in
4 involving Dr. Shia? 4 the contractors' office.
5 A. Yes. 5 Q. No, I don't get it. Which documents
6 Q. Do you know the case nusiber on that 6 are processed by contractors' office?
7 one? 7 A. I don't process the documents so I
8 A. G2341. 8 can't say which document per se is processed in
9 Q. And can you tell us how that second 9 the contractors' office. The general policy is
10 investigation started? 10 any mail that's received by U.S. mail, courier,
11 A. In January 2014, OED received 11 is processed at the front desk. Anything that
12 additional information that Dr. Shia was 12 may be received internally from another
13 continuing to file trademark applications and 13 department may be processed by the front desk
14 documents in Trademark implications, and those 14 or by the contractor in the contractors'
15 documents had different email addresses than 15 office.
16 what OED was previously aware of. 16 Q. documents are not in the category
17 Q. And when was the 62341 file opened? 17 of the documents which are supposed to be
18 A. January 9, 2014. 18 processed by the contractors' office; is that
19 MS. MENDEL; Thank you. I have 19 right?
20 nothing further with this witness. Your 20 A. I don't understand the question.
21 Honor. 21 Q. Ify documents were mailed through
22 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Dr. Shia, any 22 U.S. air mail to US PTO office. Who will
Page 412 Page 414
1 questions? 1 process it?

2 EXAMINATION 2 A. I can't say if they were mailed. I
3 BY DR. SHIA (interpreter): 3 don't have that information.
4 Q. As far as you know, how many stamps 4 Q. Now, you say OED has two steps. If
5 does OED have? 5 it is from external locations, they are
6 A. I'm aware of these two. 6 processed by the front desk. If it is internal
7 Q. The stands of OED, are th^ supplied 7 mail, it could be processed by contractors'
8 by contractor? 8 office. Right?
9 A. I don't know where they originated 9 A. Can you I'm sorry, can you repeat
10 from.' 10 that, just what she said?
11 Q. But does OED have access to these 11 Q. If it is from external sources, the
12 stasis? 12 mails are processed at front desk. If is
13 A. They are OED date stanps. 13 internal mail, it's processed if contractors --
14 Q. You are not answering my question. 14 by contractors' office. Right?
15 A. I don't understand, then. 15 A. Generally, the policy is if it's
16 Q. Is OED able to get these stands? 16 external mail that's received by mail or
17 A. They are OED date stanps kept in the 17 courier, U.S. Postal mail or courier, it's
18 Office of Enrollment and Discipline. 18 processed by the front desk. If it's received
19 Q. In other words, are all the nails to 19 internal, it can be processed by the front desk
20 U.S. -- no, are all the nails to OED are 20 or by -- maybe by the contractor in the
21 processed in different departments of the 21 contractors' room.
22 office, not at the front desk? Is that true? 22 From my recollection, this was
T: (703) 837-0076 Toll Free (877) 837-0077 F: (703) 837-8118

http;//www.casamo.com Casamo and Associates transcript@casamo.com
HEARING - VOLUME III
BANG-ER SHIA
Page 425
Page 423
1 What we're really concerned about 1 the front desk will stamp it. For internal
2 is what the document says and what the 2 mails, the contractors' office will stamp it.
3 date on it is. That's what the real 3 Right?
4 issue is. 4 A. Internal mail can be stamped by
5 Now, if you came to me and said -- 5 either the front desk or contractors' office.
6 and we're talking hypothetically, 6 Q. Under what circumstance a contractor
7 because nobody has said anything like 7 will stamp it?
8 this. If you said to me, Judge, this 8 A. Contractors always stamp it, either
9 document was modified and now it says 9 the contractor at the front desk or the
10 something different than when I 10 contractor in the contractors' office.
11 submitted it, well, Dr. Shia, that's 11 JUDGE FERNANDEZ; You've got two
12 something completely different. 12 more questions on this and then we're
13 But if what you're telling me is 13 done.
14 this document doesn't have holes on the 14 BY DR. SHIA (interpreter):

15 top and the original one does, I don't 15 Q. Did a contractor from OED stan^) my
16 care. You've got to pick and choose 16 document?
17 your battles. 17 A. I don't know who staitped the

18 DR. SHIA (interpreter): So what 18 document. Contractors in general start) the
19 I'm saying is that they made up the date 19 documents.
20 for D2014-04 case just to prolong, to 20 Q. So you allow the contractors to have
21 delay, in order to find more 21 different stands; right?
22 information. Then after they got more 22 A. There's two date stan|)s that I'm
Page 424 Page 426
1 information, they dismissed the previous 1 aware of.
2 case. 2 DR. SHIA (interpreter): Okay.

3 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Well, that's a 3 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Thank you. Any
4 very serious allegation. I hear you. 4 redirect?
5 And what I suggest that you do and. 5 MS. MENDEL: Your Honor, I just
6 God, PTO is going to hate me for saying 6 have one.
7 this. But if you truly believe that 7 EXAMINATION
8 don't hate me -- write a letter to the 8 BY MS. MENDEL:
9 IG's office and report them for doing 9 Q. You mentioned on your direct about
10 it. But that's outside of ray 10 the ODUS system, and that's an electronic
11 jurisdiction because they've dismissed 11 document repository?
12 the case. 12 A. Yes, and case management.
13 THE INTERPRETER: I'm sorry, which 13 Q. And are documents uploaded into that
14 office? 14 system, then hole punched and put in the file?
15 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: IG, Inspector 15 A. Yes.
16 General. What I can tell you is that in 16 MS. MENDEL: Thank you. Nothing
17 terms of being in front of me, that's no 17 further.
18 longer in front of me. You're not hurt 18 JUDGE FJiRNANDEZ: Any last thoughts
19 by that statute of limitations. Those 19 on this, Dr. Shia?
20 charges are gone. 20 DR. SHIA (interpreter): No.
21 BY DR. SHIA (interpreter): 21 MS. MENDEL: That's all for this
22 Q. So your policy is for external mails. 22 witness. Your Honor. Thank you.
T; (703) 837-0076 Toll Free (877) 837-0077 F: (703) 837-8118

BANG -ER SHIA HEARING - VOLUME IV
Page 445 Page 447

1 personally entered by the person 1 answer the question?
2 identified as the signatory; another 2 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: I need you to
3 person my not sign the name of an 3 wait.
4 authorized signatory." 4 MS. MENDEL: I don't think there's
5 Did I read that correctly? 5 a question on the table.
6 A. I haven't found that paragraph. Is 6 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: I'm talking to
7 that G865? 7 you.
8 Q. B864, the third line from the bottom. 8 MS. MENDEL: Oh, I'm sorry.
9 A. Well, this is not a coirplete 9 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: But you do
10 paragraph. I need to look into my own file. I 10 realize you have a statement at the
11 want to have I want to see the coir^jlete part 11 beginning that said that she read and
12 of 37 CFR 2.193(c). 12 understood the letter?
13 Q. That's not ny question. Dr. Shia. 13 MS. MENDEL: Thank you, Your Honor.
14 question is: Is that what the 14 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Okay. And that I
15 letter told you about signing the electronic 15 heard that statement?
16 signature of another? 16 MS. MENDEL: Okay.
17 A. The statute you cited does not apply 17 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Please continue.
18 to ray case. 18 MS. MENDEL: I would like to move
19 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Does the letter 19 the admission of Joint Exhibit 4.
20 tell you what she said? 20 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Any objection.
21 DR. SHIA (interpreter): Yes, yes. 21 Dr. Shia?
22 However, this letter is not complete. 22 DR. SHIA (interpreter): Yes, I
Page 446 Page 446
1 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Okay. 1 object. Can I express ray views?
2 DR. SHIA (interpreter): I'm sorry. 2 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Of course.
3 The view of this letter is not conplete. 3 DR. SHIA (interpreter): Number
4 JUDCsE FERNANDEZ: Okay. And that's 4 one, I have always suspected that this
5 a perfectly acceptable answer. Go on. 5 letter is from a retired lawyer, retired
6 But you have to answer her question too. 6 attorney from OED, and this attorney
7 Now Ms. Mendel. 7 faked the signature of trademark --
8 MS. MENDEL: Yes. This is a 8 Commissioner for Trademarks.
9 critical letter. I know this is 9 This information about this retired
10 pains I'm being painstaking because 10 attorney, the information for this
11 one of our counts is that even after 11 retired attorney is from Melinda
12 receiving this letter, she continued to 12 DeAtley. There is a record in the
13 do it, so I need to establish that she 13 court. There is a footnote in the
14 understood that what was in the 14 documents submitted by Melinda DeAtley
15 letter what was in the letter. 15 to the Court. It says this OED attorney
16 Sorry. 16 was retired.
17 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: And I am not 17 Also, the language in the first
18 telling you to stop. But you do 18 paragraph said I was excluded, so ray
19 understand that you have a statement at 19 clients advised me to take off ray name
20 the beginning that says that she read 20 and not to act as the correspondent or
21 and understood the letter? 21 the domestic representative.
22 DR. SHIA (interpreter): Can I 22 During the period of ray appeal ray
T: (703) 837-0076 Toll Free (877) 837-0077 F: (703) 837-8118

HEARING - VOLUME IV
BANG-ER SHIA
Page 449
1 clients were waiting for the final 1 Commissioner for Trademarks makes his
2 final decision.
2 decision from the Commissioner for
3 JUDGE FERNANDEZ; I need you to
3 Trademarks because it says I have right
4 to appeal. Though the language of such 4 focus on what I'm saying and answer ray
5 was written in the --in the last 5 questions.
6 paragraph, I read it. 6 What I'm hearing is you think the
7 Also, the law the statute she 7 signature was somehow falsified and the
8 cited that I violated is not fair. 8 content of the letter misrepresents what
9 Please read ray Exhibit X. This is the 9 actually happened. Is that correct?
10 complete of this is the complete 10 My question only required a yes or
11 37 CFR 2.193(c), especially (c) (2). The 11 no answer, but please translate what she
12 content of (c) (2) is not part of the 12 was saying.
13 letter (c) (2) protects everything which 13 DR. SHIA (interpreter); Yes, yes.
14 is not done in (c) (1). 14 However, the letter says I have the
15 Also, the E signature from my 15 right to appeal in two months. However,
16 applicants -- from ray clients were taken 16 ray client said okay, so just don't act
17 away by US PTO TEAS system. 17 as doraestic representative or
18 MS. MENDEL; Your Honor? 18 correspondent address.
19 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: I'm sorry, what's 19 JUDGE FERNANDEZ; Right. You've
20 your objection? 20 now told us that four times. And I
21 MS. MENDEL; My objection is we're 21 understand what you're saying. I heard
22 supposed to be discussing whether we're 22 you.
Page 45
Page 450
1 going to admit Joint Exhibit 4. 1 I need you to stop.

2 JUDGE FERNANDEZ; I understand. 2 Please say what she said.
3 And this is her objection to the 3 DR. SHIA (interpreter); Because
4 exhibit, so let's let it go on the 4 the letter says you are excluded. It
5 record. 5 didn't say that I could could not use
6 MS. MENDEL; Okay. 6 my address.
7 DR. SHIA (interpreter); And also, 7 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: I will tell you
8 my clients have never authorized the 8 when it's your turn to speak again,
9 Commissioner for Trademarks to take away 9 okay?
10 their E signature. 10 So I'm trying to understand the
11 JUDGE FERNANDEZ; I get paid to 11 basis for the objection.
12 have a very long fuse. 12 No.
13 Now, Dr. Shia, you said at the 13 You think the signature was
14 beginning that you objected because you 14 falsified and the content was an unfair
15 thought that this exhibit was made up. 15 representation of what happened.
16 DR. SHIA (interpreter); The 16 Correct?
17 signature is not correct. The content 17 DR. SHIA (interpreter): Yes.

18 is not fair. It's not complete. The -- 18 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Is there any
19 ray clients said that's okay, just don't 19 other basis for the objection? Think
20 act as domestic representative or 20 before you speak.
21 correspondent address. However, leave 21 DR. SHIA (interpreter): I followed
22 the physical address there until the 22 their instruction and I've taken ray name
Toll Free (877) 837-0077 F: (703) 837-81

T: (703) 837-0076 transcriptOcasamo.c
http://www.casamo.com Casamo and Associates
HEARING - VOLUME IV
BAN6-ER SHIA
Page 4S7 Page 459
1 before. It was already explained to you 1 A. You want me to read it?

2 why that exhibit is not on the website. 2 Q. Yes.
3 It's not a part of any mark so it 3 DR. SHIA (directly): "Petitioner
4 wouldn't be accessible through their 4 filed the instant petition on March 19,
5 conputerized system that's available on 5 2013, requesting that"
6 the website. 6 THE REPORTER: Ma'am, if you're
7 DR. SHIA (interpreter): However, I 7 reading for the record, please speak up
8 would never got any response from them 8 for me. Thank you.
9 on this issue, so I I've never known 9 DR. SHIA (directly): "The Director
10 that -- whether they have received it or 10 of U.S. US PTO reverse the exclusion
11 not. 11 order," Exhibit 4.
12 BY MS. MENDEL: 12 BY MS. MENDEL:
13 Q. Please look at Govenment Exhibit 13. 13 Q. And isn't Exhibit 4 your petition
14 A. Okay. 14 of -- your petition of March 19, 2013?
15 Q. Did you receive this document? 15 A. Whose exhibit?
16 A. After I sent out three inquiries to a 16 Q. Exhibit to the decision, the big fat
17 congressman, I received this. 17 document in front of you.
18 Q. And this is a response to your 18 A. My question is, which Exhibit 4?
19 petition, which was Joint Exhibit 12, is it 19 Q. Please look at page G1044.
20 not? 20 A. I have to see the signature.
21 A. I don't think it is. I think this is 21 According to G1059, this is the first appeal I
22 the response for the two appeals that I 22 submitted, but I've never located this on
Page 458 Page 460
1 electronically submitted later. My first 1 US PTO's website.
2 appeal has never got any response. 2 Also, in ray consultation with the
3 Q. Dr. Shia, all three of the documents 3 congressman, I told her I told him that I
4 you filed with the US PTO were the same, 4 submitted three appeals and I asked refund for
5 weren't they? 5 two of them. I got refund for two of the
6 A. With the same content, yes. But the 6 appeals. So they can only make a decision on
7 signatures were not the same. The appeal I 7 the first appeal 1 submitted because they
8 sent with U.S. mail has never got any response. 8 refunded the fees for latter two appeals.
9 The two appeals I sent electronically got 9 Q. Dr. Shia, I believe my question was:
10 response. 10 Is the Exhibit 4 to this Memorandum and Order
11 Q. Government 13 is an order from the 11 your appeal dated H^ch 19, 2013?
12 US PTO Director affirming the Commissioner's 12 A. Yes. However, I sent it out in March
13 exclusion order, is it not? 13 with a check and but ray check was cashed
14 A. Yes, it is confirmation; however, the 14 only in June after I got a I got a notice
15 reason for confirmation is not fair. 15 from my bank that my check was cashed.
16 Q. Look at page G966, the very last 16 In other words, my first appeal was
17 sentence. What does that say? I'm sorry. And 17 processed only after I sent out the two other
18 what does that say? 18 appeals. Those two latter appeals were
19 THE INTERPRETER: The question is. 19 submitted electronically, and they could be
20 so? 20 located. They can be located on US PTO
21 BY MS. MENDEL: 21 website.
22 Q. What does that say? 22 Q. Dr. Shia, when you received this
T: (703) 837-0076 Toll Free (877) 837-0077 F: (703) 837-8118

HEARING - VOLUME IV
BANG--ER SHIA
Page 461 Page 463
1 Henorandma and Orders did you read footnote 2? 1 MS. MENDEL: Government Exhibit 13.
2 A. I should have done that. 2 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: --is admitted
3 Q. And does that explain that this 3 into evidence.
4 Honorandum and Order is responding to all three 4 (Government Exhibit No. 13 was received
5 of your petitions? 5 and admitted into evidence.)
6 A. Yes, yes. That's after three 6 BY MS. MENDEL:
7 inquiries to the congressman. 7 Q. And you did not file an appeal of

8 MS. MENDEL; Your Honor, I move the 8 that decision?
9 admission of Government Exhibit 13. 9 A. Because OED has sued me at that time
10 JUDGE FEBNANDEZ; Any objection? 10 so I didn't have any energy to respond this.
11 DR. SHIA (interpreter): Yes, I 11 Also, it doesn't tell me how to respond, so I
12 object. 12 don't know whether I could respond to this.
13 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: And what's the 13 Q. Dr. Shia, you've mentioned several
14 objection? 14 times your letters to your congressman.
15 DR. SHIA (interpreter): There is a 15 A. After six months of waiting, since
16 paragraph of language. If she is 16 March that I submitted ray appeal, I had to do
17 familiar with it, she should know it. 17 that.
18 It's in G970. It says according to what 18 MS. MENDEL: Your Honor, may I hand
19 is shown on US PTO's website, the 19 this document to the witness?
20 Commissioner for Trademarks from US PTO 20 BY MS. MENDEL:
21 in his -- in her -- during her business 21 Q. Dr. Shia, you've seen this document
22 office hours made a phone call from 22 I've handed you before?
Page 462 Page 464
1 US PTO office to me. This says 1 A. Yes, from the congressman.
2 according to the Commissioner for 2 Q. Can you identify for the record what
3 Trademarks, I was authorized to respond 3 this docunent is?
4 to to respond to Commissioner for 4 A. It's a response letter from US PTO
5 Trademarks. 5 for the inquiry made by congressman on my
6 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Dr. Shia, the 6 behalf.
7 objection is to whether or not the 7 MS. MENDEL: Your Honor, I'd move
8 document can come into evidence, not to 8 this in as Government 607.
9 what it says. 9 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Dr. Shia, any
10 DR. SHIA (interpreter): The base 10 objection?
11 for ray objection is that they called me, 11 DR. SHIA (interpreter): No.
12 asked me to respond it, and then they 12 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: So ordered.
13 said I violated the law. So does it 13 (Government Exhibit No. 607 was received
14 mean that they entice me to violate the 14 and admitted into evidence.)
15 law? 15 BY MS. MENDEL:
16 JIJDGE FERNANDEZ: That's not a 16 Q. I'd now like to ask you about the
17 basis for an objection to the document 17 eight tradôark applications that are in the
18 coming in. That might be an argument 18 Amended Complaint. If you'd get the notebook
19 that you can make, but that's not a 19 that's the Government's supplemental exhibits.
20 basis for an objection to the document 20 I'm going to start with 507.
21 coming in. Your objection's overruled. 21 A. Do I have it? Oh, yes, I got it.
22 The document marked as Exhibit -- 22 507. Okay.
T: (703) 837-0076 Toll Free (877) 837-0077 F: (703) 837-8118

Page 469 Page 471

1 A. That's your privileged client. You 1 relationship between US PTO
2 shouldn't have asked me. 2 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Answer the
3 Q. I don't understand the answer. 3 question.
4 A. This is privileged client for US PTO. 4 A. -- and this con^)any. As far as I
5 I provided information to you. If I remember 5 know, the applicant is your client, a big
6 it correctly, its ID for US PTO is 17617. You 6 client. As far as I know, the applicant is an
7 should have read this as an attorney. 7 attorney in China.
8 MS. MENDEL: Your Honor, would you 8 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: I have a
9 ask her to answer the question, please? 9 reputation for being probably one of the
10 JUDGE FUKNANDBZ: Let's state the 10 most patient people on the planet. I
11 question again. 11 laugh very easily, I generally always
12 BY MS. MENDEL: 12 have a smile on ray face, and I am fairly
13 Q. Who is this coaipany, the Shinhwa Co., 13 good natured. And I always very
14 Ltd.? 14 carefully watch what I say, especially
15 A. According to US PTO official website. 15 when somebody's writing down all of it.
16 this is big client for US PTO. As far as I 16 I also know when I need to take a
17 know, the applicant for this application is an 17 break, because it's better for everyone
18 attorney in China. 18 in the room. I'm not the only one that
19 Q. Dr. Shia, you filled out this 19 needs a time-out. I very strongly
20 docunient, did you not? 20 suggest. Dr. Shia -- Shia. Sorry, now
21 A. The client in China entered all the 21 Ms. Mendel has me doing it that
22 data there, and they downloaded it, downloaded 22 during the 20-minute recess that I'm
Page 470 Page 472
1 the data into a portable file and emailed to 1 taking you reflect on picking and
2 me, then I uploaded it to US PTO website. Then 2 choosing the battles that you wish to
3 the E signature of the applicants were 3 engage in.
4 eliminated, was eliminated. So we attached 4 You are on the stand to answer
5 documents with handwritten pen-and-ink 5 questions. You have been repeatedly
6 signature of the applicant. That's under 6 told that you're going to have an
7 miscellaneous other files. 7 opportunity to make a statement and
8 Q. Dr. Shia, you submitted this document 8 present your evidence. That has not
9 to the US PTO? 9 changed, and it will not change.
10 A. To tell the truth, I can't answer 10 How you behave is a reflection of
11 this question, because I can't remember so many 11 who you are. And I will leave you with
12 information. But I can tell you this: If I 12 those words.
13 submitted it, I did it with the authorization 13 We are in recess until 10:52.
14 from my clients. 14 (Recess taken.)
15 Q. All I'm trying to figure out is why 15 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Let's continue.
16 under the Correspondence Information block your 16 BY MS. MENDEL:
17 email address appears and the name of some 17 Q. I believe the question that was on
18 coiq)any in China. I'm trying to figure out who 18 the table when we left was what is the
19 that conpany is and their relationship with 19 relationship between you and the Shinhwa Co.,
20 you. 20 Ltd. that's named as the correspondent on page
21 A. I should have -- you should have 21 G17857.
22 known it. I'm still wondering what's the 22 A. Shinhwa Co. is applicant, is an
T: (703) 837-0076 Toll Free (877) 837-0077 F: (703) 837-8118

Page 473 Page 475

1 attorney in (Mna. As far as I know, Shinhwa 1 exactly the same as the file they sent me, not
2 represents the applicant to submit the original 2 changed by coirputer.
3 application to US PTO. Okay, I may have made a 3 Q. On page G178 I'm sorry, 617857 --
4 mistake here. Hold on, please, because the 4 A. Okay.
5 documents are not complete. So as far as the 5 Q. " this application lists
6 document here, I can say, so Shinhwa is the 6 International Class 29.
7 attorney for the applicant. I'm the domestic 7 A. So?
8 representative or correspondent address 8 Q. Who selected that class?

9 designated by the applicant. 9 A. The client.
10 Does that answer your question? 10 Q. The next line is Identification. Who
11 Q. Yes. 11 prepared this Identification of Goods?
12 And that's why you put your email 12 A. As far as I know, the clients in
13 address in the email address for the 13 China should apply for a trademark first in
14 correspondent information? 14 China first. The attorney in China would
15 A. Yes. Any documents missing, I will 15 translate this application from Chinese to
16 be hold responsible. 16 English. So it is the information provided by
17 Q. And you checked the box under the 17 the applicant to its attorney. After the
18 correspondent information that authorized 18 Chinese attorney makes sure the information is
19 communication via email? 19 accurate and correct, the attorney would send
20 A. As far as I know, for this 20 it to me.
21 submission, you have to authorize -- you have 21 Does it answer your question?
22 to put in email address to authorize the 22 Q. Yes.
Page 474 Page 476

1 correspondence; otherwise, you can't submit the 1 Look at page G17860.
2 document. 2 A. Okay.
3 Q. And you selected this electronic form 3 Q. Does this document indicate that the
4 used to file the application? 4 application was electronically filed from
5 A. That is by the authorization of the 5 your --
6 client, the applicant, as far as I know. Then 6 MS. MENDEL; I'm sorry, go ahead.
7 after that, after the submission, the receipt I 7 THE INTERPRETER; No, no, go ahead.
8 got, I should send it back to the attorney of 8 Q. -- from your Internet account in
9 the client. That's Shinhwa. And Shinhwa would 9 Texas on March 30, 2012, at 15:21:41 Eastern
10 pass the receipts for the original application 10 Time?
11 to the applicant. 11 THE INTERPRETER; Can you repeat
12 Q. Why did you select the form to make 12 the time?
13 the application to the principal register? 13 MS. MENDEL; Yes, 15;21;41, Eastern
14 A. That's authorized by the client. 14 Time, Eastern Daylight Time.
15 Q. And you filled out this electronic 15 A. According to this, what is shown on
16 form? 16 this document, yes, I should be responsible for
17 A. The attorney for the applicant in 17 this.
18 China prepared all the data and attached the 18 BY MS. MENDEL;
19 file to me. It was downloaded electronic file, 19 Q. Look at " looking at the same page.
20 downloaded from US PTO's website. I was 20 there's a declaration.
21 responsible to upload it to US PTO to submit 21 A. Yes.
22 and I was to make sure the data uploaded are 22 Q. And the declaration says that all
T: (703) 837-0076 Toll Free (877) 837-0077 F; (703) 837-8118

BANG--ER SHIA HEARING - VOLUME IV
Page 501 Page 503

1 application? 1 Q. At the bottom of the typing, it says
2 A. Yes. So if I made a mistake, I would 2 "Reply Name, Yu Yu."
3 be held accountable. 3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Look on the next page in the 4 Q. Who is Yu Yu?

5 Correspondence Information, please. 5 A. Yu Liang Yu, the user name of this
6 A. Next page? 6 account. But what I am not sure is why
7 Q. Yes, 17994. 7 sometimes it shows Yu Yu, other times it shows
8 A. Okay. 8 Bang-er Shia for this same account.
9 Q. And it shows your correspondence 9 Q. Well, that's what I was going to ask
10 address? 10 you. Why does this show Yu Yu and the earlier
11 A. Yes. 11 one show Bang-er Shia?
12 Q. And gives both your RYU204@yahoo.com 12 A. I don't know. I'm not so clear about
13 email address 13 this. Probably in Yahoo mail when you change
14 A. Yes. 14 your pass reset your password or whatever,
15 Q. -- and the BS@pat-bangshia.com email 15 but I don't know. Or I opened this account
16 address; correct? 16 with two names. I really don't know.
17 A. Yes. 17 Q. Did Mr. Shia (pronounced "Shay") fill
18 Q. And you cospleted and filed this form 18 out any of these forms?
19 with the US PTO? 19 THE INTERPRETER: Mr. Shia
20 A. The form was filled filled out by 20 (pronounced "Shay")? Can you spell?
21 the attorney in China and they downloaded the 21 MS. MENDEL: Mr. Shia. I'm sorry.
22 file and sent it to me. 22 A. Everything you received were prepared
Page 502 Page 504
1 Q. And you file it with the US PTO? 1 by attorneys in Taiwan or attorneys in China,
2 A. Yes. Let me add that all the forms 2 and they downloaded it into a E file and they
3 were prepared by either attorneys in Taiwan or 3 sent that file to me. My job was to make sure
4 attorneys in China and they asked their 4 nothing is missing from the their file.
5 their clients, the applicant, to authorize me 5 BY MS. MENDEL:
6 to represent them represent them to submit 6 Q. That wasn't my question. question
7 those forms to US PTO. 7 was whether your husband also sometimes filed
8 What I did were only to add whatever 8 these documents with the US PTO.
9 is missed, the signature, from their document. 9 A. As far as I know, no.
10 Q. And on this page, there appears to be 10 Q. Never?
11 the electronic signature of George Yang in the 11 A. I'm still here, I'm still healthy, so
12 to -- in between the two forward slashes? 12 no.
13 A. Yes, because your system eliminated 13 Q. So he didn't type in his name as the
14 their signature. 14 reply name on the fozm?
15 Q. And you typed in the electronic 15 A. He doesn't know anything about it.
16 signature of George Yang on this form? 16 Q. Look at G18010.
17 A. Yes, I had to type in the 17 A. Okay.
18 E signature, which was missing according to 18 Q. What is this document?
19 what I received on the according to the 19 A. This is an official document from
20 printed-out document I received. 20 US PTO sent to the email account RYU. So your
21 Q. Look at page G18003, please. 21 question is?
22 A. Okay. 22 Q. That was my first question.
T; (703) 837-0076 Toll Free (877) 837-0077 F: (703) 837-8118

http://www.casamo.com Casamo and Associates transcriptScasamo.com
BAN6--ER SHIA HEARING - VOLUME IV
Page 537 Page 539
1 filed? 1 you published it to everybody else.

2 A. Did you mean G18165? 2 Q. Is someone else using your email
3 Q. You may look anywhere you would like. 3 address and filing documents with the US PTO?
4 It's at the bottom of 18166 and the top of 4 A. I don't know.
5 18167. 5 Q. Did you file this application on
6 A. I ray name was not there. My 6 September 3, 2012?
7 client said US PTO had excluded me from 7 A. As far as I know, yes.
8 trademark business; however, they knew that I 8 Q. Please look at 618167.
9 was innocent. So they just borrow my address 9 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Is that a new
10 and email address -- 10 application?
11 Q. Okay. The -- 11 MS. MENDEL: Yes.
12 A. -- just in case the letters and 12 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: We're going to

13 comimmications got lost. 13 put a pause in the proceedings right
14 Q. Okay. This -- this -- 14 there because ray interpreter is about to
15 A. Because that's during the period of 15 fall over. So let's take a 15-rainute
16 appealing. 16 recess. We are in recess.
17 Q. Okay. This application was filed in 17 (Recess taken.)
18 2012. 18 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Please continue.
19 A. Yes. 19 BY MS. MENDEL:
20 Q. Look at the bottom of 18166. 20 Q. Dr. Shia, we are still on

21 A. Okay. 21 Exhibit 511. Please look at page G18167.
22 Q. And the correspondence information 22 DR. SHIA (interpreter): Can I add
Page 538 Page 540
1 lists the name of the company, and then it says 1 something to previous question that I
2 care of 10 -- I'm sorry, 102 Linden Crest 2 didn't answer coitpletely?
3 Court, Sugar Land, Texas. 3 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Sure.
4 A. Yes. 4 DR. SHIA (interpreter): I've

5 Q. And email address RYU204@yahoo.Gom? 5 located the documents with the W that's
6 A. Yes. 6 for E file that's item W. Exhibit E5.
7 Q. So you were acting as the 7 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: And these
8 correspondence address for this application at 8 documents are what, Dr. Shia?
9 the time i t was filed? 9 DR. SHIA (interpreter): This is
10 A. I don't know whether I acted as 10 the first letter OED attorney John
11 correspondence address or not, but I only used 11 Broderick sent me. He asked me to
12 the physical address, correspondence address 12 provide document to prove my innocence.
13 THE INTERPRETER; No, no. Strike 13 However, in the paragraph starting with
14 that. 14 letter D -- letter W, can you read the
15 A. I only used the address and email 15 paragraph for rae?
16 address. US PTO never said I could not use the 16 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: She doesn't have
17 physical address and email address. 17 to read it for you. We can all read it.
18 BY MS. MENDEL: 18 So I believe you're referring to
19 Q. Dr. Shia, are you now saying you are 19 paragraph Won the page numbered
20 not the correspondent for this application? 20 Exhibit E5 that's Respondent's
21 A. Correspondent by definition, I don't 21 Exhibit E5.
22 know your definition. When you sent me this. 22 DR. SHIA (interpreter): He said
T: (703) 837-0076 Toll Free (877) 837-0077 F: (703) 837-8118

Page 541 Page 543

1 the Exhibit G that I sent to the 1 determine whether or not pursuant to the
2 Director of US PTO to prove ray innocence 2 regulation in question you could do what
3 was not permitted and should -- and will 3 you did. That's why I told you, send to
4 be disciplined because of this. 4 me any authorizations you had by
5 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: All right. What 5 October 31.
6 he said was that it may be a violation 6 Do you understand now?
7 of the disciplinary rules and statutes, 7 DR. SHIA (interpreter): Generally
8 not that it was a violation of the 8 speaking, yes. I still have one
9 disciplinary rules and statutes. 9 question I'm not sure whether I can ask.
10 DR. SHIA (interpreter): Then but 10 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: You can go ahead
11 I'm not an attorney, so looking at this. 11 and ask.
12 I got scared, so I didn't want to send 12 DR. SHIA (interpreter): My
13 anything to him. 13 Exhibit Z3 through E5 -- Z5, I'm sorry.
14 BY MS. MENDEL: 14 it shows that Jaye Huang is only an
15 Q. Dr. Shia, this paragraph is telling 15 authorized correspondent, and he
16 you that you cannot use Exhibit G, which is the 16 signed -- he E signed the name he E
17 authorization you provided from Jennie Wu, who 17 signed for Yunsheng Tianen (phonetic);
18 says you can electronically sign her name, to 18 however, he didn't have to provide the
19 contravene the requirements of 37 CFR 2.193, 19 evidence to show the authorization.
20 isn't he? 20 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: So what you're
21 A. Then I'm wondering what else, what 21 saying is that under Respondent's
22 other document can prove ray innocence. What on 22 Exhibit Z5, somebody else signed for a
Page 542 Page 544
1 earth do you want? I don't understand. 1 client and they were treated differently
2 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: I mean, that's 2 than you were?
3 PTO's position. I get to make the 3 DR. SHIA (interpreter): Yes. I'm
4 determination as to whether or not it 4 pretty clear. Can I go on?
5 can be used. Maybe it can be used, 5 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Well, you can
6 maybe it can't be used. You can send 6 certainly submit that exhibit and you
7 all those documents to me by October 31. 7 can make that argument, and I will
8 Do you understand? 8 consider it along with all the evidence
9 DR. SHIA (interpreter): I'm still 9 in the case.
10 not so clear. 10 DR. SHIA (interpreter): Jaye Huang
11 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: What paragraph W 11 is not an attorney in Taiwan or in
12 means is that PTO said that you could 12 China.
13 not use that authorization to circumvent 13 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Okay.
14 their regulation. That's PTO's 14 DR. SHIA (interpreter): While my
15 interpretation of their regulation. 15 authorization is from the attorney in
16 Now, you're claiming, your defense. 16 Taiwan and in China, so I don't know why
17 is that you had an authorization to be 17 I did everything legal and I have to sit
18 able to sign somebody else's name to 18 here and Jaye Huang doesn't have to sit
19 this application. And that is your 19 here.
20 authorization contained in Exhibit G to 20 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Okay. I
21 this letter. So because that matter is 21 understand what the argument is.
22 being disputed legally it's up to me to 22 BY MS. MENDEL:
T; (703) 837-0076 Toll Free (877) 837-0077 F: (703) 837-8118

Page 569 Page 571
1 president. 1 forward slashes as an electronic signature on

2 Q. Please look at 618342. 2 page 618366, didn't you?
3 A. Okay. 3 A. Yes, I did type in "Tim Wu." I
4 Q. This is a Response to Office Action. 4 should not have typed two slash, though.
5 A. Can I just answer your question 5 However, PTO accepted it.
6 directly? The personal signature of Mr. Wu is 6 MS. MENDEL: Move the admission of
7 right there under the section of Miscellaneous. 7 Government 513.
8 Q. Did you file the -- 8 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Any objection?

9 A. And it is also on G18345. 9 DR. SHIA (interpreter); No.
10 Q. Did you electronically file this 10 MS. MENDEL: Let's turn to
11 document on Much 24, 2013? 11 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: So ordered.

12 A. As far as I know, yes, I did. 12 {(Sovemment Exhibit No. 513 was received
13 Q. And on that same page, there is a 13 and admitted into evidence.)
14 response signature which appears to be the 14 BY MS. MENDEL:
15 electronic signature of Tim Wu in between 15 Q. Let's turn to Government 54.

16 forward slashes. 16 A. Okay.
17 Do you see that? 17 Q. This is a third tradonark application
18 A. Yes, I can answer this directly. I 18 for the same mark?
19 typed in the words "Tim Wu" because the 19 A. Yes. It because it has a
20 original E signature was taken away by you. 20 different class number, this is Class 9.
21 And also, we attach the original signature of 21 Q. And this is serial number 85756529?
22 Mr. Wu under the section of Miscellaneous. You 22 A. Yes. ran we not waste this time and
Page 570 Page 572

1 can see it in G18345. 1 if the answer would be the same, can we just
2 Q. Please look at G18365. 2 have a general answer to those questions?
3 A. Okay. 3 Q. Sure.
4 Q. This is a Statement of Use? 4 Will you agree that on every
5 A. Yes. 5 application that you submitted in this
6 Q. And you filed this on August 17, 6 Ccoplaint that you signed the electronic
7 2013? 7 signature of your client?
8 A. Yes, I should be -- I should. 8 A. The -- okay, are all these cases from
9 Q. And again, this has the electronic 9 D2014-31?
10 signature of Tim Wu between two forward 10 Q. Yes. 31, or is it 13? Yes.
11 slashes, but it is placed in the Signatory's 11 A. Let me give you a general answer.
12 Name box; is that correct? 12 okay?
13 A. So I made mistakes before. There's 13 Q. Sure.
14 no need to have two slash; however, PTO 14 A. If it's E signature, it was because
15 accepted it. We must type in "Tim Wu" because 15 the original E signature from the downloaded
16 he is the real applicant. He his real 16 portable file were taken away by you.
17 signature is in the Signature part attached 17 When we when I uploaded those
18 file. His personal signature is also shown in 18 files, your system eliminated those E
19 G18378. So we have --we have to type in T-I-M 19 signatures and you said it says to create
20 W-U, because that's what it shows in G18378 in 20 new. In the program, in computer program, if
21 his personal handwritten signature. 21 it says create new, it means to eliminate all
22 Q. But you typed in "Tim Wu" between 22 the previous versions. Using the program
T; (703) 837-0076 Toll Free (877) 837-0077 F; (703) 837-8118

Page 573 Page 575

1 language, it says reset to zero, so it will 1 Q. And you filed you personally filed
2 wash out all previous data. 2 these documents?
3 I couldn't sign iny name because the 3 A. Yes.
4 applicant and the person with firsthand 4 MS. MENDEL: All right, I would
5 knowledge was somebody else. And that name of 5 move the admission of Government
6 that person was there, only you took it away. 6 Exhibit 14.
7 Q. Okay, I would like to save time, but 7 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: 14?
8 this is not saving time. 8 MS. MENDEL: I'm sorry, 514. I
9 Are you willing to state on the 9 don't know what I said.
10 record that you signed the electronic signature 10 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Any objection.
11 of every client that appears in the 11 Dr. Shia?
12 applications that are in that are in the 12 DR. SHIA (interpreter): No.
13 second case? And if not, I'll just go ahead 13 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: So ordered. Is
14 and we'll finish. I'm on the last one. Let's 14 608 in? Yes, it's just not marked on my
15 keep going. 15 sheet.
16 A. This is only the second case? How 16 (Government Exhibit No. 514 was received
17 many cases do we have? 17 and admitted into evidence.)
18 Q. Let's just go to page 618410. Does 18 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: No, I never ruled
19 this indicate that you filed this application 19 on that, did I?
20 on October 17, 2012? 20 MS. MENDEL: I'm sorry, I I have
21 A. This 2012 expire? 21 no idea what 608 is.
22 Q. Pardon me? 22 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: It's the
Page 574 Page 576

1 A. I I don't understand what new 1 declaration or -- no, I never ruled on
2 conplaint contains. Does it contain this 2 608. 608 is received into evidence.
3 material? Isn't that expired? 3 MS. MENDEL: Thank you. Your Honor.
4 Q. Please look at 618410. 4 (Government Exhibit No. 608 was received
5 A. Okay. 5 and admitted into evidence.)
6 Q. We are discussing 6ovemment 6 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: I'm going to put
7 Exhibit 514. Does this indicate that you filed 7 Shia E5 into evidence also. Shia E5 is
8 this application on October 17, 2012? 8 in evidence also.
9 A. I don't want to waste anybody's time. 9 (Shia Exhibit No. E5 was received and
10 I admit all of it. They're all submitted by 10 admitted into evidence.)
11 me, okay? 11 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Respondent
12 Q. I just want to be clear on the 12 Exhibit Shia E5 is in evidence. And
13 record. So you admit that all of the 13 since I'm on a roll, let's do Shia Gl,
14 electronic signatures on the applications and 14 G2, and G3, also into evidence.
15 the other filings in these trademark 15 (Shia Exhibit Nos. Gl - G3 were received
16 applications, let me just make this clear. 16 and admitted into evidence.)
17 50 I guess 506 through -- not 506, I'm 17 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Okay, that cleans
18 sorry, 507 through 514, you entered those 18 me up.
19 signatures yourself? 19 MS. MENDEL: I just have a couple
20 A. Yes, the original, because the 20 of questions about 506, which is a
21 original clients' signatures were washed away 21 slightly different application.
22 by you. Next question? 22 BY MS. MENDEL:
T; (703) 837-0076 Toll Free (877) 837-0077 F: (703) 837-8118

HEARING - VOLUME V
BANG-ER SHIA
Page 592
Page 594
1 the deposition transcript of Marynell 1 lawyers could take the deposition there
2 Gainer, the records custodian for 2 because the Arkansas District Court has
3 Windstream Communication. 3 a rule that if you're a government
4 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Any objection, 4 lawyer and you're taking a deposition
5 Dr. Shia? 5 there, it's okay for you to practice
6 DR. SHIA (interpreter): I'm not an 6 there. Do you remember that now?
7 attorney, but our case is not with the 7 DR. SHIA (interpreter): Yes, now I
8 Iftiited States District Court. It's a 8 do.
9 district in Arkansas. 9 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: I suspect what

10 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Remember how we 10 happened was that the court reporter got
11 talked about that a couple of days ago 11 confused.
12 and how the issuing of the subpoena 12 And just so we're clear, when I say
13 through the District Court was proper? 13 "court reporter," I mean the person who
14 Do you remember that conversation that 14 was at the deposition writing down what
15 we had? 15 everybody was saying, taking down the
16 DR. SHIA (interpreter): Is that 16 transcript, because that court reporter
17 the first day or second day? 17 saw a deposition subpoena from the
18 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: It wasn't the 18 District Court and thought that it was a
19 first day. I think it was the second 19 case that was in District Court when, in
20 day. Or is this a different deposition 20 reality, it was not. And that's how it
21 that I'm confused about? 21 ended up with that caption.
22 DR. SHIA (interpreter): Okay, then 22 Now I'm going to ask PTO a question
Page 593 Page 595
1 fine. 1 and I'm sure they're going to give me

2 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: But do you 2 the answer that I suspect they're going
3 remember? Because I can explain it 3 to give me, but let's check.
4 again. 4 Is there currently a District Court
5 DR. SHIA (interpreter): This is 5 action pending in the District of
6 not a civil case. 6 Arkansas against Dr. Shia?
7 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: I agree with you. 7 MS. DeATLEY: No, there is not.
8 It's not a civil case. That caption is 8 Your Honor.
9 wrong, because there is no civil action. 9 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: You just heard ray
10 Let me explain what I think 10 explanation for what I believe happened
11 happened. I think the court reporter 11 with the caption on the deposition
12 captioned it wrong that took the 12 transcript.
13 deposition. And let me refresh your 13 MS. DeATLEY: Yes, sir.
14 recollection as to what we discussed a 14 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Does that comport
15 couple of days ago. 15 with your understanding of what probably
16 If you recall, PTO came to me and 16 happened?
17 asked for permission to take the 17 MS. DeATLEY: Yes, sir.
18 deposition in Arkansas. I gave them 18 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: You can
19 permission. They went to Arkansas. 19 understand why somebody who doesn't do

20 They got the deposition subpoena, and 20 this regularly might not understand how
21 they took the deposition. 21 that could have happened; right?
22 And I explained to you that the PTO 22 MS. DeATLEY: Yes.
T; (703) 837-0076 Toll Free (877) 837-0077 F: (703) 837-8118

http;//www.casamo.com Casamo cuid Associates transcript@casamo.com
BANG -ER SHIA HEARING - VOLUME V
Page 604 Page 606

1 exhibits are Joint exhibits. Joint 5 -- 1 DR. SHIA (interpreter): I want to
2 THE CLERK: Could you hold one 2 add too, why Jaye Huang why J. why
3 second, please? 3 wasn't Jaye Huang investigated by the
4 MS. DeATLEY: 6, 1, 8, 9, 10. Do 4 Director of PTO?
5 you want a description of those as well? 5 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Delineate for me
6 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Please. 6 the factual predicate for your
7 MS. DeATLEY: 5 is the October 17, 7 allegations that you want to include in
8 2013 pro response to Representative 8 the amendment, please.
9 Farenthold. 6 is the December 5, 2012 9 MS. DeATLEY: Your Honor, I believe
10 OED Request for Information. 7 is the 10 we're making a motion to conform with
11 January 25, 2013 Second Request for 11 the evidence.
12 Information. 8 is the March 15, 2013 12 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: That's in my
13 Ali letter regarding teleconference. 9 13 discretion.
14 is the March 27, 2013 Ali Second Request 14 MS. DeATLEY: Itoderstood.
15 for Teleconference. And 10 is the 15 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: So I want to
16 J^ril 18, 2013 Harchick letter regarding 16 rule, and I need your help.
17 entry of appearance. 17 MS. DeATLEY: Understood.
18 DR. SHIA (interpreter): No 18 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: So delineate the
19 objection. 19 factual predicate. I'm going to give
20 JDDGE FERNANDEZ: So ordered. 20 you a half hour. You don't need it? Go
21 (Joint Exhibit Nos. 6-10 were received 21 on.
22 and admitted into evidence.) 22 MS. DeATLEY: Don't need it. Your
Page 605 Page 607
1 MS. DeATLEY: Pursuant to 37 CFR 1 Honor. The there were two
2 1145, we make a motion to amend the 2 applications and two Statements of Use
3 Complaint adding an additional count of 3 that could be connected to Dr. Shia's
4 aiding in UPL before the office. We 4 husband that the reply name was in the
5 believe the evidence shows that 5 Statement of Use and application and the
6 Dr. Shia's husband also filed trademark 6 reply -- excuse me, the credit card
7 applications before the office, and also 7 information reflects that a Yu Yu
8 trademark documents. 8 filed -- credit card was used in filing
9 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: So if I 9 documents with the office.
10 understand what you're saying, the 10 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: So if I
11 charge is against Dr. Shia for assisting 11 understand what you're saying correctly,
12 her husband? 12 one of the bases for the amendment is
13 MS. DeATLEY: Correct. 13 that Yu Yu signed the credit card, if
14 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Dr. Shia, your 14 you will, receipt.
15 response? 15 Do you know whether or not that
16 DR. SHIA (interpreter): My husband 16 card was a joint card?
17 does not know anything about how to do 17 MS. DeATLEY: I can tell you that
18 it. I don't know if she can amend the 18 the information that we pulled from the
19 Conplaint at this moment of public 19 financial system with the US PTO
20 hearing. 20 demonstrates that the card was -- the
21 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: I'm about to 21 card was Yu Yu. We don't have any
22 figure that out. Relax. 22 handwritten signatures, we just have the
T: (703) 837-0076 Toll Free (877) 837-0077 F; (703) 837-8118

http;//vww.casamo.com Casamo and Associates transcriptOcasamo.com
Page 608 Page 610

1 electronic names. 1 you're willing to amend your Coitplaint
2 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: I understand. 2 based on it.
3 Do you know whether the card was a 3 MS. DeATLEY: Understood.
4 joint card? 4 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Your motion's
5 MS. DeATLEY: There was no 5 denied.
6 indication that that was a joint card. 6 What else you got?
7 And we do have other credit card 7 MS. DeATLEY: That's it. The
8 information where Dr. Shia's name is on 8 Government rests its case. Your Honor.
9 other types of -- other credit cards and 9 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Let's take a
10 filings. And also, there are, I 10 short 15-minute recess, and when we come
11 believe, two other filings where it's 11 back, Dr. Shia, we will start with your
12 the International Office of Bang Shia. 12 statement, okay? Okay?
13 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Do you know who 13 DR. SHIA (interpreter): Okay.
14 the system reflects as having, if you 14 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: And we're in
15 will, authorized the charge? 15 recess.
16 Do you know if the information that 16 (Recess taken.)

17 the system reflects is who authorized 17 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Ready to go.
18 the charge or who the account holder is? 18 Dr. Shia?
19 MS. DeATLEY: Will you give me a 19 DR. SHIA (interpreter): Yes.
20 moment. Your Honor, so that I can answer 20 First, I want to make a con^jlaint
21 your question? 21 against the Director of US PTO to
22 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Of course. 22 illegally aid and abet foreign
Page 609 Page 611
1 MS. DeATLEY: Your Honor, the 1 applicants.
2 information we have is we have what the 2 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Let's put
3 cardholder's name is, and then whatever 3 everything on hold for one second.
4 name was also entered populates in the 4 What's up?
5 Reply name. Tanya Amos testified that 5 MS. MENDEL: If this is going to be
6 the Information and Reply name was 6 testimony, I would prefer that the
7 populated from the Submit Payment 7 witness be sworn and testify from the
8 section. 8 witness stand.
9 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: I understand. Go 9 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Yeah, no, I think
10 ahead. I understand what you have. I'm 10 that's a good idea.
11 just trying to figure out whether it's 11 I'm going to remind you that you're
12 enough. 12 still under oath, okay? And I think
13 I'll give you a for-instance, I'm 13 you'll probably be more comfortable
14 the sole holder of a credit card. My 14 sitting down, so why don't we do that?
15 husband's an authorized user. When he 15 DR. BANG-ER SHIA,
16 makes a charge, it's his name that 16 called as a witness, having been duly
17 appears, but it's my account. Couldn't 17 sworn, was examined and testified as
18 that be what happened here? 18 follows:
19 MS. DeATLEY: Your Honor, I can't 19 EXAMINATION
20 say from this evidence if -- who exactly 20 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: I'm sorry.
21 used this card. 21 Dr. Shia, you were saying?
22 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: I understand, but 22 DR. SHIA (interpreter): First, I
T: (703) 837-0076 Toll Free (877) 837-0077 F: (703) 837-8118

http;//WWW.casamo.com Casamo and Associates transcriptOcasamo.com
BANG--ER SHIA HEARING - VOLUME V
Page 612 Page 614
1 want to make a complaint against the 1 what trademark application this document
2 Director of US PTO, the Director for 2 came out of.
3 Trademarks for aiding and abetting 3 DR. SHIA (interpreter): The

4 foreign applicants or foreign attorneys 4 registered number can represent
5 illegally practice -- illegally practice 5 trademark application. Trademark
6 trademark law. 6 application after submission will have a
7 I ask to admit Exhibit W. 7 registered number.
8 JUDGE FERNJÊZ: You want the 8 MS. MENDEL: Yes, Your Honor,
9 whole exhibit, W1 through W6? 9 that's true. But I don't know if this
10 DR. SHIA (interpreter): Yes. 10 registration is only related to one
11 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Any objection? 11 trademark application or to many
12 MS. MENDEL: Your Honor, W5 - 12 trademark applications.
13 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: More volume. 13 DR. SHIA (interpreter): One
14 please. 14 trademark has only one application
15 MS. MENDEL: Page 3 of W5, I have 15 number and one registered number.
16 no idea what that is or where that came 16 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Let's do this.
17 from. 17 I'm going to receive the exhibit into
18 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Dr. Shia? 18 evidence, W1 through W6. I understand
19 DR. SHIA (interpreter): Page 3 of 19 that there are problems, depending on
20 W5? 20 how that exhibit is used and for what
21 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Correct. 21 purpose it's used. And I also see that
22 DR. SHIA (interpreter): Can you 22 there's a note that W4, W3 and W6 are
Page 613 Page 615
1 show me that? I don't have it with me. 1 already in. And if there's a problem
2 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: The binder should 2 with how the evidence is used, I'll just
3 be up here. Cam, can you help her, 3 rule on it on the spot.
4 please? There should be a binder here. 4 (Exhibit Nos. W1 through W6 were received
5 That's the binder. 5 and admitted into evidence.)
6 DR. SHIA (interpreter): Page 3 of 6 DR. SHIA (interpreter): Based on
7 W5, this is the information from PTO's 7 the same reason, I ask you to admit Q1
8 website. 8 through Q4 into evidences.
9 MS. MENDEL: But, Your Honor, I 9 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Any objection?
10 have no idea what trademark application 10 MS. MENDEL: No, Your Honor.
11 it refers to or if it is, in fact, from 11 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: So ordered.
12 the PTO website. I can't check because 12 (Exhibit Nos. Q1 through Q 4 were received
13 I don't know what it is. 13 and admitted into evidence.)
14 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Dr. Shia? 14 DR. SHIA (interpreter): Based on
15 DR. SHIA (interpreter): In the 15 the same reason, I ask to admit U1
16 middle of W5, page 3, W5, it says the 16 through U6.
17 registered user, the Registered Number 17 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: I think
18 is 3653769. 18 Exhibit U's already in.
19 MS. MENDEL; Your Honor, this 19 DR. SHIA (interpreter): These show
20 document indicates that the applicant is 20 that the Director of US PTO received the
21 the owner of a specific registration. 21 fees from foreign applicants and
22 It does not tell me what document 22 permitted them to continue with the
T: (703) 837-0076 Toll Free (877) 837-0077 F: (703) 837-8118

http://www.casamo,com Casamo and Associates transcript@casamo.com
Page 616 Page 618

1 trademark application procedures. Some 1 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Dr. Shia, I'm
2 of the applications were even sent out 2 accepting your exhibits. As long as you
3 by foreign attorneys. The examiners for 3 think that they're going to help your
4 US PTO even told them clearly that 4 case in some way, that's all you need to
5 foreign attorneys cannot foreign 5 tell me. And I think what you want is
6 attorneys could not practice trademark 6 to bring in Z1 and Z2, because Z3, 4,
7 law in the states. 7 and 5 are already in.
8 Even with that, they still 8 Any objection?
9 permitted them to review, continue with 9 MS. MENDEL: No, Your Honor.
10 the review, and permitted to have the 10 JUDGE FERNANDEZ; So ordered.
11 trademark registered. 11 (Exhibit Nos. Z1 - Z2 were received and
12 The examiners of US PTO even called 12 admitted into evidence.)
13 me during their official office hours 13 DR. SHIA (interpreter): The second
14 and asked me to pass their examiner's 14 issue I want to talk is that all
15 amendment to foreign applicants or 15 trademark forms can be located on
16 foreign attorneys and in the Office of 16 website, not it's not that only .
17 Action published the website saying that 17 attorneys can use them. This can be
18 this is permitted with the authorization 18 proved by Exhibit PI. All the materials
19 of Bang-er Shia. So I want to make 19 entered on the website can be downloaded
20 conplaint against the examiners of 20 into a E file. This can be proved by
21 US PTO too. Thank you. 21 Exhibit P2. So applicant can enter his
22 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Okay. With 22 personal data into it and can save it
Page 617 Page 619
1 regard to the cotiplaints that you want 1 into an E file. And the applicant will
2 to make, if there are any coitplaints 2 send that file to attorneys in Taiwan
3 that you want to make, you need to bring 3 and China to confirm.
4 them up with the Office of the Inspector 4 After the attorneys from Taiwan and
5 General at PTO. 5 China prove it, they can send it to
6 DR. SHIA (interpreter); Is that 6 e-filer in U.S. All the e-filings
7 Inspector General with Commerce 7 through me were accepted by US PTO ever
8 Department? 8 since 2005.
9 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: I'm not 9 I received a letter on January 23,
10 completely familiar, but if it's 10 2012 from the Director of US PTO.
11 whatever the parent agency is of PTO. I 11 Trademark Director and the Trademark
12 suspect it is. 12 Director asked me to prove within 14
13 DR. SHIA (interpreter): Actually, 13 days that I did not illegally practice
14 I filed the complaint, but I filed it 14 the trademark law.
15 with wrong agency. 15 I sent out the power of attorney
16 JDDGE FERNANDEZ: I don't think it 16 from my clients to the Trademark
17 would be Justice. It's probably 17 Director within several days.
18 commerce. 18 November 8, 2012, I received
19 DR. SHIA (interpreter): Yes, so 19 investigation letter G2081 from OED. It
20 they didn't process it. 20 took the documents that I sent to
21 Clan I, based on the same reason. 21 Trademark Director to prove my innocence
22 ask to admit Exhibit Z? 22 as the evidences of violation of laws.
T: (703) 837-0076 Toll Free (877) 837-0077 F: (703) 837-8118

BANG-ER SHIA HEARING - VOLUME V
Page 620 Page 622
1 The Trademark Director violated ray 1 PTO has no authorization to make

2 Fifth Amendment rights to force me to 2 substantive law. They cannot create or
3 admit ray admit the crime in the 3 change the existing laws.
4 letter dated on January 23rd, 2012. In 4 I cannot find any existing cases to
5 this letter, the Trademark Director said 5 state that E filing, E signing, leaving
6 I may have violated the trademark law 6 email address, or selecting E forms
7 because I prepared the documents of 7 violates the laws. US PTO has the
8 trademark application; however, all the 8 authority to make procedures only. If
9 documents on trademark can be located on 9 they tried to create or change the
10 the website. It does not exclude other 10 current laws, that is over their
11 people's use other than the attorneys. 11 jurisdiction and it is a violation of
12 In other words, the E filers in the 12 law.
13 United States or the domestic 13 In the letter from the Trademark

14 representative or a correspondent 14 Director on February 21, 2013, I was
15 address does not have to have a 15 excluded for being a U.S. domestic
16 professional knowledge of trademark to E 16 representative or a correspondent
17 file. In the cottplaint from OED, I can 17 receipt because he said that I violated
18 roughly put five accounts. 18 the law 37 CFR 2.193(c).
19 First, they said the selection of E 19 I want to ask to admit well,
20 forms by me violated law. However, to 20 this has been admitted. This decision
21 select an E form is not inclusive --is 21 is not a fair decision because according
22 not exclusive right for attorneys only. 22 to Exhibit X, that is 37 CFR 2.193 in
Page 21 Page 623
1 He said that I violated law by e-filing; 1 the part of (c) it mentions the
2 however, E filing is not an exclusive 2 applicant should either personally sign
3 work for the lawyers. He said that I 3 it with other forms. The applicant
4 violated the law for ray E signing, but 4 signs their signature, typed in their
5 the original signature of the applicant 5 signature before. But their signatures,
6 were taken away by their system. 6 their personal signatures, were taken
7 They said I should not have 7 away by US PTO. As an e-filer, I had to
8 provided my email address; however, it 8 put it back. I cannot put in my name
9 is not only for the attorney to provide 9 because the their signatures on the
10 email address. 10 forms is not ray name. Their handwritten
11 Also, I want to clarify that in 11 pen-and-ink signature is not ray name.
12 submitting in E filing, you have to 12 Moreover, 37 CFR 2.193(c)(2) does
13 provide your email address, especially 13 not provide other forms. The Trademark
14 before the submission. It says that 14 Director did not -- does not provide the
15 they need your email to receive your 15 alternative forms that can be legally
16 receipt. 16 accepted so I don't think it is a fair
17 The last count is they accuse me of 17 decision in the letter dated
18 aiding and abetting foreign applicants 18 February 21, 2013 from the Trademark
19 to practice as a lawyer as an 19 Director. However, after I received
20 attorney. Then I have a counter proof 20 this letter, with the permission of the
21 with the exhibits we mentioned 21 foreign applicants, I stopped being I
22 previously, Exhibit U, W, and Z. 22 stopped acting as a U.S. domestic
T: (703) 837-0076 Toll Free (877) 837-0077 F: (703) 837-8118

BANG--ER SHIA HEARING - VOLUME V
Page 624 Page 626
1 representative or correspondence 1 evidence to prove ray guilty.

2 addressee in front of US PTO. 2 With the perraission from my
3 We can show this with Exhibit N2 3 clients, I took off my name and my
4 through N3. Previously, ray name 4 company's name from all the related
5 appeared in domestic representative and 5 US PTO website or documents and changed
6 correspondent address. However, after 6 their correspondent address to their
7 receiving the letter from the Trademark 7 attorneys in China and in Taiwan.
8 Director on February 21, 2013, though I 8 During the two months of appealing.
9 didn't think his decision was a fair 9 the Trademark Director sends letters to
10 decision, and he didn't have any 10 all the attorneys in China and in Taiwan
11 evidence. 11 telling them that Bang Shia has been
12 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Let's just stop 12 excluded from being a U.S. domestic
13 for one second. I want to make sure 13 representative or a correspondent
14 that all of the exhibits that you 14 address from the US PTO. It is a big
15 brought are received into evidence so 15 blow against me. The first petition
16 that we don't miss any. 16 from me through certified -- certified
17 Can PTO take a moment, look through 17 mail, through certified mail,
18 the entirety of the binders, tell me if 18 disappeared among materials. Then later
19 there's anything that's wholly 19 on, I had to use E filing to send in my
20 objectionable in Respondent's exhibits 20 petition with two registered numbers.
21 so that I can just take them all at 21 I waited for five or six months
22 once? I just want to make sure we don't 22 without getting any response. Then
Page 625 Page 627
1 miss anything. I don't want to 1 finally, I had to go to a congressman
2 inadvertently leave something out. 2 for help. The congressman sent out the
3 MS. MENDEL: No, Your Honor, we 3 first Congressional inquiry to a
4 don't have any objection. 4 commerce agency. Commerce Department.
5 JUDGE FERNftNDEZ: The Court is 5 Commerce Department says they are still
6 receiving into evidence all of 6 in response -- they are still preparing
7 Respondent's exhibits. So ordered. 7 a response and said that I may have
8 With that, we don't have to worry about 8 violated the law.
9 it anymore. It's just done. 9 In my anger, I sent out the second
10 (Respondent's Exhibits were received in 10 and third Congressional inquiries. In
11 their entirety and admitted into 11 those inquiries, I told Commerce
12 evidence.) 12 Department. When I -- when during
13 DR. SHIA (interpreter): Continue? 13 the filing from OED G2081, OED's lawyer,
14 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Yes. 14 Ali, make a threatening phone call to
15 DR. SHIA (interpreter): So as we 15 me, force me to settle the case.
16 can see from N2 and N3, my name appeared 16 Let me correct. It's OED file
17 in the column of Domestic Representative 17 G2081. And I said also that there is no
18 or Domestic Correspondent Address; 18 file number in the letter from Trademark
19 however, after receiving the Trademark 19 Director. If there were a file number,
20 Director's letter on February 21 of 20 then the letter from the Trademark
21 2013, no, I think his decision was 21 Director should have been -- should be
22 unfair and he didn't provide any 22 able to be located on US PTO's website
T: (703) 837-0076 Toll Free (877) 837-0077 F: (703) 837-8118

http://www.casamo.com Casamo and Associates traiiscriptcasamo. com
HEARING - VOLUME V
BANG-ER SHIA
Page 630
Page 628
1 because at the time, US PTO's website 1 After I sent out the second and
2 has not been updated. 2 third Congressional inquiries on
3 As far as you have a file number, 3 November 8, 2013, OED filed the
4 you can locate that material; however, 4 Coii5)laint D2014-04. In order to prove
5 the letters from the Trademark Director 5 that their conplaint is not expired, the
6 contains no file numbers, so nobody can 6 attorney Melinda DeAtley on January 10,
7 locate them on website. 7 2014, sent out two letters with
8 So I admitted IE submitted 8 different versions for the Trademark
9 two two petitions. One of them is -- 9 Director. One has no stanp; the other
10 one of the case numbers is 79101128. It 10 has a stanp. However, this stamp on
11 is in Exhibit L. The other one, the 11 this letter is different from all the
12 case number for the other one is 12 other starops on the letters from OED.
13 77691338. That's in Exhibit M. 13 In the court, Melinda DeAtley
14 The TEAS system of US PTO was 14 said --it should be Jennifer Harchick
15 updated after my case. It's about 15 said, it says -- she says sometimes the
16 it's around the mid of i^ril to the end 16 scanner, the quality of scanner is not
17 of J^ril. It took out the index of file 17 good, so some can be printed out, other
18 number. In other words, the materials 18 cannot. She also said the stands for
19 one can locate with file numbers, now 19 OED are the stairps of OED are
20 cannot, that one cannot locate. That's 20 different for internal mails and
21 why the first petition I sent out with 21 external mails.
22 certified mail could not be published. 22 Okay, let's take a look at the
Page 629 Page 631
1 That's Exhibit H. I sent it out on 1 coitplaint against me.

2 March 2012 with a certified mail. I 2 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: No rush. You
3 have also check for $100 as petition 3 take as much time as you want. I just
4 fee. This check was only cashed in 4 need to know about how much more you
5 early June. That's after the E filing 5 have.
6 in l^ril, after the second and third 6 DR. SHIA (interpreter): Maybe 15
7 E filing of ray petitions, the check was 7 to 20 minutes.
8 cashed out and deposited into US PTO 8 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: All right, let's
9 account. 9 take a ten-minute recess.
10 OED attorney Ali told me in 10 (Recess taken.)
11 G2081 let me correct. He made a 11 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Please continue.
12 phone call and asked Joan Lee -- and 12 Dr. Shia.
13 told Joan Lee to ask Dr. Shia to settle 13 DR. SHIA (interpreter): I want to
14 within two days; otherwise, he would 14 make additional examination for the
15 make a very bad decision. 15 evidence 18227 to 18229. 228, I'm
16 On J^ril 18, 2013, OED attorney 16 sorry. Especially in the Exhibit 18228.
17 Jennifer Harchick replaced OED attorney 17 The address RYU204@yahoo.com. It was
18 Ali. Around June or July 2013, I notice 18 totally because E filing system requires
19 that OED attorney John Broderick did not 19 email address to receive the receipt.
20 renew his lawyer license. John 20 It doesn't have any information about
21 Broderick appeared early in G2081. He 21 U.S. domestic representative or U.S.
22 was the earliest investigative attorney. 22 correspondent address. So you can't
T; (703) 837-0076 Toll Free (877) 837-0077 F; (703) 837-8118

Page 640 Page 642
1 DR. SHIA (interpreter): No. 1 direction of foreign attorneys.

2 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Any rebuttal 2 Respondent also told us that this
3 case? 3 was her job, and also what she was paid
4 MS. MENDEL; No, Your Honor. 4 to do was to review all the filings she
5 JUDGE FERNRNDEZ: Okay. We've 5 received and to make sure that there
6 reached the end of the case 6 were no mistakes. These are legal
7 presentation. Normally, I would ask for 7 documents containing information that
8 closing. In fact, I said I was going 8 can impact the applicant's trademark
9 to. And with that in mind, you probably 9 rights.
10 prepped one, didn't you? 10 You heard testimony that for a
11 MS. MENDEL: Ms. DeAtley did. 11 trademark application, determining the
12 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: I'm conpelled to 12 proper goods and services impacts the
13 hear it. Why don't you get up and give 13 applicant's rights. And in a Response
14 your closing. 14 to Office Action, any change to the mark
15 MS. DeATLEY: It's okay. 15 can also effectuate - - i t effectuates
16 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: It's okay. No, I 16 change on the client's mark also changes
17 want to, okay? Just remember, I have a 17 the client's rights.
18 tendency to be interactive. How are you 18 Respondent reviews and makes
19 feeling now? 19 changes to these legal documents. In
20 MS. DeATLEY: Yeah, okay. 20 the past five days. Respondent has told
21 Your Honor, Dr. Shia knowingly 21 us repeatedly that she's not an attorney
22 engaged in the unauthorized practice of 22 and yet she's reviewing these
Page 641 Page 643
1 trademark matters before the US PTO. 1 applications, she is signing the name of
2 She knowingly aided foreign attorneys in 2 contracts, and she is filing them with
3 the unauthorized practice of trademark 3 the Trademark Office, and these
4 law before the office. 4 applicants are not even her clients.
5 Your Honor, you've been here for 5 Foreign attorneys hire her to file
6 five days of the hearing. 6 these trademark applications on behalf
7 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: I have. 7 of applicants, to sign the names of the
8 MS. DeATLEY: And you've probably 8 applicants. These foreign attorneys
9 heard things that I'm going to have to 9 give her the authority to act on behalf
10 read in the transcript so I'm only going 10 of the applicants.
11 to highlight testimony that has 11 Respondent testified repeatedly
12 evidenced that Respondent clearly 12 yesterday that she had authorization to
13 violated disciplinary rules. 13 sign and file these documents on behalf
14 Respondent forged trademark 14 of the applicant and that she was
15 applications and other electronic 15 authorized to legally bind the
16 documents and filed them with the 16 applicant.
17 office. And Respondent knows full well 17 I'm not sure how Respondent
18 that under 2.193(c)(1), she cannot sign 18 receives legal authority from the
19 the name of applicants. And the 19 attorney that's hired by the applicant.
20 regulations can't be more clear. And 20 Respondent can't even contact the
21 Respondent admitted that yesterday; 21 applicant. You heard testimony
22 however, she said that she did it at the 22 yesterday at the end of the day from
T: (703) 837-0076 Toll Free (877) 837-0077 F; (703) 837-8118

http://wuw.casamo.com Casamo and Associates transcript@casamo.com
Page 644 Page 646
1 Respondent that well, Ms. Mendel 1 no circumstances can an individual place

2 asked Respondent, it seems that you 2 someone's electronic signature between
3 understand how to E sign an application, 3 forward slashes on a trademark document.
4 which is to electronically sign by 4 And Tanya Amos, the TEAS
5 filling the originator would fill out 5 Administrator, explained three types of
6 the application, send it to the 6 electronic signatures that can be used
7 applicant, and have the applicant sign 7 to file electronic trademark documents
8 and send back to the originator to 8 with the office. You can use a direct
9 upload and submit to the office. 9 signature where a person personally
10 Dr. Shia said that she cannot send 10 signs the document and uploads it to the
11 these documents to the applicant because 11 US pro servers. And as I explained, the
12 the applicant would not know what to do 12 E signature is to have a third party
13 with them, that the applicant works with 13 sign the document and the -- excuse me,
14 the foreign attorney to complete these 14 the handwritten signature can be applied
15 documents and sign them. 15 to a document by attaching it when you
16 Respondent is representing and 16 file it with the office. And a
17 acting on behalf of applicants who are 17 trademark applicant, a filer, can even
18 not even her clients. Ms. Mendel asked 18 select to not sign the document.
19 Dr. Shia regarding the Trademark 19 What explanation did we hear from
20 Commissioner's Exclusion Order, and 20 Respondent for all of this? Everything
21 Respondent Ms. Mendel asked 21 is the US pro's fault. The electronic
22 Respondent why she was acting as the 22 signatures are washed. They disappear
Page 645 Page 647
1 correspondent address and domestic 1 when you upload the documents to the
2 representative after the Trademark 2 US pro's servers so Respondent was
3 Commissioner's Exclusion Order. And 3 forced to forge the signatures of the
4 Respondent said that the foreign 4 trademark applicants.
5 attorneys told her to just take her name 5 Tanya Amos e}q)lained that for a
6 off. 6 direct signature document, you can
7 And the foreign attorney said for 7 complete that document and save it to a
8 her to continue to file documents with 8 portable data file on your computer.
9 the office. And the evidence, in fact, 9 But this is for a filer to make any
10 shows that Respondent continued to keep 10 necessary changes and to review the
11 one of her mailing addresses on the 11 document themselves before filing.
12 applications and also her -- one of her 12 And when the document is uploaded
13 email addresses. And the evidence also 13 again to the server, the signature is
14 shows that she continued to file 14 wiped, and that the purpose of this is
15 applications and trademark documents 15 for the filer to check that all of the
16 with the office. 16 information is correct and then -- and
17 And Respondent told you yesterday 17 then sign a legal declaration stating
18 that she does electronically sign the 18 that they are authorized to sign, they
19 trademark applicant's signature to 19 are the proper person to sign, and that
20 documents filed with the office. And 20 everything in that document is correct.
21 you heard unwavering testimony from 21 Ms. Amos told you that the system is
22 Tanya Amos and Katherine Kane that under 22 designed this way.
T; (703) 837-0076 Toll Free (877) 837-0077 F: (703) 837-8118

http: //ww. casaiRO. com Casamo and Associates transcriptOcasamo.com
BANG--ER SHIA
HEARING - VOLUME V
Page 64B Page 650
1 And then Respondent did upload 1 documents. And the Commissioner for
2 handwritten signatures. In some 2 Trademarks reviewed this evidence, and
3 instances, she did it correctly. She 3 on February 21, 2013, the Commissioner
4 selected the HSI(3N-0N method and 4 sent Respondent a letter, told her that
5 submitted the handwritten signatures 5 she was doing something inqprqper, and
6 attached to those documents. And for 6 excluded her from participating as a
7 other documents, she said that she had 7 correspondent address and domestic
8 to attach them to the Miscellaneous 8 representative.
9 section because there was no other way 9 On December 27, 2013, the US PTO
10 to do it. 10 Director sent an affirming decision
11 And yet Respondent was still 11 affirming the decision of the
12 inconsistent, as she would attach a 12 Commissioner for Trademarks. And in
13 handwritten signature and then 13 that decision, it was explained to
14 electronically forge the signature of 14 Respondent how what she was doing was
15 the applicant. 15 engaging in the unauthorized practice of
16 Respondent had the obligation to 16 law.
17 know how to properly sign and file 17 Respondent's congressperson

18 documents with the office. And 18 received two letters, and in these
19 Respondent blames the US PTO for never 19 letters it was explained that Respondent
20 telling her that she was doing something 20 was engaging in the unauthorized
21 wrong. But Respondent was forging the 21 practice of trademark law before the
22 electronic signature of applicants. 22 office. Respondent received these
Page 649 Page 6S1
1 And you heard testimony from 1 letters and she attached them to filings
2 Katherine Kane, who took a look at one 2 she's made in this proceeding.
3 of these applications and said there's 3 So Respondent was told directly
4 nothing on the four comers of this 4 three times and indirectly twice that
5 document that would raise red flags. 5 she was doing something improper before
6 And Respondent says, I have been 6 the office. And what did she do? She
7 doing this since 2005 or 2006. Why 7 continued to do it anyway.
8 didn't you tell me I was doing something 8 Respondent continued to file
9 wrong? 9 documents with the office, she continued
10 Well, when the US PTO figured out 10 to sign the electronic signature of
11 she was doing something wrong, or found 11 applicants, and she continued to serve
12 something to be suspect, they did tell 12 as the correspondence address.
13 her. Respondent was told directly three 13 Your Honor, why are we really here
14 times that she was doing something 14 today?
15 improper and what she was doing did not 15 JUDGE FERNANDEZ: Why are we here
16 comport with the rules. 16 today?
17 In January 23, 2012, Respondent was 17 MS. DeATLEY: So seven pages later.
18 asked, it doesn't look like you're an 18 I'm going to tell you. Because the OED
19 attorney. Can you tell us about this? 19 Director has no confidence that
20 Because if you're not, you're probably 20 Respondent is fit to practice before the
21 doing something wrong. 21 office as a Registered Patent
22 Respondent replied and provided 22 Practitioner.
T; (703) 837-0076 Toll Free (877) 837-0077 F: (703) 837-8118

http: //vw. casamo. com Casamo and Associates transcriptcasamo.com

Exhibits: Bang-Er Shia v. United States Patent and Trademark Office, Michelle K. Lee, Sarah Harris, William Covey, Et Al.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Exhibits: Bang-Er Shia v. United States Patent and Trademark Office, Michelle K. Lee, Sarah Harris, William Covey, Et Al.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Document 1-4 Filed 08/17/16 Page 1 of 112 PageID# 389

2.146 Petition to the Director

Filed - March 19,2013

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

IIIRe: Bang-CT Shia

MF.MQRAND1JM AND ORDER

T. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Only alicensed attorney is authorized to represent an applicant or registrant in trademaik matters

A. The Exclusion Order Was Proper,

, I.' Petitioner is not an attorney.

2. Petitioner engaged inwidespread unauthorized practice of law before USPTO in

B. Petitioner's Other Arguments Are Vague, Unsupported and Meritless.

UNITED STATES PATENT ANDTRADEMARK OFFICE

In the Matter of: Proceeding No. D2014-31

Bang-er Shia (II), June 30,2014

NOTICE OF HEARING AND ORDER

A settlement allows theparties to control theoutcome ofthecase rather than have a

The merependency ofsettlement negotiations, however, does notconstitute a basisfor

The claims asserted in this matter shall be decided in an administrative proceeding

1. Answer. Respondent shall file a response as specified in 37 C.F.R. 11.36. The

4. Affirmative Defenses. Counsel for the OED Director shallfileMotion to Strike

6. Documents. On or before August 13.2014.the parties willexchange documents and

7. Experts. If scientific, technical or otherspecialized knowledge will assist the AU to

c. Any Expert Report rebutting a previously submitted expert report must be

b. To avoid duplication of exhibits, the parties will coordinate andsubmit JOINT

9. Objections. Any partyobjecting to anyknownexhibitand/orwitness to be presented

10. PRE-HEARING Statements. Each party shall file a pre-hearing statement, to be

a. The issues involved in the proceeding;

12. Transmtttal. The preferred method of electronic document delivery is transmittalas

13. File Nomenclature. Documents filed electronicallyshould be named by docket

If filing bv United States Postal Service (USPS):

If sending bv non-USPS couriers send to:

If sending bv email scanned attachment send to: alj.alj@hud.gov

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

In the Matter of:

Respondent July 16,2014

NOTICE OF NEW HEARING DATES AND ORDER FOR

Commisaonei' show cause lettermis^ga

Cornxnisaottio's thenotherwise pending }3/15/2013

RES#J IheOED Attorn^All's solicitation for 03/15/2013

wsswa Ihe Attorney Ali*s esqplanation for a ^ 93/27/2013

KESm. ElectronicfiUng receiptofBangShia*s2nd|o4/10/2013

Etespondentfs refuse for the case G2081

^ RES#0 JEDAttorney Hwhick vqilaced Attorney 104/18/2013

#Pl-P2 All tradeniatk forms ateprovided online as All time relevant

mtsaonei's id^iig inimauthoxized 13/01/2011

RESnr(rTs OED's Exhibits of PTO D2014-4 Court record dated

IVademaik document published atTSDR

Yi: Of^poena filed totheCourt dated 06/18/2014

RES#Yi-Y2 Y21 fiaudulently fiilsified unenfoioeable dated 06/23/2014

SxtraTSDRpubMed document showing

Subject: PTO D2014-04 D2014-31 OED Dlrectoi's Objections to Respondent's Exhibits

Date: Friday, September 26,2014 3:20 PM

Please contact Elizabeth Mendel directly with any qu^ions Please

40. PTO D2014-04 D2014-31 OED Director's Objections to Respondent's Exhibits.pdf

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

Bang-er Shia, Proceeding No. D2014-04

OED DIRECTOR'S PREHEARING STATEMENT

("USPTO" or "Office"), by counsel, submits the following Prehearing Statement:

A. Issues Involved in the Proceeding

following legal issues:

(a) engagingin unauthorized practice beforethe Office in trademark matters

O ^ ^^c) forging the electronic signature oftrademark applicants to Trademark