Oracle justified its JavaScript trademark with Node.js–now it wants that ignored

Re:Oracle justified its JavaScript trademark with Node.js–no... by sayrer on Tuesday February 04, 2025 @07:32PM (#42941584)

They are using the wrong tactics. They should use the "Kleenex" argument and say it's generic. But what do I know.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Oracle justified its JavaScript trademark with Node.js–no... by aardvarkr on Tuesday February 04, 2025 @07:56PM (#42941865)

But they are… genericness is a key part of their argument.

>Our petition challenges Oracle’s trademark on three grounds:

>Genericness – JavaScript is a widely used programming language, not an Oracle product.

>Abandonment – Oracle does not control, maintain, or enforce the trademark.

>Fraud on the USPTO – Oracle submitted misleading evidence in its renewal filing.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Oracle justified its JavaScript trademark with Node.js–no... by svieira on Tuesday February 04, 2025 @07:37PM (#42941640)

They're doing both - the issue is that the fraud issue either gets dropped (which Ryan doesn't want to do) or it blocks the second "generic" issue until resolved.

> Oracle waited until the deadline to file this motion, delaying their response to the real issue: whether “JavaScript” is a generic term.

and

> Oracle won’t even discuss whether “JavaScript” should remain a trademark until they’ve finished dragging out this fraud claim.

> This legal maneuvering puts us in a difficult position:

> 1. Agree to drop the fraud claim, letting them get away with misrepresenting their trademark renewal.

> 2. Spend months fighting this procedural issue before even getting to the real debate.

[ Parent | on HN ]