Skip to main content
Deno 2.2 is here with built-in OpenTelemetry, Lint plugins, node:sqlite, and more 🎉️
Learn more

Deno v Oracle Update 3: Fighting the JavaScript Trademark

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:

  • 1995 — Netscape partnered with Sun Microsystems to create the JavaScript language, originally intended as a dynamic complement to Java. Sun ended up owning the trademark.
  • 2009 — Oracle acquired Sun Microsystems—and the JavaScript trademark with it.
  • 2019 — Oracle renewed the trademark despite having almost nothing to do with the language. They submitted a screenshot of Node.js, a project I created, as evidence of use. (Oracle has no relation to Node.js.)
  • September 16, 2024 — I published an open letter arguing that the trademark had been abandoned and that the term had become generic—a name for a language with many independent implementations. The letter, co-signed by over 18k developers—including JavaScript’s creator Brendan Eich and many TC39 members—called on Oracle to release it.
  • November 22, 2024 — After no response, Deno filed a formal petition to cancel the trademark. The petition claims:
    • genericness – “JavaScript” is a generic term
    • abandonment – Oracle hasn’t used the mark in commerce
    • fraud – Oracle submitted Node.js as proof of use
  • February 3, 2025 — Oracle filed a partial motion to dismiss the fraud claim. They acknowledged submitting the Node.js screenshot, but argued it was irrelevant because they also submitted a different specimen—a page about “Oracle JET”, a UI toolkit.
  • March 7, 2025 — We opposed the motion, arguing that misrepresenting someone else’s project to maintain a federal trademark is serious. A second specimen doesn’t excuse the deception.
  • March 27, 2025 — Oracle filed an optional reply, repeating that the Node.js specimen is irrelevant and that the fraud claim should be dismissed without amendment.

What happens next

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.

Details on the partial motion to dismiss

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.

Abandoned and generic

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.

Why this matters

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.

Help us spread the word

  • Share this post.
  • Sign the open letter at javascript.tm – now with over 18k signatures.
  • If you’re a journalist, feel free to reach out.

More updates soon.