I was on a late business meeting with Erik when he received a call around 6PM for a woman who was going to lose her house the very next morning. She literally called at the last possible moment and Erik was kind enough to speak with her and talk her through the process as well as meet with her at 9pm that same night to get the process started to save her home. I feel most lawyers would have just told the client, too little too late, not Erik, he really does everything he can to help people.

Erik Jensen is an outstanding, competent, and knowledgeable attorney. At the last minute, I decided I needed an attorney and found his website online. I called him from South Carolina on a Thursday and he graciously changed his schedule to meet with me on Friday morning and to represent me Friday afternoon. Mr. Jensen was well prepared for my legal meeting in spite of having less than 24 hours to prepare. When I met with Mr. Jensen, he extended the free consultation time without charging excessive fees. Mr. Jensen was upfront and straight forward. During the legal meeting he was poised and assertive without being aggressive. I will forever be grateful to the kindness and empathy he showed me during this difficult time. I recommend him without reservation whatsoever to anyone needing legal representation.

I used Erik Jensens office for legal matters several time over the years and he made the problem go away each time.



He also made a referral for me in a personal injury suit and i was happy with the outcome

Erik B. Jensen of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, an attorney licensed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Mr. Jensen has been publicly reprimanded by the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO" or "Office") for violating 3 7 C.F.R. § 10.47 by aiding another in the unauthorized practice of law before the Office. Mr. Jensen is authorized to practice trademark law before the Office, but he is not a registered patent practitioner and is not authorized to practice patent law before the Office.

With his client's consent, Mr. Jensen hired a corporation service company to assist him in filing a trademark application for the client. Mr. Jensen knew that the company's employee assigned to work on the application was not an attorney, but Mr. Jensen permitted the employee to sign and file trademark papers in the Office, including the application and a reply to an Office communication. Mr. Jensen knew or should have known that the actions of the company's employee constituted the unauthorized practice of trademark law before the USPTO.

This action is the result of a settlement agreement

between lvfJ. Jensen and the OED Director pursua..~t to

the provisions of35 U.S.c. § 2(b)(2)(D) and 37 C.F.R.

§§ 11.26 and 11.59. Disciplinary decisions involving

practitioners are posted at the Office of Emollment and

Discipline's Reading Room located at:

http://des.uspto.gov/Foia/OEDReadingRoom.jsp.