Oracle has just issued its latest reply in the ongoing proceedings at the US Trademark and Patent Office. We’re now waiting on the USPTO to weigh in—this is the moment when public attention matters.
Let’s review how we got here:
In the next 3 to 4 weeks, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) will decide whether the fraud claim can move forward. This will be the first ruling in the case.
If the claim is dismissed, the case continues on the other two grounds: that the mark is generic and abandoned.
If the fraud claim proceeds, Oracle will be required to answer the full petition—including why they used my project as evidence.
After that, the case enters discovery, likely stretching into 2026.
Oracle’s reply argues that even if the Node.js specimen was false, it doesn’t matter—because the USPTO accepted the second specimen (the Oracle JET page).
They claim fraud requires a falsehood that was “critical” to the outcome, and that the JET page was enough to support the renewal.
They also argue we didn’t sufficiently allege intent to deceive—a required element—and that even an amended petition wouldn’t change the outcome.
That’s their framing. But if you submit someone else’s project to the government as proof of trademark use, that matters.
Even if the fraud claim is dismissed, the bigger issues remain.
Anyone in software knows Oracle hasn’t played a meaningful role in JavaScript’s evolution in decades. Many developers were surprised to learn it still holds the trademark at all. The language is standardized by Ecma, governed by TC39, and implemented by Apple, Google, Mozilla, and others.
JavaScript very clearly is not an Oracle product.
Yet the trademark persists. And because of that, companies like mine operate in a legal gray zone—using the term only because Oracle hasn’t enforced it. There is no “JavaScript Conference” because of this fear.
This is a textbook case of trademark warehousing: a company holding onto a mark it doesn’t actively use, hoping to preserve leverage over an ecosystem it no longer participates in.
That’s not what trademark law is for.
Trademarks are meant to help the public identify the source of goods and services. They’re not permanent entitlements—they’re conditional rights, granted only when the mark is actively used and still signals a single source.
That’s why the law includes abandonment. Title 15 of the U.S. Code, Section 1127 defines it this way:
A mark shall be deemed to be “abandoned” if either of the following occurs:
1 When its use has been discontinued with intent not to resume such use…
2 When any course of conduct… causes the mark to become the generic name…
This safeguard exists to keep trademarks grounded in reality. If a mark is no longer being used—or if the public no longer sees it as pointing to a single source—it’s supposed to go back into the commons.
Oracle doesn’t build JavaScript. It doesn’t maintain the spec. It doesn’t guide the future of the language. Yet it continues to hold the name—and until now, largely unchallenged.
The trademark system is meant to foster a vibrant marketplace—helping companies offer clear, trusted products—not to create confusion through marks that no longer reflect reality.
More updates soon.
此内容由惯性聚合(RSS阅读器)自动聚合整理，仅供阅读参考。 原文来自 — 版权归原作者所有。