Kill Oracle's 'JavaScript' trademark, Deno asks USPTO Deno Land, maker of the Deno runtime for JavaScript, TypeScript, and WebAssembly, has filed a petition with the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to cancel Oracle's JavaScript trademark. The petition seeks to undo a legal barrier that has deterred the JavaScript community from referring to the programming language in …
To be fair, when time JavaScript was developed, the name was chosen to suggest a similarity with the language and platform was very successfully pushing at the time.
However, retaining a trademark does require actively using it. This would be easy enough if Oracle released, say, a runtime. But in the absence of this, it could be difficult to argue for it.
Exactly the stance that Gibson has done with these "Trump Guitars". The ads for his latest scam/grift show him signing a guitar that looks exactly like a Gibson... Ironic really as none of the guitars that suckers will buy have been made yet and won't be for months and will probably (according to their FAQ's) look totally different.
Come on Oracle do the right thing here.
Exactly. For a while I thought JavaScript was a scripting cutdown version of java. For a long while after realising it wasn't, I still thought the two were linked somehow (same owner etc.)
I'm not commenting on the current legal arguments, so those aside, Oracle isn't the one in the wrong here.
Now I've defended Oracle, I need to go have a long shower with bleach.
So it originated in a distant past when we all still used marble, hammers and chisels to code - and when SUN just had created the Java Language and more or less correctly might have assumed all things with the name "Java" in it (besides the island) to be their intellectual property. Oracle bought the mark together with the rest of SUN in 2010.
https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=75026640&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch
Section "Assignment Abstract Of Title Information"
2024, however, not contesting the cancellation of this inherited trademark would probably be the sensible thing to do for Oracle.
Ultimately two things:
Netscape was stupid to call it Javascript
USPTO allows too wide application of things applied for and is readier to approve Trademarks, Design Patents (UK=Registered Designs) and Patents as they get more money from approval than denial and letting court actions decide saves them money on research. It's been "broken" for over 100 years.
(tl;dr - The "JavaScript" name was licensed from Sun from the beginning *because* it was an intentional attempt to associate it with Sun's "Java" language and tech. Since Oracle continues to sell Java and since it's unlikely that one could nullify their control over the closely-related "JavaScript" trademark without affecting that, it's very unlikely for that reason- amongst others- that this legal attempt will succeed.)
> So it originated [..] when SUN just had created the Java Language [and] might have assumed all things with the name "Java" in it [..] to be their intellectual property.
Trademarks for pre-existing names or words like "Java" usually apply to a specific field where there's no likely risk of confusion or overlap with any other current usage.
Sun's "Java" trademark likely covered computer languages, the associated technologies and anything remotely close to that. So while they probably couldn't sue, say, "Java Coffee" or "Java Travel" on that basis, they certainly *would* have had a case when it came to JavaScript.
But- more importantly- it's *not* an unfortunate coincidence that JavaScript has a similar name. Quite the opposite- Netscape called it that because they quite deliberately wanted to associate it with Java and the hype surrounding it at the time. And the fact they explicitly licensed the name from Sun shows they knew full well what the legal position was from the very start.
> 2024, however, not contesting the cancellation of this inherited trademark would probably be the sensible thing to do for Oracle.
The "JavaScript" name isn't merely similar to "Java", it's explicitly derived from it. I don't see how one could reasonably nullify the "JavaScript" trademark alone- and have Oracle lose control over it and how people use the name- without risk of it affecting their Java-related business.
Oracle still sells Java and uses the Java trademark widely. (The fact they don't much use the "JavaScript" name themselves- as others have argued- is a red herring. They never really did so in the first place, they licensed it at Netscape's request.)
And I assume they only ever permitted that because they retained ownership- and control- over the JavaScript name and would have refused if they'd thought there was a risk of losing control.
But ultimately it was Netscape's technology and Netscape's choice to brand it using a licensed trademark that they didn't own (and which caused both technical and legal confusion with the Java language itself). No-one forced them to do that, and the bulk of the blame lies with them for making a stupid decision thirty years ago.
Much as I feel dirty defending a company like Oracle, as a general principle, it's unreasonable to expect them to sacrifice or lose control over *their* Java and/or JavaScript trademarks because another company that licensed the name under agreed terms made a stupid choice.
All this is why any legal attempt to nullify the JavaScript trademark is likely to fail.
There could be problems over whether the old agreements are sufficient defence of the trademark today. I can't remember US jurisprudence on generics, but I think it's less consumer friendly than the UK.
Given the rise of the use of ECMAScript and TypeScript, it might be a good idea for Oracle to settle, before a new name is chosen and Java loses relevance as a result.
I thought the idea of generic was when everyone was using a tradename to refer to all similar devices even when branded differently.
"hoover" as generic for vacuum cleaners
"band-aid" for any sticking plaster
But Javascript isn't being used for script code other than Javascript code?
A more modern one would be "to google". As I said, I'm not sure of US practice here: in the UK Hoover famously lost its case, for both reasons: genericism due to lack of assertion. I think, but could easily br wrong, Scotch Tape and Kleenex have both successfully defended their trademarks. You can normally tell by mentions in TV shows.
Despite being a commonly-accepted description in casual use, Hoover didn't lose its trademark in the UK- show me any non-Hoover-branded vacuum cleaner that's actually described as a "hoover" by its manufacturers or anywhere remotely official.
I can kind-of understand where Oracle is coming from though.
Javascript isn't an Oracle product, but Java most definitely is, and a normal person might think they are related in some way which is the reason why Netscape wanted to call it Javascript in the first place, and got permission to do so from Sun.
Wouldn't it be better to find a different name. I know we have ECMAScript, but that sounds like some sort of skin disease, and while that is indeed an accurate description of it, I can understand why nobody wants to use that name.
JavaScript is the result of a collaboration between Sun and Netscape around 30 years ago. I think the original idea was to have Java run in the browser, but various constraints meant they had to settle in the end for something whose syntax looked a bit like Java and which could be passed off as related for marketing purposes. During its short development period it was known as Mocha and then LiveScript before the name JavaScript was chosen. But it wasn't Netscape seeking permission - they were actively supported by Sun at the time.
The original intention was for the Netscape scripting language to be Scheme (or a derivative). It was Netscape's alliance with Sun, in the face of Microsoft's belated conversion to the Internet, that led to the two collaboratively to attempt to create a competing, unified platform - but the short market window (for Netscape which was approaching its IPO) and the complexities of Java meant that was more of a marketing fiction than a technical reality. There's a quote from Brendan Eich saying I was under marketing orders to make it look like Java... and a later one in which he describes the JavaScript name as a big fat marketing scam. It wasn't simply a retrospective request to use the name: the language syntax was specifically created to support the relationship with Sun.
> I think the original idea was to have Java run in the browser, but various constraints meant they had to settle in the end for something whose syntax looked a bit like Java and which could be passed off as related for marketing purposes.
Are you suggesting- as the rest of your sentence implies- that they *didn't* manage that?
Maybe I'm missing something, but don't you remember Applets? Not only were those very much an example of "real" Java running within the browser from the beginning- several months before JavaScript came out- but Applets and their much-hyped ability to run applications within a web page were by far Java's biggest selling point when it first launched.
Granted, it later turned out that Applets were too slow and heavyweight for their intended use on hardware of the time and that- combined with some malicious incompatibility issues fostered by MS- saw their decline before Flash came along and ultimately fulfilled that niche instead.
But all that was later on. Circa 1995, Applets were very much what everyone associated with Java and I'm not sure how one can talk about the history of the language while forgetting that they existed...?!
Sorry, which "they" are we referring to here?
Your original comment sounded like you were talking about Sun when you said...
> I think the original idea was to have Java run in the browser, but various constraints meant they had to settle in the end for something whose syntax looked a bit like Java and which could be passed off as related for marketing purposes.
...but Sun already had "Java running in the browser" from its initial release (which was apparently 2 1/2 months before Netscape's IPO and several months before JavaScript actually came out).
So I'm not clear who you're arguing was supposed to have been developing what, at what time and for whose benefit?
My understanding from this article is that LiveScript/JavaScript was always intended to be a basic "glue" language and work alongside Java and other technologies, not as a replacement or fallback for Java itself:-
In any case, the plan in 1995 was that JavaScript would be the scripting language to create client-side programs that ran inside the Netscape browser, while big brother Java would be used for developing more complex web components. Eich saw JavaScript at the time as “a ‘glue language’ for the Web designers and part time programmers who were building Web content from components such as images, plugins, and Java applets.” [..]
"The decision was made that JavaScript — or “Mocha” as it was originally code-named within Netscape — would “look like Java,” but be an object-based language rather than class-based like Java. Eich recalled later that “I was under marketing orders to make it look like Java but not make it too big for its britches … [it] needed to be a silly little brother language.”"
Leave the history to those of us who were around at the time.
JS was invented at Netscape, nothing to do with Sun except they wanted the name to be similar to build off the Java hype.
Java applets ran in the browser right from the launch, which I was at, in 1995.
Netscape were not "actively supported by Sun at the time" and even had their own browser - HotJava.
Over 25 years ago/. Too late now. Sun then Oracle should never have owned the name, so Oracle needs to give it up.
I agree that the name causes confusion, but only to newcomers to programming or web design. Should never have been called Javascript, but lots of computer things have stupid childish names.
> Sun then Oracle should never have owned the name
Why not? They owned and still *use* the Java trademark. And you can't really nullify the intentionally-similar "JavaScript" trademark without risking affecting that.
Granted, Oracle are dicks and don't deserve too much sympathy, but on principle, it was Netscape's stupid choice to license the name from Sun, it wasn't forced upon them.
> lots of computer things have stupid childish names.
JavaScript wasn't a stupid name because it was childish. It was a stupid name because it was intentionally similar to the very different Java language- purely to associate itself with the hype- and caused thirty years of confusion *and* because- since Netscape licensed the "Java" name- they didn't have control over the trademark and that's why we're in the mess we're in today.
Trademarks have been nullified before, but if you have any examples closely-analogous to this scenario (i.e. where the still-in-use "parent" trademark is widely-used and defended, but a very similiar derivative has been nullified and open for use/abuse by anyone) I'd like to see them.
The JavaScript hasn't been nullified yet, so although there may be non-official things using the name, that isn't the same as removing *any* legal control over the JavaScript name, and possibly having people exploiting its similarity to "Java" to sell products, or damaging Java by association.
And no, of course Oracle don't want to- there's nothing in it for them, and they've never been a company that's cared about even pretending to be anything other than self-serving, money-grubbing abusive dicks, but that's neither here nor there.
> I know we have ECMAScript, but that sounds like some sort of skin disease, and while that is indeed an accurate description of it, I can understand why nobody wants to use that name.
"ECMAScript" is itself a trademark as far as I'm aware. Also, personally I always associate that name more with the standard(s) than with any actual implementation of the language.
This post has been deleted by its author
Can we just call it "code"? The modern world has "markup" and "stylesheets" which are used to define the UI and it has "code" to make it work. This all runs inside a program called "the operating system". There are multiple operating systems such as Chrome, Safari, and Edge. There are also headless operating systems for server side code such as Node.js v20 and Node.js v22.
Well, actually, it likely would prevent the script from running.
If the mimetype isn't text/javascript, and the extension isn't 'js', then it probably won't get downloaded and run - at least in the short term.
My point is really about documentation and tutorials though. There are millions upon millions of tutorials, documentation pages, hints and tips, useful/weird stuff people have found etm.
All of that would be lost, like tears in rain.
Of course, what would actually happen is that the entire world goes "lolno" and keeps calling it Javascript, regardless of what a silly little red logo claims.
In reality, the trademark is long dead.
Although I'm very supportive of the claim, I believe it won't be honored by the USPTO. Others indicated that if Oracle were to the trademark it would lessen their claim on the Java trademark too. This is something they can't permit since Java is a key asset for them.
Oracle being a legal organization first and a software maker second certainly won't be keen on releasing any kind of trademarks they hold. Personally I wouldn't either. The best we can hope for is some kind of understanding with Oracle that they won't enforce the trademark for nefarious purposes.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
